>> well, i guess, and this speaks to a certain point. in my personal experience and experience of the small council of contemporary standstill in touch with that transition. the position that i found myself in because a lot of people join the military jan and they don't really know themselves necessarily. they haven't clarified a lot of thoughts about their identity perhaps. a lot of trains people from my generation, which was the 80s is kind of when i grew up, we came into that knowledge about ourselves, you know, in her late teens or 20s may be because there wasn't a lot of information about it out there. so i haven't done a lot of posts

transaction transsexuals trying to join the military. i have not got a lot of people -- i guess what i'm saying is most people found themselves, they discovered that they wanted -- they needed to change their gender presentation and about the same crucial time in their life but they were discovering a lot of things, 18 to 20 4a. that's when you're in the military and that the situation you find yourself in. sometimes you can find yourself in crisis and you start to realize these things. being a crisis like that is then having to help if your medical professionals the michael professionals can maybe help you navigate through that without ruining yourself with honorable discharge, were sabotaging what can be a great career opportunity and the launchpad.

i grew up with fairly little money in the south. my family was extremely religious and actually told me that they did not want me to go to college because religion leads you away from god. so despite the top 1% on the united states on the s.a.t. and doing very well academically in a lot of situations, i was told that i should not and would not go to college. so i joined the military because i thought it was the only opportunity to better myself. i joined the navy hospital corps and then went through the additional training to get the nac 84 or four, which is field medical combat specialists. and at the time, the first gulf war was gearing up and i trained

to be with the marines and serve just sort of field trauma coming in now, take care of the source of injuries. and soon i was shipped south to saudi arabia in the first gulf war where we took over an abandoned hospital in sort of prepared for a lot of injuries that fortunately did not end up happening. we still did have injuries, but we probably treated as many prisoners of war and heat exhaustion type injuries as we did people injured in actual combat situations. during that time, as i say, i was discovering a lot about myself. i met my first stab five and 76 members who would eventually transition from female to male. you know, at that time there

were no resources. i was able to speak to a military psychiatrist about my general depression, but i'll never forget in the sessions he sensed what my issues were and he told me as a way of being a friend, he said, here's what we'll do. if you approach any topic that would require me to report it up the chain of command, i'm going to hold my hand up. i won't say anything out loud, but i'll just hold my hand up and that means that we shouldn't talk about this. and that was sort of the state of resources for dealing with any sort of gender disorder yet in the military and the 90s. from there, you know of course, after the war, after meeting my first gay and 77 people come i decided after he completed my first four years of that date

people i would go ahead and get out of the military because transition. i love the military. it was probably the best thing to ever happen to me in my life because it taught me self-confidence. it did give me a skilled. it gave me access to education when my parents had said i could not and would not have that. i'm still sad sometimes that i had to leave it behind. i still dream sometimes that i'm back in that hospital taking care of my soldiers and sailors and marines, but thankfully once i got out i have had the opportunity to interact with the activist community, the alan wilson, 76 and legal communities that didn't my life in a big way when my own boyfriend was murdered due to anti-gay biased

in 1999. so i'm eternally grateful for that help and any that i can get back at this point i'm just grateful to be allowed to speak. [applause] >> denise, would you go next. >> one of the things about i think is we don't share a universal story for a universal experience because we are all human, we are all different and sewers are very good sauce and grounded in that humanity. so my story is quite a bit different from calpernia is. in fact, i enlisted in the navy after a drop out of high school in 1972 and was more a guy with

a along the lines of the flight to masculinity when one needs to suppress something and so i joined the navy as my father had joined the navy, as my uncle had joined the navy, as all of my family members had been in the navy despite the fact i was an air force rotc in high school. anyways, dropped out of high school, joined the navy and was privileged enough to get to serve during vietnam aboard united states submarine. and what i find interesting about this and what i want to share with you is the fact that while i was in the navy, the submarine service is a very close knit community. when you are in 100-foot long

steel tube, hundred of feet beneath the surface of the ocean, what you do affects the lives of every person aboard and let every other person does affects the lives of every other person aboard. the past to become a qualified submarines is rigorous. and i say that -- i share that to you because next month, i get to go -- my 40th reunion of the uss grayback. and i say that because i went to the first one i ever attended in 2009 as the only woman mayor. and after a little bit of surprise, my shipmates reached out to me, embraced me and

welcomed me as one of their own. when we talk about unit cohesion, this is what we are talking about. but we talk about the morale, morale, thank you. i worsen or someplace. we talk about morale in the military, this is what we're talking about. we are talking about is my life depends on you, can i banko new clerks do you have my back? and they knew that despite the fact that i transitioned to female i still had their backs and they still have my back. so there is a long way to go before we find out how we allow people to serve openly in the military. the let me tell you one thing. this is not a solution looking for a problem. there are real people today

serving in our united states military who are deeply in the closet because they will be -- they will lose their job in much the same way that gay, lesbian and trains members lost their jobs under "don't ask, don't tell," but under these regulations that bridget laid out. so we are surveying, we have served out and look in to need to serve our country. we just need to find a way to make it so that it isn't in the closet. [applause] >> before apollo speaks, i want to kiss talk about the significance of the need to take off her jacket. >> whatever. all right. so when i was a kid, and i say

that literally because when i say he dropped out of high school at the early joined the navy of the day of her 17th birth day. after i got qualified in submarines, i was very proud of the fact that i had done so. it is not an easy process. and when you get qualified in submarines, you are a warded and insignia you wear on your uniform called dolphins. and some of us, myself included have a few adult averages. [laughter] and one night in hong kong -- [laughter] when i might've had more than one, i got my dolphins tattooed on my arm and the inscription says u.s. submarine force pacific fleets that service. and the significance of that is that i've never taken my jacket

off in public before because i have always known that since women aren't allowed to serve in submarines that it would out me as transgender. and i am proud to be transgender. so i decided today i would wear a sleeveless top and you all can see. [applause] >> paula, will you share your story? >> i am kind of humbled to be here with my friends on the panel and went to again thank everybody for being here this morning. nice story, and as you can hear

the little quiver in my voice goes to some of the names that really get touched on about our ability to advocate the military is we have to understand that the military is a distinct culture. and as we started, when dru asked the veterans and those serving to stand and be recognized, we have to understand that we are the military. the military is not some institution that's the enemy. and bridget was touching on some of the things that are the legal aspects of the military, does never served look at some of the military criminal law and say how the heck can this be. and we clearly understand that similar laws in a civilian context would be found unconstitutional. the military is distinct.

the joke amongst us who are part of that family is we defend democracy. we don't practice it. and it's true. and when i looked back on my own service, is the military for me was that calling. and i had to sacrifice that calling to accept who i was. in no country can do based on the principles we are founded on have ever asked that of someone. and why i am here today, why i do what i do the servicemembers legal defense network really flows from the out of office i tip on july 7, 1981, when i was inducted into the naval academy.

i swore that i would support the constitution. and no one has ever relieved me of that oath. so i sit here today as a naval officer who's on the beach. it's been over 20 years since i've had on the uniform. but as you can tell, i've never left the navy. and in calpernia's talking and to nice talking, the desire to serve doesn't know any gender. it doesn't know any race, doesn't know any orientation. and that's what we need to educate the military about. you know, the last day today said it was a civilian was the day i was inducted into the military. they've either been a regular officer, reserve officer or a

veteran. and when we approached the military to try to say you need to change as we need to understand that culture and we need to be able to engage that culture on its terms. we need to be able to talk about the need for this change. just because it's a social justice issue, yes it's a civil rights issue, but also because it makes the military better to recognize that some of the best and brightest are going to be individuals and that they add something to the force. denise was talking about her experience at her reunion and that is a unit cohesion is about. in a daze. having served in combat units, having been also like what calpernia and the gulf war is when you are in a combat unit, when you are in a combat

environment, all you care about is the mission. and you care about the people around you doing their jobs, looking out for you and you looking out for them. all of the other differences go by the wayside. you know, if someone is out there trying to kill you, you don't care who your buddy is sleeping with. you don't care what gender the person who is covering you is. you don't care about their color, you'll care about their creed. you just care if they can do their job. and that it what it really is about at the end of the day. i went to the naval academy not because i was trying to prove that i was a male. i was looking at it as xenon dual tracks. i've realized that something was off from the time i was little. but at the same time i also wanted to serve my country. and i didn't come to the acceptance of who i was, but i was really female until after i

was already in the service. and i realized that i loved the navy, but he also came to the point where i realized that continuing to serve in accepting who i was and being who i was were at loggerheads. so, i was a surface warfare for the officers to drive the ship's and i got picked up for naval aviation training as a lieutenant. i've been in the navy short of five years and i got selected to learn how to fly, learn how to be a naval aviator. i got to pensacola and i realized that the maverick in client for teams was not going to solve any confusion i had about what gender i was. and for some other reasons, i wound up leaving playskool in going into the reserves. 90 days after assuring the reserves, kuwait got invaded.

one of the places i chose to live as a reservist as i went to new england. i lived in connecticut because i knew i could get some support service and i could my gender and i can start seeking medical care that i needed to transition. to show you the pervasiveness of don't ask don't outcome of a support group used to be at the gay men's in the city and has reservist i was worried someone would see me going into the health center and turn me into the navy for being the gay, let alone but it was therefore a transgender support group. i was again dealing with these two issues come into very core parts of who i am and then kuwait got invaded. and i realized that this is my training. i had a duty to volunteer.

i could've stayed home. i actually went outside the chain of command pulled some strings, contacting people and surgery to say hey, i'm willing to go. i've got experience, use it. so i went when everyone else is coming home, i was on my way to the persian gulf. i spent the summer of 1991 in the persian gulf. and while it is very applied for a program to go back on active duty. i think it was the final point before i realized it yes, i need to transition. and i was involved with my warfare combat was a staff radio. i always say that my personal in episode for two short of the kilts may become a better service and very heroic people. and when i came home, in september of 1991, i realized that i had to leave.

