what was going on the air mines? i can assure you every person that took part in the story about it, diplomatic processes in doha, i can guarantee you all of them would be able to view shook their shoulder to say kind words about 1325 because it's their job.

so the real question is for all of that is, how did they manage to so marginalize, it are, take no account of women in the midst of the most serious right now armed conflict that is engaging so many governments? i don't have the answer to that, but what i do know is we better understand how it even works. it not just about denying both to 1325. they probably also did 1325. lipservice is a very interesting thing to study. and we have that work now a blatant example of saint lipservice to a major u.n. was aleutian that they are obligated to abide by and many of them

voted for and yet, without seeing any embarrassment to help negotiate a process that shut women not to room. so i am going to and at that point and we can have a good conversation. yes, please stand. [inaudible] >> we need mics. there you go. jump ahead here. >> i work for a women's international league for peace and freedom and cynthia has been a long-time member and influencer of our work. for almost 98 years old of a women's peace organization that was started of women that came together to add world war i. you might know jane addams and our comrade, but it has

continued in the work continues not only at an international level, but a local level. our colleagues in congo, for example, i was thinking of them when you were speaking, cynthia, because they always say where we was talking about sexual island, but when i come to the u.s., nobody satisfies the u.s. government continuing to sell arms in the eastern drc. these are critical to 1325 and why our organization was one of the key organizations that pushed for a feminist resolution. a revolution of the antiwar, not the phrase making were safe or women and it becomes a key tool for colleagues working in the middle of conflict situations, whether in palestine with the drc and the u. s., at the race are using 1325 to say this is not about instruments wising

women in foreign policy. it's not about saving women in afghanistan. it's about looking on around policies in terms to thinking about how does the u.s. itself militarize their own security? lessees 1325 to redefine security. cynthia has influenced so much our work and how we organize and advocate for 1325 to be a holistic tool. so many things came to my mind because whenever court challenges is talking about disarmament, cynthia appeared this is something that often gets left off the agenda homer so grateful to you incorporating it into your work is how we can ask questions about arms and feminism in the same paragraph because in the u.n., that's a difficult thing to do and become so critical that we prayed these silences and that's why civil society working with academia and member states really can show the way forward and this is

one of the motivations for this series. we have about 30 minutes and we want to open the floor for interaction with you all. we just want to remind everyone that we are using a microphone because of the video and please introduce yourself before your remarks. >> i would like to first about thank you very much for the presentation. [inaudible] but i wanted to ask you specific the congo where is the role of religion? worries the role of religion can

turn into role of women in society, the standing of women and public officials and how do you square that connection with regard to a generational issue? i would like to help to clarify something although i haven't been -- and this just in a meeting. the meeting took place the majority of the time amongst the various groups in syria and the facilitating states really kept outside. i am painfully aware of the point you raised in an addition if i can say comes through much

am i. but i have to be honest, in a situation where we have continuing destruction and we are running neck and a time factor, and even discerning the change of the winter coming into syria. do you grasp any straw you can get to bring about peace. but it can, that does not excuse that there are not more women involved. so my question concerns the role of women and religion. >> rate, thank you very much. a second one and then i'll try. >> thoughts or stories. >> on the second year at the woodrow wilson school, one of

the sunny women's studies majors in mentioned earlier. >> start finance majors. >> there is a lot of attention on the large number of racist female soldiers in the military. there's a very interesting case of gender and military collating ideals. just wanted your thoughts on why attention is placed on this issue now on what has happened. >> i'd be happy to talk about those. let me talk about the little i know. i'm definitely not an expert on religion and how to think about religion gender analysis, women and security. and that is not every religion is monolithic, but every expression of religion is

usually woven through with ideas about what a good woman has and but the good woman should be. and then you watch women in any religion try to navigate that. for a lot of women, even though religious organizations are selling it last our highly picture of and that's virtually tour about religion in the world, prominent religion in the rotation site, establish religion in the world. that doesn't mean for a lot of women that their religious participation and whatever is their local church, synagogue or temple or a doesn't give them a sense of security and often times, really than male leadership of those organizations are perfectly

aware that women's sense of security coming from a particular faith in the process of the faith is one other thing sustaining the the religious organization. it has put many religious organizations in conflict with each other because on the one hand, they absolutely depend on women as participants. who turns out that the temple, who turns out that the church, who turns up at the synagogue? at the same time as religious organization has been loads to allow women to wield influence in that religious organization. if you listen to indian feminists talk about nationalism , you will hear a lot of these concerns. if you listen to african american women talk about churches in the united states, you'll hear concerns. you will hear concerns from sisters in islam, a really

wonderful group in malaysia talking how to reinterpret the koran so women's integrity is more full-fledged. so it's not really an answer to your question, but it does mean we have a much bigger agenda that if we take religion seriously is to watch a women engage with religion, both state and has organized process and what kind of gender analysis, what the gender analysis show you about the part is of a particular religion in particular places. i know from a serbian feminist friends that there is an enormous alarm now in the reassertion of the serbian orthodox christian church in serbian political life. there is also a lot of of armed

amongst russian feminists about the closeness of the putin government to the russian orthodox church now. so you have to watch over time. you have to listen seriously to feminists in any country before you make a function. you have to be curious about how women live their religious lives or nonreligious lives and you have to take seriously gender dynamics within a religious organization. the extent to which any church legitimizes militarism is always the question to ask, always a question to ask. there will be debates of that religious tradition about there will be debates of that religious tradition about relationship of that religion on a tourism. so listen to debates as well. your comment reminded us of the

importance -- the importance of asking questions about the u.s. military's own internal sexual assault history is crucial at this point. he talked about why is it only now an issue? the women i know who are lawyers and social workers for the most part, who tried to create a support network so women who stayed silent inside the military. i do often if you had experience inside military, the military is barred very, very highly hierarchical and most reporting about anything about racism or sexism or assaults must go through what is called the chain of command, which is really deadening on any sense of empowerment or protect goodness

when you're making a complaint, especially one against a fellow soldier and sometimes it is the commanding officer who is the perpetrator. so there has been enough for her to try and make this into an issue now for at least eight years. what is interesting is to watch how hard it has been to make the sexual assault of american soldiers and american female soldiers and issue. i'll try not to do politics 101 here, but we use the term issue a lot now, but we should be reminded it's a very particular thing. it has taken a phenomenon in making a problematic. so today, this is not to embarrass anybody to match. today -- maybe it is here --

it's not too problematic to have brought a plastic water bottle to this event. but there a lot of people were trying to make us embarrassed about this, aren't there? using all this plastic carrier groundwater. so what is hard to make something people take for granted into something problematic. the second thing about something becoming an issue as it has to be not only problematic, it has to be accepted as some thing that requires a public solution. people might think certain things are problematic, but they don't want to make some and that's a public responsibility to solve. making male soldiers sexual assault female soldiers in the u.s. military in every language is the equivalent of voice will be boys.

so to say that it's not just from all, not just natural, not just inevitable, it is problematic. then the thing is to get it to the level where it's not just some pain that every woman should do with yourself. and that's the usual response that most commanders give most women who come to them, saying i was just assaulted in the barracks are at the latrine. that has been very hard to do to get it to be a public issue. it's true some members of the u.s. congress have been persuaded now that it is a public issue and that's what's new. so you have to get both those things in place. it's taken about eight years. people don't want to hear it. if you think the main people who should hold the flag at their local high school football game

should be members of the military are members of the junior rotc, that makes it really hard for questions about sexual assault of soldiers has soldiers. there's resistance in american culture for c. not all men by any means, but any man wearing the country's uniform being sexual perpetrators. it's really hard. the fact we've gotten this far has a lot to do with the organized the employment did this have been doing and how they have very sadly tried to find members of congress who will take it seriously. that is taken a lot of time. the film you've heard about, but it's worth watching as the invisible water and is on dvd now. they came out about two years ago. it does shows you how women

themselves have experienced sexual assault, but also talks about the thing we know shapes postwar and that is silent. why is that women feel it is so much a part of their minimal security not to talk about what happened and time and again, you have found the pentagon unwilling to change the chain of command so complaints can be made. one of the things lampkin nana has done a secretary defenses persuade her to be there watching invisible warrior, which is made that the base and he has for the first time ever said that a woman making a complaint of sexual assault does not have to go to her immediate superior in her unit. that might open the floodgates to a reality check, but it is likely to mean more women will

feel somewhat less insecure about making the charges. also there are very, very few convictions and women in military know this. significant okay, the main thing is get out. the main thing is not randomized. get it out and put it behind me. any other thoughts? yeah, hi. >> allison, an mp at the woodrow wilson center here. i have come here from a few years of work on development, primarily in countries where women are just not participating in the public sphere at all. so first in the coming of this work, i think i have two different sermons engaging. i come back from a very value that a professor country and perspective being a woman, so it's hard to engage in the first

phase of secondly i'm not sure about the role international development should or can play to change those dynamics. so it shouldn't necessarily be imposed from the outside. if we move beyond those two major dilemmas. my question for you i think is how can international development actually kickstart the role of women in the public sphere in some of these countries? thinking about afghanistan and jordan, beyond the token participation or whatever when they've traditionally been marginalized and not have any meaning overall in society? >> that's a big question. one of the good news things they've than i think a lot by people who do this thing called international development work now actually asked that question. you know this.