i had to go become who i am. so i resigned my commission in about two months later i got a phone call from the bureau personnel saying hey we'd like to talk to lieutenant neira. at this point i pierced my ears and changed my name legally. yeah, this is me. you guys do realize i resigned. they said we can make that go away. when you want to come back on active duty and go to have school and progress my career? and you know, i said okay, when you need to know? is supposed to be some paperwork to make the arrangements on when you go to school. dissecting the paperwork and every morning for a week or get up in the morning, drive to the beach and sit in the sand. and i would look at ships. and i would go home at some set

in get out the next morning and do it all over again for a week. and at the end of that week, i did the hardest thing i've ever done. excepting myself, having surgery. took me 20 years to get there. but that was easy. i told the navy, i can't serve any war. not because i wanted to. and i never say was a choice. i just say i made a decision. so i left. and as you can see it's still very, very raw. but having that experience gets near to that. i will fast forward a little bit to september 11. by that time i was at slb m. i had become a nurse, gone to law school and had an opportunity to work as an intern

and i kept showing up after my internship is over until they decided to put me on the payroll. i just wouldn't go away. but on the morning of september 11th originated from a colleague, jeff play horne, a retired army major and i don't hold that against him. my dad was in the army, but we don't talk about it. ran into jazz and we got into the office never been the officers argued the conference room because the first tower had dirty been hit. and we saw the second tower get hit and exchanged looks with just them being that we are both military officers can we both realized we were under direct attack. we saw the pentagon get hit and we were a part of the great bug out from washington. and i knew that my country do not want me. i am a trauma nurse. if you are dying, i am somebody

you want in the room to save your life. i am told i am a halfway decent lawyer, but you don't want me to your judge advocate general floor. i could drive a ship. my ego is strong enough to know that i can make a destroyer dance to my commands and you didn't want me to do that either. and i don't want anybody to ever feel the way that i felt that day because it isn't because of military necessity. 10 of our allies have heard a figure that out. and the church of the challenge to us as we have to find a winning strategy to get our country to change to become closer to that perfect union we talk about. you know, it is our rhetoric and our reality still have a disjoint. and i think because i serve, because i took a nose as i have

a duty to make our reality a lot closer to that rhetoric because it's real. they're not just words. admiral mike mullen in coming to the conclusion of "don't ask, don't tell" had to go away realized it was a matter of integrity. it's the same issue with the medical regulations is as a nurse and advantage is to recently reviewed some of the medical research. they are not evidence based. they are based on the same ignorance and prejudice that once kept african-americans and then when men and then gay and we are just the latest group, out of the military. and it's time to have a conversation. and it's time to look at them. are there possibly semantical issues? yeah, there are. issues of deployability are the real medical concern. by the insurmountable? no, they're not. she had to have the political will and desire to find a solution that works.

you know, one of the comment be an attorney and even now in dealing with trying to get benefits the quality is i've always felt that i've always had another calling is the military has always been my client. and in my case, my need has always been my client. we should be better than we are. and honor, courage and commitment of the navy core values means something, we have to change. and this is so great that we are here to begin some of the conversation, to begin some of the education to move the institutions not because they are the enemy, but more because we love them and they should be better and will make them better.

and i still haven't gotten [applause] moving. [applause] thank you for sharing the personal stories. very powerful. i want to spend the remainder of the time talking about moving forward and the strategy would like to the panelists all weigh in on this. you forget to that, i was wondering if denise could talk for a few minutes about how other countries are doing this. there are 10 countries that do allow subset in people to observe and i would love the panelists weigh in on their different ideas for moving forward. >> banks, set up to you. you know, it is true that the military is a sort of hyper gendered organization, right-click there's no question

that we separate and segregate men and women and not unlike the military there other institutions that do that as well. professional sports, the olympic committees and others. but they have all found a way, with the exception of the military, including 10 other countries have found a way to deal with people and allow their service or participation in activities. among the countries that currently allow open transgender service, and i'm going to highlight one in particular at the end are australia, belgium, canada, the czech republic, israel, the netherlands, spain, sweden, thailand and the united

kingdom. and i end with the united kingdom because they are published through their ministry of defense a set of guidelines about how to deal with transgender service. and you know what's interesting about this guideline? they basically say, unlike ours, they basically say, if you want to serve your country, if you are, we're not going to kick you out. even if you come out for the first time while you were in the military already come this similar to the pilot that -- what was the prince's name who just got married invited to his wedding. we are not going to kick you out just because you were trans, you are going to have to meet the standards of everybody else in the military and we are going to treat every individual as an

individual. ..

>> you know, i am the nontransperson up here, and i'm nose to the gripped stone. i'm the pragmatist of the group. i have a philosophy as drew knows. my theory on civil rights as a group to take the beast one case at a time. that's all you can do. at the end of the day, we're just lawyers, you know? a relatively not high functions group except in our own minds. [laughter] this is -- we're fighting an institution -- for example, with medical stuff, you can't enlist the armed forces of the united states if you had bare yat rick surgery, okay? understand it's not -- this is not an easy mountain to climb. i took a lesson from years ago from paul who left us this last

year who i'm about -- i'm much heart broken because she was a real pragmatist about having high ideals and lofty ideas in gets things done with them. i remember once years ago, she was in front of the new york supreme court, their district court, and she was making an argument to the judge about parenting. two women, presential rights for a woman who was not the bilogical mother of the child. she said the judge looked at her like she was out of her mind because the judge had not heard it before. that's our job now. we deal with people who have never heard what we have to say. we are the people who are able too educate very often because when you call, they may talk to you. our clients cannot speak for themselves, and so the education process is such a big, big part of this, and, you know, paul and

everyone up here raised hands and signed a contract to die, okay? that's what you do when you join the armed forces. you signed a contract to die. we want to ensure we're the people helping to teach that all of the people who sign that contract to die deserves respect. >> thank you for that. how do you see things moving forward? what's yourñ&r take? >> well, i -- i think fortunately the military is an ever-renewing organism. every year, it has a huge influx of 17 and 18-year-olds. that level, else, and as we see our culture change and become more accepting and less -- and

just as we see our culture care less about things such as whether someone transitioned, that will trickle in, but the people, you know, who make the big decisions, of course, are the people who have been there for 20 years or more. i think right now my focus has been -- when a lot of people hear this question come up, they're the idea that comes to their mind, oh, somebody's going to want to get giant boob implants and then, you know, run around with a rifle and say i'm a lady now or something. you know, they -- [laughter] they don't have -- they don't really understand what transsexual people are, and they always go to these worst case sort of jerry spring l scenarios, and they picture that against the con cement of military readiness and the conservative, you know,

bigenderred nature of the military, throw hands up saying, forget it. there's no way that can work. when we look at it intelligently and especially when people like the ones up here start bringing to bear a really impressive legal knowledge and a really impressive body of experience, we can start to see the light at the end of the tum, -- at the end of the tunnel, and i think sympathizing the information, providing resources, and chipping away at some of the, perhaps, easier targets such as disforya in the military to the degree where it's not a barrier to serving. you know,ñ&r just having having gender dioria. that's the medical language itself. gender identity disorder or

calling it a pair deny parafelia. they are handled in the civilian community a lot more smoothly. we have to care that over in military medicine which is where my background was, and i think from that you'll find the legal issues will flow, and i -- i have high hopes of seeing that. i -- now i'm too old to join now. i couldn't go back if i wanted to, and i've moved in incredibly different directions with my life, but i can't say that i won't feel a little jealous and think about what could have been when that day does finally come and we see transpeople serving openly in the military because it's a culture that -- it seeks to completely break down who you were as a person and rebuild you

better and stronger, more confident, more able to work in a group, and it -- it's a religion. it's a family. it's a job. it's a cult. you know, in a way, it's all alf these things together. it's hard to even really describe the comforts of being in an organization that takes care of your room and board and health care and money and everything. you almost don't have to think about anything but your job if you don't want to. you don't have to worry about anything else in the world. it's a really unique circumstance, and a lot of people can be down in the military. i especially heard my more educated friends. sneer at it as something to go into who don't have ambition, and they just have no idea really what it can

be and so i'm really excited to see this progress and i think i'll be jealous when i see the first person walk and serve proudly openly as trans. >> denise? >> i don't have anything to say. [laughter] i -- you know, i don't know the way forward other than to say that this panel today is part of it. if we don't shed a light on who we are and what our experiences -- if we don't start to stand up and let people know that we are out there, right now, there's an organization that is just merging with fdln called outserve who is -- who represents -- who actually has contacts with people in the

military that are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, and the deepest stealth of them all is transgender. we have transgender people serving today, and they cannot come out. they cannot come out. we cannot ask them to so we must be out for them. the next -- the next thing i guess i would say about education is that you have to have an environment that is conducive to being educated, and that means that you have to participate in our system and to the extent that you are a lawyer or a law student, you need to take some responsibility for being part of our legal system and our democratic system, and i can tell you there are people all over the country that are

looking for you to participate in vote monitoring and helping to make sure that everybody, including transpeople get the right to vote, and so when you are asked to volunteer, please do. it's only if we collectively raise our voices will we will see an end to this particular discrimination. >> thank you, paula. >> would just really echo the themes mentioned. one of the things i say this looking at this is i wish we were dealing with star fleet. i'm a science fictio fan. i wish we were dealing with a military that embraced diversity and had neat fast ships and lasers, but we don't live in the 23rd century, but we live in the 21st, and the fleet that we're

interacting with doesn't embrace that diversity. not because it can't, but because it's never been asked to, and we do have to educate it. it means for those of us that are advocating is we have to have crucial conversations with ourselves. there's foundational things that have to happen if we're going to engage the military and educate them. we have to decide what it is we're advocating for. talking about transgender services is a nice ideal, but it's got to be practical. it's got to be what can we do for those folks that are serving now that want to serve tomorrow. it is a gradual approach, and i know that is painful for some folks because it means that they will have to wait. i mean, that was -- i mean, that's part of don't ask, don't tell allowed our gay, lesbian, and bisexual brothers and sisters to serve, and it didn't address transgender issues.

it repealed a law on its own terms that dealt with sexual orientation, and it meant that now this is the next fight, and after this fight, because it's different, because there are nuances, we're going to have to approach it so that we win because that's the idea. it's not just to be activists, but it's to make a difference in people's lives. we have to have a conversation amongst ourselves to come to a consensus of what it is what we're asking the military to do and change comes slowly. i use a military analogy. this is, you know, we invaded normandy, not berlin because we couldn't do that. we can't go a bridge too far. the idea is we come up with a

strategy and engage the military, and it's got to be a partnership. this change is not something that's going to be imposed upon the military because of political will or pressure. it's -- the military's got to be a willing partner, and our job is to show them it's in their best interest to be a partner. the other thing is who pays for this advocacy? it gets back into being involved in the organizations and the various groups that are going to make up the coalition that asks because people have to support it. how much is it a priority of the community to make this change? don't ask, don't tell was not a priority of the broader lgb community until very recently. for many years, there were a few people yelling in the dark. they were yelling in the dark because they realize military is

the catalyst for making a lot of social change. if you're willing to serve, and you're willing to die, and i think for those even more importantly is that if you're willing to kill because you have to live with the aftereffects of that, then there are not any other rights that you should be denied. this is just the next step, and the way forward is going to be garage wall. it's going to be incremental, and it's not going to be easy. this is not something anybody here says we can make this change in six months because unless there's a massive change in american society, that ain't happening. you've got to come up with a strategy. we've got to come up with an education. we've got to give them a frame of reference. once we can do that, then we can affect some change. >> thank you, paula. i want to call on bridget actually. talking about, i know the panelists tell their

unbelievably personal stories and passion behind that. it's really opened up why this matters to them, but you said some things i would love for you to repeat about why does this issue matter? we're talking about such a small population. you know, why should this be on the together for the lgtb movement? >> i'll give you a really simple reason because the people that get rid of are good people. the nay vie would be a better place with paul around as a senior officer. i noticed sherry in the back. a phenomenal military record as dianne -- you know, when she transitioned, she didn't lose that brain. a very responsible position. i mean, this is someone who should have a star op her collar, be a general by now. in the bigenderred military is if diane were allowed to serve

as a transperson, she would no longer be able to do the job she did all those years because women are not officially coined to special operations. in fact, denise could not serve in her job because enlisted women are not only few selected officers for female allowed on the sub. she would not be able to serve as an end listed member of the submarine corp. so i -- it's kind of one of those things. it's like really one of the strongest arguments made with don't ask, don't tell, a parallel universe, but not the same as trans issues in the military, okay? you can't take the blueprint and decide to adopt it in whole, i don't think. you need these people. getting rid of the, farsi linguists is a dumb idea in the middle of a war for stupid reasons. that's the same with the trans

people. they are all trying to prove something for the most part, that they are good. if i'm just perfect, they won't get rid of me. you know, these are people who are good for the military. it's not just that we're begging them for something for us, but that as citizens, these are important people to have. to lose diane's mind or denise, or palla, to loose the military minds to something that doesn't matter is a dumb thing to do when you're trying to defend your country. that's one of the things we want to remember. >> it sounds like there's a theme that we have to shift the culture war about how people understand transgender people's lives, and just in the past week or two, there was significant news in the trans community. the american psyche association put out two statements taking up a position for the first time in

about 30 years on transgender people and the diagnosis in the diagnose diagnostic manual put out. it's like the mental health bible. the diagnosis of gender identity disorder, in the current dsm4. this is a point of contention in the community. there's a lot of activists who feel the key to transgender rights is to remove this mental health diagnosis, and then others who, you know, especially legal advocates like ourselves who understand that the way our insurance and health care is set up is that we need a diagnosis to access health care so it's a very difficult issue, but i would like for people to weigh in here about this announcement from the american psychiatric association. there's a statement saying being trans does not impair one's

judgment, ability, reliability, or general, social, or vocational capabilities. i'd like for people to weigh in a little on -- next year, the dsm5 comes out, and the word is that the gid will be changedded to renamed gender disphoria. how significant is this? >> it's a great step forward to remove a mental health stigma, and mental health issues in the military are a big problem for a lot of reasons. how it actually plays out, it's going to improve some issues. it's going to make things a little bit more difficult for folks like bridget trying to defend folks. gender disphoria remains. understanding that's still in there. there is a medical condition. you know, there is medical treatment that is going to be needed for some people.

because remember, transgender is this big umbrella, and not every group has the same issues, and removing a mental health diagnosis from the whole community is a great step forward, but it's going to be education for ourselves and then, again, it's going to be having to go talk to a very conservative medical establishment in the military about how that's going to impact the change. >> yeah, and i think that one of the things to remember is that phyllis was not speaking to me awhile a few years back over this one. i used gid and letters to get people out because they were at risk. it was the easiest thing to do and more accurate than getting them out on the other messages being discharged on the homosexuality regulations. it's a shortcut legally to have this nice bilogical or medical

argument that you can make, and, indeed, it's effective. i do have a fear that in the long run it's not accurate, and it's not true, and that that's going to be problematic in the future. you know, it's like sexual orientation. what happens when they prove homosexuality is not bilogical for everyone all the time? you have the same with gid. gid has its limitations. i have a live client across from me. i have to get a result for that person. my client's not the movement. my client's sitting across from me. i have to ensure the person is protected in the best manner that i know today so i'm happy to see gid go away in terms of the long term welfare of the community. now the question is what's my hook? what's my hook? how do -- what do i do to protect the person who is in front of me? >> do you want to weigh in on this too?

>> well, just briefly for the trans community. at large, some people relied on a medical diagnosis of a disorder to get access to medical care and some legal avenues of relief, and that has been, you know, very helpful for them. personally, though, i am grateful to see, you know, the patholoization of my situation go away. i don't know exactly how this is going to relate to the military circumstance. i'm gist going to watch that play out, but i think you will see some push back from other members in the transcommunity who have invested interest for whatever reason in having a diagnosis like gender identity

disorder. it's not necessarily a situation that i'm looking to be in myself, but it speaks to the fact that we're not a monolithic community, and gender identity is presented in so many ways. a lot of people don't need any medical interventions to sort of feel comfortable and some, like myself, you know, want to take advantage of every possible intervention, and for some of us, there are not suitable medical interventions out there, and so i think you may see a little bit of insiding which is probably going to die down now that this has become more cop -- concrete though. >> you put out a great article -- i don't know -- sldn's website or -- >> it was on the -- it's part of the front line series of blogging on sdln's wobs.

www.sdln.org. >> in the article, paula talks about the announcement from the apa and the change in name, and i guess i just want to delve more into that. the name, gender identity disorder, if changed to gender disphoria, by taking out the word "disorder" it now has significance, but it's still in the dsm so do you mind talking about that? >> that gets to the things we were touching on is that, you know, there are different opinions and on the broader context, you get into issues of race, class, affluence about the ability to access health care. you know, many people that can have gender reassignment surgery are caucasian, male to female individuals because they generally come to the table with

a higher level of affluence, and the ability to pay for it because no insurance company does. if you remove the medical diagnosis, there will be fewer companies doing it in the future, and you fore close for a lot of people the avenue they need to be able to feel whole so, you know, it's maybe a mixed blessing. in coming to the military -- you know, the military medical establishment does not embrace the world professional association for transgender health. the ama has embraced it. the military establishment has not yet. there is a way to do this. it's instructive to understand that in the united kingdom, the rationale for succumbing to getting beat in court and

allowing transsexuals to serve, which they did before allowing gays to serve in the british military, was the argument that a service member in britain should have the same level of access to health care that they can get in the british health service, and the british health service provided for gender reassignment, and that argument is not going to work here because our medical system is different. there are people that do need some treatment. that's why there is a legitimate military argument. we can't just say, oh, this doesn't affect them. issues of deploy the of real concerns. we have to recognize that. maybe in a period of transition someone is not deployable. maybe those individuals who are in or on active duty come to the conclusion have to leave service transition and come back. i'm not saying that's what i advocate for. i can give you a men ewe of options, but there's a matter of political will to implement it. there's reasons why they are non-deployable for short periods

of time, and once they are judged to be fully fit for duty, they are employable without leaving the service. whatever the avenue is, there is a need for continued -- medical treatment, medical diagnosis, whether it's a mental issue, neuroscience issue, that's what research is about, and unfortunately, there's not much in the medical literature so that's where medical colleagues have to help out and do research. that's the information military wants to see in changing its medical standards. it wants to see what the science is. >> just to be clear, the british policy around the service of bitranssexuals actually does have a period where you are not deployable. again, they treat transgender people on a case-by-case basis. that doesn't mean there are not transgender people who are not

detached from service because of their particular case. the important take away in this is that every person is evaluated based on their individual opportunity and ability to meet the military standards and serve, and if they can do that, great. even if they have to go on hiatus for awhile from deployment or other reasons, that's -- and so it really is just about having the dialogue. it's about not just shutting the door because, well, everybody knows that if you're a man, and you wore a dress that you're a nut case. >> we have a few minutes left. i just want final thoughts from the panelists. >> you know, paul, i'm sitting there going tdlr for transition, but,nyway, i'm thinking of possibilities, and it meeds the brain a little to do this.

the, you know, i'm in the land of the practice call. i'm an individual practitioner, a private practice. i'm smart enough to pick up the phone and call john davis and say, john, can you guys do this case? i can't do it. you know, but at the same time, i think that i'm probably one -- along with many what you can be in the future -- in an important place. much has been true -- you know, you have to make a record. you have to make your client's case, and you have to be in a place where people know they have access to you. i do some identity documents. i still do it because people are so frightened about doing them, and last week, i went for a name and gender change hearing in san diego superior court where thanks to the efforts of the new retired judge donna hitchens in the state of california, transition cases are much i

improved. i'm not pointed out by the clerks and bailiffs in the courts anymore, and the client was stunned at how republicful they are. she called two lawyers before she was referred to me. the first of whom said i don't do that, and hung up on her, the other screamed at her that she was disgusting. that's still happening so you, as a practitioner, you may be the first person who, you know, outside maybe a therapist and close friend, to whom this person has ever spoken, who has the opportunity to treat them respectfully and give credence to the cause telling them you'll do the best for them, and that's -- that's what i think we, as lawyers -- even if we're not an impact litigation firm, can contribute to all of our clients that it's okay with you, they are not evil, nasty,

imperialist violent dogs carrying out bad foreign policy of the united states. they are people doing their best to serve. i think that if we can make sure that we are the people who are on their side to help educate the institutions that they are in, that's a pretty big deal. >> well said. quick words from nip -- anyone else. well, i want to thank the panelists. this was a wonderful panel. [applause] thank you for being so open and honest and vulnerable. i also want to thank the national lgtb bar for bringing this issue up, and i want to thank bmw. again, without their support, we could not talk about these things today. i hope everyone has a wonderful conference and thank you very much for coming. [applause]

[applause] >> welcome. this is going to be a fascinating hour or so, and there are a couple reasons that we're here. the first of which is it's u.s. navy week in chicago, and we are commemorating the war of 1812. another reason is that we are here because of this splendidwen collaboration between canada and the united states, and many thanks to the canadian council general's office in chicago for thinking about this program and sponsoring it.h also, many thanks to the military library which is, as many of you know, in chicago, is marvelous institution for our cultural heritage. come visit the military libraryf

and my afghanistan is -- my affiliation is with the national strategy forum in chicago. we look at national security issues over a long range horizon. we're going to talk about notof only the war of 1812, but thehat common theme. countries. we have been friends for a long time although we got off to a shaky start 200 years ago with the war of 1812 that we have done a whole lot better. we are friends, but the more one gets to know about canada and the strong relationship with the u.s., it's more than friendship, and i will say it's a section. the purpose of this hour or so that we are going to be discussing a number of themes is to demonstrate that there is a need for us to understand both

sides of the border. our resources and how we strengthen each other. so with that, let you give you a little notion of what is to come. we are going to be talking about a number of things. for example the piece for border, some 2550 miles more or less, a very peaceful border, one of the unique traits of our two countries. no other country in joys that kind of border relationship. another is that we are partners in the great lakes. the five great lakes, the st. lawrence seaway and more of that with admiral parks of the u.s. coast guard. energy and water resources are terribly important to both countries, and national security is another issue that we are

going to be discussing, and the one fact that i think that we must really realize in the united states is economic prosperity and the u.s. and canada have a marvelous economic relationship. canada is the u.s.'s largest trading partner. so an overly long introduction. let's get started and it's my great pleasure to introduce our panelists. ambassador gary doer is the canadian ambassador to the united states. jim jacobson the u.s. ambassador to canada, and our new pals, two admirals and the commodore, admiral -- and help me with the title. the commander of carrier strike

two. admiral michael parks, u.s. coast guard and a word about the coast guard. the five great lakes and the st. louis the way. another new pal, commodore hathorne the commander of the canadian navy atlantic fleet. ak, so with those details out of the way, let's get down to the substance and let me start with you ambassador to her. >> thank you very much. veterans and members of the military, admirals, commodore, my good friend ambassador jacobson chairs for the cubs, cheers for the bears and chairs for the blackhawks, and other another great job representing the navy and canada. we try our best to put it together. [laughter] it's great to be here in chicago. just a couple of months ago we were here hosted by mayor

emanuel with the nato summit as many in his people participated in. where we going to go in the world with nato? what are the lessons to be learned from what just happened in libya, what are we going to do about syria, what is the nuclear capacity build up and i ran for world security and how are we going to operate together and afghanistan post-2014? so it was a very successful meeting and it underlines again the great cooperation between canada and the united states. in terms of the war of 1812, we both brag that we won that war and the debate after that led to that -- so that really does speak to the friendship we have. i certainly have read a number of books about the war of 1812, and i think it's a couple of lessons from that from my perspective at least is the

great appreciation of the military and security role of our navy working together in this region in north america and around the world. and when you think about it, before the war of the navy's budget had been cut over and over and over again and after the war, the appreciation of the naval role was appreciated and enhanced and enhanced again. when you look at it, we patrol three oceans together and even the great lakes represent up to 20% of the freshwater in the world so not only do we have to have security between our countries, but we also have to work together on water quality and that is what we are doing in partnership together. when the prime minister and the president get together, a lot of the media focus in on the bilateral issues of the day, but they are talking about international security issues. they are being motivated to how

we can work effectively together. on international issues. i mentioned libya and iran and syria but if you go back over the decades, we worked together in world war i. we work together in world war ii did we work together in korea. we are not together in afghanistan and this really does represent our relationship. why is it important to have this partnership notwithstanding the fact that we are neighbors? i think obviously the united states invest more in its military than any other country and in fact invests more probably than all the other countries in the world in terms of the military. what does canada bring to the table? decides being a good friend and reliable ally on international issues, we think from time to time the candidates can bring a unique window on different countries, different information, different intelligence so that we can be informed together about the

proper positions for the safety of our own citizens and for the safety of the world. so it's a great relationship after the war of 1812, but it is a very interesting and dynamic relationship and it will continue to be a strong partnership with trade, and environment will water quality particularly with the beautiful lakes that we share shared together and the oceans that we steward together and of course on international security where the prime minister and the president work together so thank you very much. see ambassador jacobson. >> it is great to be back in my hometown chicago and maybe i will catch a cubs game while i'm here. it is also great to be here at the pritzker library with my friend ambassador doer and all the distinguished military members. you know we are here to commemorate the war of 1812 and

as ambassador doer said the results have been conclusive blood say. [laughter] i am being polite. [laughter] but to me, the war of 1812 was important for a different reason and that is what has come 200 years afterward. 200 years ago canadians and americans were fighting, were burning each other's capitals and today as you have heard and probably all of you understand, we are absolutely the closest of friends. there are i dare say no at their two countries that are closer than the united states and canada. and to me, that is the lesson of hope for people around the world who don't seem to be able to get along at all with their neighbors. we can make progress and in things can be better and we can be sitting up here with their respective militaries and joking

about what happened 200 years ago. in our more recent history, particularly our military and security relationship, has just been extraordinary. i think a key moment -- moment was back in 1940 was something that a lot of people probably don't remember but it's called the -- declaration and it was an agreement between president roosevelt and prime minister king in canada, and it was to deal with the threat of germany and the potential of germany attacking north america. it still meets regularly. i was at the most recent meeting and we worked together all the time. in the 50s we dealt with a different kind of threat. it was a soviet threat and the cold war. we worked together in nato. we formed norad and a unique

military relationship between the united states and canada. it is a joint relationship and a joint command. one of the things that i know people in canada and probably people in the united states are quite proud of is that on september 11, the person who was in command of norad and who was dealing with all of the terrible issues that day was a canadian general, and it is an extraordinary relationship. since september 11 we have dealt with a different kind of threat and that is the terrorist threat in north america. prime minister harper i think said it very well when president obama visited ottawa after the election when he said that a threat to the united states is a threat to canada and i think that very much captures the nature of the relationship that we have with one another. we are working to deal with managing the 5500-mile border,

the longest border between two countries in the world. one of my predecessors once said that security always trumps trade in a relationship. and i think over the last 10 years we have learned a lot and one of the things we have learned is that the only way we are going to have a secure north america is to have a more efficient border, a better use of the resources that we have there. that has been a big part of the border initiative that president obama and prime minister harper have been working on and all the rest of us have been working on to make the border of more efficient and more effective. as ambassador doer said whether it is in libya, syria, iran, the middle east, asia, here in the western hemisphere again there are now two countries that are closer to one another than the united states in canada.

there is a survey company every year that does us a survey of favorability ratings by americans of other countries around the world. last year, canada had 96% approval rating by america. and canada always comes in first but this was the highest that the country ever had. i don't know where they found the 4%. last year, canadians spend 44 million nights in florida. [laughter] i guess they like a stu. many thanks to the ambassadors for creating the umbrella for what comes next. the next thing we want to shift

to is our military component on the stage, and it's important for us to note that our military folks, starting with the -- men all the way up to the top ranks we have assembled here on the stage are more than military people. they also are ambassadors. they are people who are very sensitive to the environment. there cultural ambassadors of there are many many attributes that we have and how delighted we are to have three representatives with us. let's start out with you admiral. >> thank you very much. it's truly an honor to be on the panel with these distinguished gentlemen and thank you to the pritzker military library for hosting this. there is a trend this morning based on the two investors comments. i think the debate will be who won the war?

[laughter] and when we are done today we should have a vote of the panel members and if we all vote on partisan lines with our coast guard brother we will know who will win. [laughter] it is good to be here and also ambassador, i'm not a diplomat but we received such great hosting here in chicago and i want to continue to be treated as well as we have. we need to -- the chicago white sox as well as the chicago bears. [laughter] as was mentioned by the previous speakers one of the reasons the navy is here in chicago is its navy league but also the bicentennial commemoration of the war of 1812. is the commemoration of thewar but it's also the celebration of the last 200 years of peace and as was previously mentioned. chicago is one of 15 cities in the united states and other

nations in 2012 to commemorate the war. one thing, if you have been to any of them map or if you are going to the future there is one common denominator or in every single city. every place there is a united states navy ship there is also a coast guard ship and a loyal canadian ship. if he went down to the navy pier today you would see the royal canadian ship months than in summerside and right next to her is the uss hurricane. which is a good indication of our relationship between our military's. the war of 1812 really was a very influential part in both of our nations history. it is one of those events in our history that really didn't get much attention in our public school system but it really helps to find the united states and define canada as a nation and more importantly defined our united states navy. a lot of the traditions and customs we enjoy here in the 21st century actually originated in the war of 1812.

it was the outstanding leadership of many of the officers such as oliver perry and thomas mcdonough who fought here and establish the benchmarks for leadership and innovation that we enjoy in our current officers corps, and a lot of the traits that are navy developed in the war of 1812 are just as relevant today. we went toward 200 years ago for sailors writes in free trade and free trade is just as relevant. what happens on the seed matters. at addis to our economy. at matters toward prosperity and it matters to our national defense. as i would like to hear the commodore say as prime minister harper i says canada's -- travels on saltwater with all the trade happening between cities and the great lakes including here in the cities and

chicago. our relationship with the canadians and particularly the canadian navy is very strong. we operate together all the time. wewe are operating together here and this commemoration of the war of 1812 through the 15 cities in one of the nice things, not only were they the -- tactically together but also relationship and friendships so in case we have to join forces again as we get into world war i, world war ii, korea, kosovo and afghanistan we know how to operate together. we share common values and share common traditions and it's an honor to be here today and i look or to your questions and discussion among the panel members. >> thank you. commodore. >> it is good to be here and having an opportunity to walk around and see the exhibits, the quality and the weight is retreated with us such respect and seldom provide commend anybody who can come to the pritzker library to do that.

we like to come in and connect with canadians and connect with americans. understanding the importance of the sea way in the first place which is why we dedicate the effort year-to-year but this year is especially in the context in the war of 1812 in and the commemoration and understanding the value of that 200 years has brought to our two countries as brothers. we talk about interoperability for example had to pick up on that theme we have the two militaries at every level from a staff officer. i was on general petraeus the staff and afghanistan in the eyes of. we have that at the exercise level where we work together for example in connecticut. we conducted the exercise where we had all three of our sources conducting a range of maritime security operations together. we conduct exercises such as operation québec that has a

large exercise component where the u.s. cutter juniper is coming off the ocean who also does icebreaking, environmental protection and keeping oil from the surface contingency so we are conducting operations together in understanding the environment and working together to make sure both as stewards of the resources as well as making sure we understand the environment should we need to operate in the future there together. with those levels of preparation, a huge impact off of hawaii where in excess of 20 countries participate, canada and the united states to the planning. command and control the exercise and run it from me to navy amphibious component to it. these exercises that given these enable us to act whether its act in the arctic, whether that is acting in concert together with the conduct of counternarcotics and illegal immigration and

abroad whether to make context of the immediate response after 9/11. we integrated immediately within weeks into the carrier strike group. you can't do that unless you work together every day, every single day and that is what we do. our operations are at that level and our intelligence sharing is at that level. the information sharing the domain that is generated by our two services put together, fused with their law-enforcement agencies from the coast guard perspective as well and that is provided as maritime warning information to norah. there is a holistic understanding of the threats to our continent so that we together as we have always done from the agreement moving forward will work together in concert and if that kind of thing when we tie it all together and we understand that the war of 1812 sprung on

maritime rights, understanding the importance of that issue today, understanding the prevalence of the maritime domain to move the commodities of the world. our way of life depends on it and our shared national interests. therefore every person in uniform, light blue and white, work together to secure, free lawful use of the c. for our two countries. i got to know these two gentlemen and many of kenya and looking forward to moving that forward. >> thank you. i have a question for our two ambassadors. and it's not a personal one. what do you guys do when you get together and what do you talk about? threats, challenges, opportunities? >> i see and we start with opportunities because we are both officers, so we get together with admiral parks at

the coast guard. we talk about the opportunities of our great lakes water quality agreement, improving the sustainability of that lake and then we also talk about threats and how we are going to work together on threats to that lake and with the agreement that we just achieved recently between our two countries to improve the measurement of accountability, but not have something that would stop all the trade on the great lakes. and then we would point out where whiskey island is located just outside of the shores of cleveland. apparently the breach and thus corporate of effort after the war of 1812 apparently some beverages came down from canada to whiskey island so we talk about that as a historic site but not one that we pay any attention to. [laughter] so we have a to-do list and we basically have items that we go through. some our offense of like the on

the border with the prime minister and the president and some are defenses that we try to sell. that is how we spend our time together and we keep it on a pretty professional pragmatic basis. >> i will come back to you in a moment. admiral michael parks, u.s. coast guard, we have talked a lot about the -- in our first 10 or 15 minutes on the stage. tell us what you do and what your concerns are? >> thank you. i also want to say how great it is to be with this panel and it is one of the best parts about this as being able to be in the setting and having met all these individuals and even happened broken bread with these individuals before which shows how good the relationship is so it's great to be here and it's a true honor to be at pritzker library.

the pritzker military library is home to all of us and it's great to be here. i want to say a special thank you to the canadian consulate for their generosity in helping make this happen. this is really wonderful opportunity. with regard to the coast guard on the great lakes, it's incredible we talk about 20% of the world's freshwater and if you look at the great lakes as a body of water from the sea way from messina new the cnet new yk to lake of the woods minnesota where people vacation on holiday and have good fishing, i think that's almost a 1500-mile maritime border for a large extent and the border between san diego and brownsville and that's something that people don't appreciate. that we really have our goal, everything that we do in the coast guard on the great lakes is really watermarked by canada. we really have that type of relationship and i think if i were to tell you the three things that we really want to

focus on what comes to the safety and security and stewardship of the great lakes, it really comes down to a shared awareness, synchronize priorities and seamless operations. to just give you an example of each one of those, we just had the groundbreaking of the maritime security operations center in niagara which is unlike unlikely to coastal maritime security operations which are run by tsd. this one is run by the royal canadian mounted police. we are full partners and in than in fact we were invited to participate in the groundbreaking of the new building. we have a coast guard down there and we do that kind of work to try to achieve some degree of maritime domain awareness for the great lakes, working as the commodore set with their friends and colleagues and north town norad to try to make sure we understand what they maritime warning is all about. with regard to synchronize

parties i think that's a perfect example of how we actually have embraced the beyond the border perimeter security issue with was something that we have up in montréal, the joint initial verification team for we work very closely with transport canada and the canadian coast guard to inspect vessels coming into the great lakes and we are currently under the auspices of the on the border trying to find ways to check the actual regulatory schemes of our countries to see how we can synchronize them better so we can make it easier for our commercial entities to be more efficient, but also resources for two countries as well as finding a way to do our job better, to keep the lake safe and secure. finally seamless operations, there is no better example right now that are integrated maritime law enforcement operations known as ship writer which our two governments have approved and we are currently working on the standard operating procedure where the royal canadian mounted

police and the united states coast guard is too special authorities for that agreement will be able to work on each other's vessels in the longer will the border be an impediment to our first month efforts of cross-border crime. those are three different examples of how well we work together on the great lakes to help keep them safe and secure. >> to add value to one of the things the admiral mentioned, and we will see this now bridging over into military operations and with law enforcement entities where one may operate the canadian navy we have a ship heading down now in the care and be an basis. they probably sent three or four canadian ships each year to participate under centcom within the joint inter-agency task force and they embark law enforcement attachments from the u.s. coast guard. we will provide the vehicle. we will fuse with the united states navy and the u.s. coast

guard and with the law enforcement intelligence information there, u.s. law-enforcement will operate from canadian naval vessels and conduct label operations. that is a classic example of the seamless operations which delivers law-enforcement for arc -- together. >> admiral jacobsen. >> i was promoted. [laughter] >> a question, couple of questions. one, focus on resources. we are looking to canada as a resource of water, energy. talk about coastal issues. who are we? what kind of people are we? what kind of changes do you see have happened in the past and what is going to happen? >> let's talk about resources.

canada is a country that is amazingly rich in natural natural resources, amazingly rich. it's a fast country. it has pretty much every form of natural resources one could want. the natural resource that gets the most the natural resource that gets the most attention and one of the one that is the most plentiful is energy. most americans do not realize that canada is by far and away our largest foreign supplier of every form of energy. about 100% of the electricity that we import comes from canada. 85% of the natural gas, and most surprisingly to americans, 27% of the imported oil that the united states takes in, comes from canada. if you ask most americans they would say it's saudi arabia. in fact it's second at 12%. so, canada is enormously

important in terms of resources. we're very lucky to have canada as neighbor and to have a safe and secure source of these energy supplies. in terms of culture, you know, one of the things i was told and it is accurate -- before i went to canada, when i was still in ad. i worked in the white house. everybody said the one mistake you should never make is to say canadians are just like americans and that's right. it is clear live the case that probably there is no -- not probably -- there is no country on earth that is more like the united states than canada but we have different historical experience, and while we share many of the same values, we do not share all of them. some for good, some for not so good one of the very important

things that the ambassador and i do, on a personal level and professionally, is to try to explain some of those differences and some of those different values that we have. in my case, for the canada many people, and in his case to the american people. and while every once in a while our values and priorities diverge just a little bit, there are no two countries aligned better. >> let's cut also more deeply into some of the national security issues that are common to both countries. and admiral and i had a conversation yesterday to some intense degree about cybersecurity. please comment on that from a military perspective, and of course, the pillover is our private sector as well. >> great question and a great topic that should be addressed

in some form or another. we talk about our military capables and kinetic capabilities, theater security cooperation but it's one of the biggest threats we are trying to ensure we have a defense against is the nonkinetic threats and that's cybersecurity. other nations are probably better than nations that are represented here on the stage today, and i will tell you there is many, many efforts being made and many dollars being invested to try to combat the cyberthreat, both within the military and within the civilian sector. it's kind of interesting. i met a professor who visited china at one time, and he talked to a professor who actually teaches how to hack, and the way it works is, if a student takes a class and is able to be able to successfully get into a

dot-com cried he gets a c, if he gets into a.gov site he gets a b, and if he gets into a -- we all strive for a's. you can see where some of the criteria is so. it's a real world concern. we're making great strides to ensure that if something happens in the cyberworld -- not to say something doesn't happen every day in the cyberworld we need to be prepared for ready to combat, but it is a valid concern. we have combatant commanders and functional commanders in our structure in the department of defense and we're in the process of looking and investigating setting up a cybercombatant command just because of the importance of this issue. >> it's extremely important. we're working with the u.s. military and with homeland security and the white house on cybersecurity, and the critical

path was dealing with military government dot-coms. not surprise of the order of the remarks and the infrastructure. we have to continue to accelerate or work on critical infrastructure, whether it's pipelines, transmission lines, financial transactions, so much eave everything we are doing and rely on is tied inin potential threats to cybersecurity. i don't want to discourage people from buying on the internet but when i ask military people do you buy anything on the internet? no, or i have a separate card. so i give you that as consumer advice for this forum. it's critically important that we coin -- continue to alkebulan -- accelerate our efforts, and we manage risk before it gets to at the border to legitimately manage threat,

whether cybersecurity or terrorist threats -- before it gets to either one of our countries, and the whole idea of beyond the border is to really accelerate the work on cybersecurity, and it's chit important for all of us, and we work not only with canada and the united states but other countries, the uk and new zealand as well on strategies and a lot of great interventions in cybersecurity risk but still a lot more work to do. >> it is particularly important for legalizationship between the united states and california because of the inter-relationship the interconnection of our critical infrastructure, which it's pipelines, electricity grid, and most notably our telecommunications which are seamless and, therefore, as the prime minister said, a threat to one country is a threat to both countries, and this is a vulnerability, a vulnerability that the american people and the canadian people sometimes don't take as seriously as some of

those kinetic risks. >> i think it would offer that one thing that makes this more challenging is it's exacerbated by thed in to be partners at different levels, state, local, federal, speier enterinternational. private industry. we work with private partners and stakeholders and do it electronically so makes the cybersecurity issue even more challenging and vexing because the thing we're trying do is work with all these entities, puts our systems at risk. so that's one of the real challenges we have. >> commodore hawco, i have two questions for you. one, you are our instinctually experienced to respond you serve in afghanistan, and general petraeus' staff. you saw first hand what canada has focused on.

human tear, counterinsurgency issues in afghanistan. the second issue also relates to service in afghanistan. returning veterans are coming back to the united states, the unemployment rate is probably double or more than our population as a whole. many of our returning service people are troubled. not only physical wounds but psychologically. could you address those two issues, one, about the focus of counterinsurgency, humanitarian aid, and secondly, of equal importance, canada what do you do for your returning military person mel. >> certainly the ambassador can add values on some of these, but working as i did in afghanistan and can kabul, the staff was lit

the 60,000-foot level. we were looking at the geo political issues within their commander campaign and working with the 40-plus nations who are contributors, whether it's economically or militarily to the campaign in the context of canada's mission, which is shifted from a ground, based campaign toward buttressing and supporting the developments of the afghan national security forces because in the end, transition to an afghan-led environment in the 2014 time frame is actually dependent on the capacities and capabilities of the afghan national security forces. from both the police and military point of view. so that's where canada's mission evolves to support that. that was the growing need, and supporting the key training positions throughout the various commands in the ansf is where the government valued its efforts in terms of supporting the campaign in afghanistan.

for the next 20 years. when you consider how afghanistan is going to evolve, its long-term success is related to its own internal security forces capacity. that's why canada's mission up to the end of 2014 is going to be supporting the development of those sources. when we look at the sailors, soldiers, and airmen and women that return to canada afterwards -- and i'm sure it's very similar to your own experience in the united states -- there's a range of issues. we talk and rightly so, about the personal sacrifice and some cases the ultimate sacrifice where individuals die on the battlefield in support of our national interests in afghanistan. yet, for every individual who has made that sacrifice, and the families affected by that -- it's not just the individual. it their entire center of self, including their family. you have men who are injured

physically, emotionally 0, mentally and that's why significant efforts in the veteran organizations in canada to increase the level of support, which efforts have been going on for the last four or five years, recently accelerated and added to, to address the post traumatic stress disorder we see affecting a substantive potential percentage of returning soldiers. i don't know the statistics but it's very difficult to measure in the first place. secondly, putting in programs in place for soldier-on and other initiatives which will allow our servicemen accommodations, continued imemployment in the canadian forces to their extent their injuries allow to the point where they're at a natural career transition point where they can leave the force or provided with the necessary services and support, connecting with clinics but much has gone on and i followed with great

interest the evolution in the united states military and seen those parallels how we both death with the situation, recognizing the severity. >> i also think that when we look at -- i think the united states and canada have an opportunity on security to go to energy independence over the next -- over this decade with what's happened with energy efficiency, renewability, shale guess and oil, both in canada and the united states, which i think will be a great military security issue and also a great economic security issue. but with that will become the -- a lot more building that needs to go on in that energy infrastructure, and i think the idea of having -- the idea of having helmets to hard hatts that are being supported by both the canadian defense department, the u.s. defense department, building trades and other organizations, a very practical way of trying to say to people, we have a responsibility to

ensure that there's an onramp for military personnel coming back, for this projects going ahead. i think we want to have practical, do-able, onramps for our military personnel on both sides of the border, so we're billing that international bridge in detroit, for example, tens of thousands of jobs created. let's make sure that veterans get trained and get the jobs so they can get -- have a career if they're not deciding to stay longer in the military. we have done some good work but have a lot more work to do for the veterans and agree with the commodore on the number of people now surviving attacks, the good news is there's a lot more people surviving that would be in past wars killed, but there is a huge amount of challenge for the veterans coming back in both countries, for all of us, both physical and mental.

>> i may, sir. in our capacity i've had the opportunity to visit many different medical centers, whether it's at brooks or balboa, walter reed, or hawaii. if you haven't been, encourage you to go because it is a very moving and heartwarming experience, because you run into the young men and women -- and they are young -- who have been injured in combat, and you try to offer them something, and you go, what can i do for you, young man or young woman and a lot of them, the first thing they say to you is, i would like too go back to my unit, and you go, you're missing your leg. do you know that? it doesn't matter. but we have great capability right now. the medical facilities and capable have improved over the years and you'll see these young kids. they go through a period of depression, when they cam out of that they'll have different types of legs. a leg to run with. a leg to ski with. a leg to snowboard with, because our capabilities have gotten so

well. met a young man who lost one leg and the other leg was damaged by an improvised explosive device in iraq, and you ask him, how is youring? and the one that has the fake leg, the new leg, the goes that's fine. it's the other one that bothers me now because the doctors saved that leg but he is in pain all the time. and he was going through the mental deliberations of, i may ask the doctor to take this one, too, just to be away with the pain because the capabilities we have in terms of treating our wounded veterans has become so much better. >> before we get on to the q & a in just a moment, admiral parks, actually you have two hats -- admiral and ambassador -- talk about -- very briefly talk about your ambassadorial role as an environmentalist in the great lakes. that's a big one.

>> yes, sir, it is, and one of the things -- ambassador doer alluded to it, we have had the pleasure of meeting before and talking about these issues and working closely together, and and i think we really do have -- when you talk that the great lakes you need to understand it's a unique, unique area. we like to use the ill lit racing that it is a seasonal saltless ex-sensitive, shared, system. five ss, seasonal, salt, sensitive, shared system, and when you work your way through that, you realize how important it is that we share this. the internal waters of two countries, and we cannot parse that any closer. we work very closely together and trying to work with our constituents because it's the watershed for 30 million people.

so we have to be mineful of that. but there has to be ability to use the waterway because of the commerce, because of things that are so vital to our two economies that we have too find a way to do that safely and in a way that provides good stewardship. so we work closely with the different stakeholders, whether it's industry, environmental groups two countries a different agency -- we have agencies on both side of the borders that have equities as well as states and provinces. this air multifast set approach and we have to work very well together and have to take the time and it's a privilege to work with these two gentlemen, for example, on these issues. >> we share the straights of juan defuca on the west coast, and it's a shared waterway. if you're going out, you're with one country. if you're coming in, you're coming in the waters of the

other country that's that straightforward in the way it's managed and we have the combined patrol and management of the water way in the straits on the other side as well. >> a lot of people wont realize, the ship program, we have rcmp officers and coast guard personnel training at the same locations and charleston, south carolina, and then coming together on the same boat. now they're going to have a lot of fun for the first five minutes when they have coffee, this team or that team. the fact they're working together on risk and we're not worrying about a centimeter across the border or an inch but we're working together, we have absolutely clear ability to enforce the law and protect people instantly with both forces together, and it's -- it worked, for example, during the olympics on the west coast, and it's a great model. i think it's a great program. >> i would offer, there's a binational success story that

doesn't get the press. in montreal, they're doing ball last water inspections on every vessel and we can tell you over the past six years there's been no new invasive species introduced via ballast water because of that program. >> the panel has thrown out a number of things and we're blessed because we have a wonderful live audience with us, and it's time for q & a, and let's ask for the first question. >> both countries have a 12-1/2 mile limit with respect to their sovereignty. what is to prevent a terrorist from being 13 miles out and lobbing a missile at one of the vital cities on the coast?

>> good type question. dealing with counterterrorism. who wants to take that? >> well, there's a couple of things. first of all, the coastal region, we have the ability to monitor that kind of activity. using our different censor capables and things like noaad and naval assets and intelligence capabilities. don't misunderstand, though, it's internal waters so you go right up to the border between two countries. so there's no international water thursday the great lakes. so that's not an issue. but on the coastal zone, i think -- my good friend who has spent a lot of time in the coastal zone can tell you, that really is an area where i don't think we've got that concern where the distance offshore matters to us. we want to push that as far out as possible. that is our goal. our goal is to take this away as

far as possible, and we have programs in place where we do that to try to determine who is coming, what's coming, and when it's coming into the united states. and so much of our commerce comes through the water. >> ideally if it goes within 13 miles there's something we didn't do correctly. it's hard. maritime awareness is hard. oceans are big. but the idea is that if you can know who is coming from way off of our coast, in and hopefully from the point of origin, if possible, that would help alleviate that problem. but it's a concern and we hope to never have to get to the 13-mile issue and a potential .38. >> certainly if we were to look at this from a practical assistance point of view, both countries have reporting requirements for vessels declaring themselves coming to north america. great difference in timing, and both countries i know for canada for sure -- the vessel before it

leaves emits custom information. each country has fusion centers that share information and work on i own interagency information protocol. so, for example, in the ministry operation centers, we know who has declared they're coming to north america bound for canada. we know based on ais space-based systems, the automatic identification system that is a requirement now for vessels beyond a certain size to have a transponder that says, i am me and this is where i'm going and this where i'm declaring i'm going. that relates to the ocean and knowing names. when you have someone at the 12-mile territorial water limit, into there 200-mile exclusion zone which relates to different levels of authorities and mandates for which we have responsibility and authority over vessels coming, then we say we have a dot and we know that dot matches this customs related information and this notice

they're coming. that allows you to rule out dots that are friendly dots, one you expected. and those that are not, we send airplanes out and ship out to look at the dots that don't match and we find illegal immigration vessels copping to canada, and we track them in, and we say, yeah, track them, it's an intelligent piece of information. we leave it together with our partner0s to make sure we understand and it then we bust them. and of course, with, of course, the appropriate canadian law enforcement agency on board that has the mandate over that, in those cases, the customs border service agency because they have the immigration portfolio and mandate. so we're active in that regard. >> if i could broaden the question a little bit, because it's a very good question. but it doesn't just apply to maritime awareness. applies to land borders and planes flying into the country. it's the exact same issue.

and that is what the beyond the border initiative is all about. the whole idea of it is that borders and -- talking about 12 miles exclusionary zone for the physical border or air border -- borders are the worst polices to make decisions about anything you want to make those decisions as far away from the border as you can, and in some instances on other continents, and the way you do that is with information and with sharing of information, and that's what this whole thing is about, whether you are talking about people driving across the border, or planes flying across the border, or planes flying from europe to canada, the united states. we need to share information and we need to do a better job of sharing information. we need to do it, protecting people's privacy and individual rights but we need to do it, and that's what this whole thing is about. >> another good question.

>> excellent panel. it's possible with global climate a change the frozen north won't be so frozen anymore. what are the implications for canadian security and for cooperation with the united states to deal with the problems that arise if suddenly the sea lanes become nor navigable up there. >> first of all, to mitigate against it, we have had an agreement with the president on a 17% reduction of emissions by 2020 over 1995, and part of that was light vehicles, the one we all drive, having the same energy efficient standards to reduce oil consumption and reduce emissions. we also agreed with secretary of state clinton, black carbon agreement to try to, again, reduce the pressure, particularly on the impasse of warming on -- impact of warming

on the earth. having said that, we're also very involved in the council together, both in terms of the environment of that region, the navigability of the region, the security of the region, the search and rescue in that region, the mapping of resources, in that region, and that we continue to improve our capacity on -- in that region in all of those areas. canada is chairing the artic council and then the united states takes over so we'll have a run at these -- not that we're constanting with everybody but it's good to hold the pen in terms of these international initiatives between our countries. but this canadian and american ships in the -- tick -- in are tech as we speak in i'm sure.

but it is security. >> it is on the radar when one considers the decision to design and build the arctic offshore patrol jet, the capacity to operate in ice one meter thick, about that thick. insure... ... the -- operating the north e are looking at major air search types of exercises and environmental because we recognize the fragility of the environment in the context of its ecosystem. so it will affect it in the food

chain in a very linear way. call-in cullen

if they're going to go and use that. the northwest passage will be north of canada. >> another question. actually two questions. regarding the war of 1812, i've always thought of it as a i've always thought of that as a british american war. canadian america war. my question is that the forces from canadian british sources, where they have virtually no to the troops recruited in great britain, or what percentage of them were canadian unit, people from canada, the canadian citizens are running numbers i'm not? >> that's a good question. >> ii think the war a couple stages from the canadian side.

the first stage when i think jefferson set out they had to do is march and will conquer canada and with 400,000 people in canada and 1 million in in the united states. the first stage is pretty domestic. aboriginal people, the british forces located in canada, some of the french military, french canadian military personnel and as they say a lot of participation of the aboriginal people at the time. then of course because britain was preoccupied, then of course after reaching 14, there is a coincidence to the timing of the so-called lighthouse, which i can't say as a diplomat after some of those victories by britain. and the treaty that was ultimately reach. so was to stages, but certainly were a british colony with lots

of participation from local people in canada, including the aboriginal people. some of the analysis that the postwar treatment in terms of how canada and the united states did fairly unanimous in their evaluation. but there is also the ms opinion of the aboriginal people didn't get treated as well as others after the great sacrifice during the war. >> 7000 british regulars and approximately 14,000 u.s. militia men at various levels of training and readiness six. from your own structure. and there was a loose confederation under to come say of first nations and as the admiral, the investor mentioned there is always though french canadian unit that form together. many of the regiments, the

reserve regimen are a direct result of the conflict and their traditions draw back is considered here. so we also had heard of provincial marine forces similar to the context of citizen sailor putting together with the responsibility to defend. but a not large numbers of three senior military control. >> we've had one bite of the apple. let's get another question. >> i have a statement and a question. [inaudible] >> the cold war had been accomplished together is that a side.

the missile defense and the defense system. now my question would be, what and if you gentlemen speculate what kind of a world would we fit to be, would we have caused the cold war? >> very good question. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> well, it's going to be a long and very. i don't know if we can give you the specifics. and maybe we can ponder it at another time. >> another resource question. rare earth metal. given their computer and electronics and a large number of percentage of them that are chinese controlled, for this to

ambassadors, to what extent their exploration, development and accessibility of candidate in the rare earth metal resources discussed in diplomatic and trade talks between our two countries? >> the first thing that i learned when i got up there and people started talking about metal as they are not all that rare. the problem is that the said city sees process their prayer where. they came from the american west and their clothes because they were an economic. the chinese process them and they have the monopoly, but they had a very large percentage of the global production at the moment. the answer to the question as there is a lot of discussion on

a lot of rare earth metals in canada. but it gives the issue of less where they are to get them out of the ground and issue much more the cost and processing facilities in outlying voltaic. >> another question. >> could you comment on what you see as the prospects, i guess the potential for the keystone pipeline? >> i'll let ambassador dewhurst talk about that. >> august 26 is the anniversary, which we were very pleased with because it dealt with some of the comments that were not factually true in a very objective way. and then in november 1st, the special session of their house, the governor called it to oppose the regime that the state department had recommended.

that in turn resulted on november 10th time in the president decided to delay the approval of the pipeline. and since then, we've been working on getting an amended group in nebraska. the reason the president used the november 10th versus sandhill portion. were very close to having an agreement in nebraska that hopefully will be hopeful in washington. i think that there is that there projects going ahead, other pipelines moving ahead. you know, refineries and ahead here. they're built on the 27%. i really do believe that we are going to broaden the question because i think the united states is in a situation now and they haven't been there since richard nixon talked about it, president nixon talked about the ability in north america that has energy independent and that

includes energy efficiency like light vehicles, proving the equality of energy efficiency and includes renewal ability, and enclose the development in a safe way of shell gas and i think it also means canadian and u.s. oil. when you look at the keystone pipeline, a lot of americans don't know that 20% of that oil on the pipeline is oil from north dakota and montana,. there are major improvements in canada, some of which aren't always appreciated in the debate, but i've look at the public in the united states and every poll since the decision and every poll recently as a three to one margin that the american scene go ahead with the pipeline. saturday night in nebraska, people say go ahead with it.

we want that oil from canada, but we want to solve that portion, so that passover focusing focusing on now. i believe once that solves, the project should go ahead. i believe it will go ahead, but the canadian termini thesis before coming up the pitcher hits in the air, so were going to keep working on it. for a helmet still hard hats, we think it works on a lot. >> i would like to add something to that. the issue is not, as the ambassadors that can adjust the keystone pipeline. that is one quite frankly, relatively small subset of a much bigger issue. and the issue is how do you build infrastructure, both within the united states, within canada to get the energy from where it is to where it's needed. usually it is not where it's

needed. there is a huge issue to potential of hydroelectric power, which is clinging. it is certainly better than coal, better than most other things. and happy to be in new york city or boston and upper québec, manitoba. and the question is, how do we get it from where it is what is true of oil, natural gas, and the issues being fought out in canada, the issue of moving oil from alberta or british columbia is a complicated question and somehow or another will have to sort this out and decide that we can do this in an environmentally sensitive way so they can take advantage of this potential energy, which may be the biggest development in america and generations.

>> we have about two minutes or so. let's do a take away. and how about our panel in this one bullet that we would like our ideas to take away from our discussion. >> i'll take the first one. we have a great relationships with their countries and to talk about stuff in the future. right now about the world is young americans serving 24 hours a day, seven days a week, five vcr, making sacrifices we talked about earlier to ensure we have freedoms we enjoy today so the economy does prosper. >> admiral park. >> i had keep that thought obviously. but i'd be remiss if in the summer in chicago i didn't talk about safety and the importance for everybody because that's a binational issue to shared and members of the sea service we

obviously share it with her and for your safety on the water. were your life jacket, don't drink about and be careful out there. >> when i first got to washington i learned some and that the special versus established between any two countries was the doubles per day. people from canada, usually miners, lumberjacks, farmers got trained and dropped behind the enemy lines in world war ii. and it's a great story of our cooperation together. but with all of the navy brass are today, have got to pay tribute to the bravery, the skills and the effect goodness of the navy seals and holding to account osama bin laden. so i just want to thank those navy seals.

>> quick, there's a lot of very special thanks about the relationships in the united states and canada, but to me the most special thing and relationship is how we deal with problems, that unlike the way we do with problems of almost any in the world that we have a problem, you said down, talk about it, talk about it like grownups and try to solve it. i think evidence today, people here on the panel, particularly ambassador doer and discussions on a regular basis and i know that the american people are pretty grateful. >> i would bridge that comment because, you know, in a way if you think about what were already discussing and debating on, if you think about all the things we don't argue about, it's amazing. the number of things we do not have to argue about.

and i drawback to the war of 1812 in one of the major lessons learned from a wonderful academic debate panel here yesterday on the war of 1812 was preparation and being sure that we together, as two nations, work and invest in our resources and invest in infrastructure to ensure that we are prepared and able to safeguard our nation. >> let me once again thank the canadian council general thought this for your initiative and sponsoring this event. the pritzker military library for hosting so many important cultural and military historical meetings. i'm once again, to our panelists, thank you for being there. we are delighted and goodóó

ppla [applause] >> well, good morning, everybody. it's an absolute delight for me and for charlotte to be here and speaking again, on this famous

stage. we had a wonderful time when we were here last year. last year, i was speaking about intelligence, basically, about the way, particularly thece british intelligence service has to change in order to cope with the changing threats to our security.g thisin year, i've got rather aet different hat on. well, in fact, two hats this year. my hat is a former intelligence officer and my hat as a thriller writer which i now am. the fact that both those hats fit my head as you might say comes about from the fact thatka my books are actually based on things that happened to me. inte publisher and my characters are based broadly on people i've met or heard about during that time and all my plots a thing comes straight out of my time at my size. so i am approaching the sub

active radicalism today through these two points of view. radicals as a security threat and radicals as characters for novelists. it's a bit like a question from the university examination paper on the know, the payer and contrast. [laughter] i'm sure that during this week, different lectures have been defining radicalism in very different ways. but what i am most interested in sf i say the security security intelligence asked back msn novelists really as well on my personality. i am interested in the points where radicalism turns into extremism. it is true that in a stable, modern democracies such as we've had been on both sides of the

atlantic, radical thinkers who talk about change or rate did not change are not regarded as threats to our security, i might go insane totalitarian countries, where you're not really about to pretend in any way. you're certainly not about to speak. you're not allowed to write. you're hardly about to think about dissent. and if you think about the soviet union during the cold war and eastern european countries, you can see an example of that. no dissent is tolerated. in the same were recently really had in libya and the return of gadhafi where you are not allowed to dissent. in zimbabwe as well, i would say another totalitarian state. and even maybe one can sigh and russia. i don't know if you've been reading about the group of young

women who sang a song and make a drill and and were immediately kept in prison and are awaiting a try which seems to be inevitably going to end prison sentence. so that is totalitarianism in its day. in a democracy, security services like my, mi5 only get concerned that involved when radicals turn into extremists. in other words, when they start to take some kind of action, particularly violent destructive action to bring about the changes that they're thinking about, talking about. and in taking this action, they threaten the security of the state. so that is what interests intelligence. and those are the kinds of people to also interest novelists, the people who do extreme and extraordinary

things. those are the most interest are yours to people who write novels. fiction writing is only really interested in is used, the causes if you like to this stance but they eliminate the characters and expand the actions that they take. i think nowadays, most people would agree that the job of a novelist is not to judge people, not to take sides in any way, but to observe them and analyze what they do, why they do it commit to take this piece is, if you like, and put them together again and interesting, readable, exciting sort of ways. so i want to talk about some radical extremists that i've dealt with and sometimes manage in the course of my career and how i can sound other novelists have presented in fiction.

so that's my job for the morning. i've chosen three types of radical extremists you might say to talk about. and the first one is five. particularly those spies who are motivated by some sort of ideology. these are the people who take radical action to undermine, destroyed or changed their own countries by working covertly for a foreign power. i think there's so much more interesting than those who merely sell secrets in it for the money. they're not radical a set of. they're just selfish. my second category that i'm going to talk about is what you might call radical protesters, people who have some sort of personal grievance against the society they live in and to use violent against those whom they

think are to blame for the things they are in agreement about. and thirdly i will talk about terror, both religious extremists who seem to regard particularly society only so it can be replaced by something else and political, people who use terrorism to receive a political end, whether it independence or whatever it might be. so those are going to be my three categories. before you get on with them, i just wanted to give resolve to the earliest writers of ascension. as i say nowadays, most fiction writers are much more interested in characters van and issues. fiction is not seen nowadays as it is the cause of proselytizing or pushing across your ideas for a new form of society.

it is spinning tales for interest, stimulation for a good reason. that's the appraiser used in connection with the book that i was criticized for something that was a good read. but i do believe for a good read, whatever kind of ridiculous it's got to be a good read. so fiction is not really something we cannot proselytize. spinning tales enters stimulation. but we shouldn't forget that the novels actually began dashti began as a way of expressing radical and political ideas. if you go back to the beginning of the novel in the early 18th century to come up against daniel do so, it was widely

thought and he wrote was all heard about the story of a man who was marooned on a desert island. and the story itself, the story of this man on a desert island to fund a colleague caught the imagination really a generation and this remained a favorite even to this day. but it wasn't just storytelling. daniel do so was using his story to express his own radical ideas, thomistic ideas they were about indiidual morality and how it shapes society. and they were shaping what turned out to be a pretty pleasant society. i'm not a sealskin jonathan swift who wrote gulliver's travels. he had a very different, less up

to mystic view of individuals and societies. the sub title of gulliver's travels is called travel into several remote nations of the world. as remember clovers travels at all come to your members of went off and they all turned out to be extremely noddy. vicious in different ways. and they were meant to show what john swift thought was how very wrong societies and politics can go. most of these early writers of fiction are using prescription for them to put across ideas, which is not radical was certainly designed to promote discussion as was a bit later on in the 19th century, charles taken. he was using his novels to raise the conscience of a nation to the social evils and

deprivation. but all of them were more interested in promoting political ideas, raising the issues and create incredible real-life characters. you've really got to think about all of the twists to go around thinking okay, well now here is not a dollar realistic to her when dickens' writing him. he's no more real than robinson caruso west. they were all stereotypes in those days. rather like the 18th century carriage they are, iraq's progress, for example. those characters certainly would not muster the critics today when your literary yours are due to be realistic and novelists are now praying for their ability to observe, analyze and reconstruct the characters they

write about. so i think having given a nod to her former numbers, i watched the sub thing about these three types of modern extremists that i mentioned at the beginning. this bias, radicals and terrorists. and i'm going to talk about some of the real evil at come across during my career at mi5 and my fictional author. i joined mi5 in the late 1960s and my first job was an armed counter espionage branch. in those days, the great stink of espionage in the western world came of course are in the intelligence the soviet union and their allies in the eastern european countries. the most famous group of spies about. where what came to be known as the cambridge spies, five young men from middle class

backgrounds, radicals and that they convinced themselves or allowed themselves to be convinced that the socialist worker the state such as communists created in russia, the town was an inspiring alternative to what they saw as a class ridden sackville-west, where much of the u.s.a. and in the united kingdom, millions of people were out of work. and i have to say that those young men, that they would different in what they did were not really allowed in that view of soviet communism. a number of prominent intellectuals in the late 20s and 30s, among them, the playwright george bernard shaw, a founder of the london economics all believe the same thing, but somehow, some kind of golden era was being created in the soviet union.

during the eared the coun >> the agricultural revolution conducted was some sort of return to asu golden age. that from what is death and camr the countryside and mass starvation. later of course, many learned what happened and became disillusionedd. of the cambridge 54 different. they did not just talk aboutey

it but took action. makes up to the clevern recruitment approach. for years they provided for may shouldn't to the government permit and intelligence services. whojoi handing over atomic secrets among other things with allviett the access given to him, he head-- rose to be head of the department but most of the others were killed.ussia emb and mother handed over suitcases of documents to be

photocopied and john who joined which is the equivalent of your nsa. the cambridge five characters, and differences have fascinated novelist ever since they were exposed. abo they continued to fascinate meut.uir why did they fall under the kgb recruiter and the communist regime in turn on their own country? their relationship with each other than their recruiter, what turned them in probably the mostte successful group of spy is never? 16 by the time i joined three n had fled living in the

soviet union have a a dreadful time after being in the west. work but in 1951 when they were who alerted from mi6 who knew some of the russians had been broken and two weren about to be exposed. he told them and off they went to the soviet union. copper later he himself fell under suspicion. even when i joined in the early '70s british and u.s. intelligence was haunted by that penetration of the british as stablish meant.

there was a sense you couldfor t trusthe nobody and anybodye. could work for the other side. the only one that ie to personally met was the fifth duriuse he was the last to be uncovered. i had a series of interviewshe e with him he had went to liveh in france and was given immunity from prosecution on the terms that would never he came to britain would make itself available for interviews. what he was supposed to do was tell us about recruitmentu and spying and eliminate for us with this situation.

mcchrystal no other youngic men who could be recruited and still in senior no services.place an important position. the interviews in the early '70s in london. it was gloomy. old-fashioned and dark and when i think back now in my memory -- memory was always reading. [laughter] and i could recall a figure coming in after of the rainas an wary a raincoat and presented himself as thet

intellectual love quoteofhe conscience feel they agreedan tot work because of the anti-eight not see sentiments. he would not tell more than he was forced to. said me and the depressed old man had this match them off he went into the rain. it was an act because they later learned how much because i got to know his niece who is it slightly younger kid me know a famous british economist and head of the top university. at the time she did not knowl

anything about john's side. i learned on the eveningsain when he left me and went into the rain he would stay with her at her house. we compared notes and shee was amazed of myrather representation because she saw him as a glamorous uncle. th the charming ladies this grea man, conversationalist, tell er of amusing stories. we could hardly believe this was the same man. not the same character i met to. the soap with a short journey he changed himselfi from the intellectual to the ladies' man she remembered. he was truly a man of to

face is. even on the same evening. i use my a experience is investigating moles in my second novel.loset those infiltrated above myha heroine list carlyles investigates the same way as we did would may try to find out if there are any remaining members. is she digs deep into the candidate's past and looks at their contacts that is the way we danid it and the way it is done in my novel and other novels about

moles. provides the raw material for fiction.? why would someone be tray there country or colleagues?by unanswered is ther of the spy rather than the ideology. if you think it jon's booke ofe infiltration andthat betrayal. th se no doubt he knows it is hubris, arrogance, the feeling one is more clever and knows better than anyone else. this by seems to draw nourishment from his superiority and self-worth that costs from thisif you hen'e afterlife fifth to deceive everybody. grea if you have not seen theof

film, you should. the gets over the gloom of that period from when igets r first joined the service and also a wonderful character.y xp the secretive personality but one is called the untouchable. written by john who is an irish writer. is fictionalize is ring, recreation from a cambridge spy ring, the one who didbout, not flee to russia. he became a respected figure

kn the art world in britain. he became keeper of the queen's pictures. . . he was exposed. [laughter] nhat was a shock to the the u queen. [laughter] he portrayed the man to him thet retractor recommit trudging the moment when it's going to be exposed, haunted by the spirit of discovery. it's very real and extremely good and very readable. unlike the cambridge spies and their sense of superiority, the genuinely convinced radical, the true ideological spies do not buy such a track for the novelists i don't think because

it's a true ideological spies don't have a self-analysis. justice quiets unquestioning conviction that they are right and the cause they service the right because there is to british woman called the leader in more worried and she was just such a spy. she was a truly great lady, a perfect spy it turns out. she was secretary and a british research institution. she was a convinced communist from the 1940s onward and she quietly spied for over 40 years completely undiscovered. she was the longest-serving soviet by in the u.k. she was only exposed when a defector came across. we had no idea she was doing what she'd been doing. she recruited other people to spy and she herself handed over

a secret that should have access to where she worked as secretary. the kgb and the end awarded her pension because she has served them so long completely good. but she was exposed in the 1990s, she was an absolute case to the media. there is this dark on lady in her 80s clutching a shopping bag, totally unexpected and not at all the kind of spy that the media and novels have taught us to explain, to expect. and the times newspaper with their time and that she cared or raised here is the spy who came in from the co-op. [laughter] with her shopping bag, that's what she was.

she was not a character of a spy novel, but she was a true extremists. the other extreme, the james bond burkett is radical that we like to call it glamour and evil but eggs the elite. no character or motives analysis. the book on how much the secret service and the laboratory, which is conveniently born and he's got a laboratory out there to spread botulism and swine fever in all kinds of other hideous diseases throughout the united kingdom. this is a hugo track in mood breaker, aiming to destroy london with a nuclear missile.

in goldfinger to steal the gold from fort knox in order to finance the beast merge. an income of these characters have always thought absolutely incredible. but i have to say that in recent years, while in recent i began to wonder whether those bond villains are actually as incredible as i thought they were. we have living in london at the moment quite a number of the russian oligarchs, those people who got very rich when yeltsin started selling off the national asset and they were able to get loaded into their hands to make billions and billions of dollars. these guys come in many of them multibillionaires says that all art has begun with large parts

of real estates and various other desirable places, but the interesting thing is they have begun to sue each other in our court. in the latest case, concerned with the media describe as the bloodsoaked aluminium mooring. it is the struggle for the control of russia's last wealth between some of these characters. a character who was billed as one of the oligarchs of the time courted by the world's elite and a pair possessor of billions of pounds of fortune on it in her come the biggest in the world of coors being sued by another equally unsavory area described as a criminal drug czar in russia's most dangerous. it is a tale of extortion, bank fraud, bribery of politicians and murder. unfortunately for us, these

cared very since i say have great faith in justice. last night so we've got this uncodified specular send daring and our court. still, looking on the bright side there's another ian fleming out there, he's got belinsky hand. i could go on about spies and spy stories, but i move on to my second category radicals, which are your personal grievance. in the early 1970s again, a new form of radical dissent begins to appear in europe and on the side of the atlantic as well in the shape of radical student groups. people broadly associated with the process about the war in vietnam say concerns about human

rights. like cambridge spies, most of those got involved in the 60s and 70s came from highly educated backgrounds and didn't feel the need to escape from this sort of sheltered bush westlife but they were being brought up in and they moved into squats instead of collect eggs were they shared resources and went about discussing their grievances. many of them did no more than protest in the streets. sometimes more, sometimes less than broadly in the name of civil rights. but these protesters had to be pleased. however, some of the most extreme of weapons training

learned how to explode, to make them explode bomb and carry out bombs or shoot them. one of the most violent as one in germany. there was another name for them, the red army faction with the red repeat in spain and in the u.s.a., you had the weapon, which some of you may remember. different groups. in the degree of stress. the weatherman group here was one of the most extreme violent radicals who planted palms in chicago and washington and in new york in the early 70s. but i i think the longer-lasting the most damaging was in germany who killed more than 30 people during the late 60s and 70s, including businessmen and bankers they shot them, came out and eventually murdered then and there is still on into an

1880s and they were mainly middle-class youngsters who saw themselves as capitalist establishments were former not these were running businesses and this was the grievance they had against society. i can remember the concern we felt in mi5 in the early 70s then we discovered we had group at that as well. they called themselves the atom bury brigade. in fact, because of lack of alarm by planting for bombs and offices and houses of government industries and industrialists. the ringleaders were soon arrested thomas and not a great deal of harm is done and they were and present. not that long ago i met one of those he'd be in that group. she was -- is long after prison when i met her head in every respect about charity in britain

and looking at her and talking to her now, it's hard to credit that even when she was young she realize planting bombs in the home as furthering her cause, whatever the cost might be. novelists have long been fascinated by irving berlin solutions, just as they have this bias. the background, the different motivations, interplay of characters provides massive material to fiction writers. in the beginning of the 20th century 1996, and novelists call jesse conrad in which he explores the motivation of war college anarchist and he tells the story is someone who had infiltrated one of these groups than his controller had told him

to book the greenwich observatory said they would get the blame and be wiped out at the mixed motives and personality. but more recently, many of you will have read the book, american pastoral, in which she explores a young woman who joins the weatherman. the story hinges on this young woman come in the-year-old daughter of an unhappy businessman. she is an only child, but she falls and what the weatherman and up a post office and kills the local doctor. it's 1968. there he goes into hiding. she comes destitute and gets

involved in further bombings had one setback in new york. but now she's filthy, has a veil over her face. now she's dedicated to such extremes of nonviolent but she could scarcely bring herself because of the murder that is involved. she's taken her jainism to great extremes and the novel revolves around what mary has done, the death that she has cost him the question of how disrespectful it jewish businessman and his wife, who is a former miss new jersey, how could they have given her to this dislocated character and of course the question can't be answered but to deliver various possibilities. is it because the parents are so respect the ball, so decent, so

liberal that is much against the war in vietnam, is that why the girl has to turn out this way? or is this kind of an american allegory here in different generations, only to colin violent or fair. or has the parents done everything they possibly could and should have done and do she started changing to remind us that the an explicit access? and anyway, what is wrong with their life? as the novel and, she asked, what on earth is less reprehensible than the light of the level? and he provides no answer. so it is a book that exposes the issues, that doesn't miss any answers. it's just a book of earlier bragging, which i think is enough. we had a british novel that won the nobel prize or literary in

2007 when she was 87, as a result i feel. [laughter] she became a feminist icon. she tackled the same theme in her book, the good parent, which he published in 1985. she shows how the certain people at certain times although the sort of hopes and hurt the disappointments in life can spill over into a hit back at something to be noticed en masse, to take some kind of action against the system, whatever the system is and the people it seemed to disregard it you and hurt you. the radicals are an assorted group of dysfunctional characters who live in a squad in a rundown derelict house in london. it is a group like the angry brigade i remember. they are out.

angry about society, but in fact causes their own inadequacies have gone the way they are. disaster strikes this group and they naïvely offer their services to the ira and the crossover to terrorism. mention of the ira brings me onto my final category of radical extremism. these are political and religious terrorists. i can see a sharp distance between these two. politically motivated terrorist changing circumstances, whether as a new form of government, whether it's land, freedom to their own state or whatever it is. religion seems to me to want to wipe out the van completely and with an enormous demonstration of hate, political analysts and

journalists portray terrorists in the most frightening terms aren't fast with their one idea, whether it's getting the printout of northern ireland in the case of the ira are whether it's to destroy what they see as an evil western was patient to destroy israel and whatever it might be. this is what is so obsessed that any amount of violent, and the death connect to people, children or whoever are justifiable to done. to a novelists, the question is much more complicated. how did they get to that point? people of such singletrack sessions are actually rare and they are not born. they are made. so why and