it's such a big step when people ask the question they never thought they used to have to ask you that doesn't sound like a big breakthrough, but it's actually a huge breakthrough. i think a lot of people and doing development work now -- there are a lot by people that are what i would call feminists informed. that is; so say feminists, might not. but baghdad any day mean they not only ask gender questions, questions about masculinity, femininity. they ask about power and that is for me what it means going beyond gender analysis to feminist analysis is he not only ask about masculinity of plants evidence that play, you ask what it does to power, the possession of it, wielding of it. and a lot of development work, it used to be that nobody asked questions about power.

he worked with a lot of people who seldom asked questions about power, but there's a lot by people asking questions. the other thing going on and you just mentioned jordan and afghanistan is that they are his women's organizing going on in countries where it may be the hardest working eyes and a vast international development work that i know of works with women's groups and does that mean that every women's group, you know, the angels. no american women's group is full of angels. but it does mean there is some authenticity they are consuming a collaboration rather than as you say, the end port model, which positions us as if we have no problems of sexual assault in our military. the problem with the import

model as it makes letter so we don't ask enough questions about how is a work and why only five or send about construction workers in the united states are women. so i think working with local groups is really crucial and learning from them. not just finding none and kicking it to legitimacy, but rather the sending and be educated by them to change the ways of operating. decaffeinated road is we can't see the end of the road in terms of this kind of work. hopefully more and more, women from outside affluent countries will be drivers of development. the drivers and farmers of international develop. but it means that within every ngo for agency to an

international development work, someone should do a gender analysis of the organized nation. where are the men in the organization? where are the women? who has influence in that organization? who could the technical expertise and that organization or my bottom line because i've been taught by a lot of people to do this work is who gets the landover? so the only way to do gender informed development work is to be gender curious about the group you are working with were in. not a total and fair, but i'm just on the train with you. [inaudible] >> great. >> i have been following the organization, the women's international league for 20 years. >> excellent. >> in chicago.

[inaudible] i immediately wanted to join the league. is there interest it because i'm coming from eastern europe and in the years when they didn't have the qualities, but now we do. i was very interested in that organization is so weak. and my point to your is that in the last 10 years, there is no progress because the baby boomers, the fighters, the activists after a certain age, rh lost ground. all these changes and that's my issue. i look at campuses. i even gave to choosing the president. there's no act to this in the

campuses and that the problem of these countries. so my question to you as you are a professor and an act to this, but what is concrete terms to stir up. maybe things will change, -- >> thank you very much. that's a very good week of. [inaudible] >> hi, i'm briand. i am an undergrad in my senior year at princeton and had the opportunity to intern, so it's very cool. >> that's how the new generation is being built. >> i wanted to bring up an organization that i thought was pertinent to both talking about the crisis in syria and additionally, kind of the idea of postwar transitional justice developed during wartime.

there's an organization called women under siege syria and its the women's media center and they are documenting -- >> say out and so we really hear it. >> its project of women's media center anna scott syrian women under siege. what they are doing is documenting instances of sexual and gender-based violence occurring in syria, specifically using crowd sourced elegy, so all of these are categorized by decree of assault and by location and also santan through anonymous e-mail, twitter feed, so really it's this tremendous harnessing of new technology to both give a voice to the victims in the sense that it began dealing with not just the idea that imitation, but the idea of an agency more survivors and also to provide an opportunity

for postwar transitional justice system of the first cases of systematic recent conflict, where it's documented in the moment. so i thought, it kind of brings up an interesting point of how can we use technology, how come you saw these resources we take for granted for march under discussion are gender is quite >> rhianna, that's wonderful and i speak to the first question because sometimes, you know, with each new generation, you find your own ways to be active and it may not be totally visible to a generation that isn't used to that kind of act is an. so a lot of the act of assembly are seeing in a few of the emerging generation of act this is invisible to people, for instance, who are familiar with crowd sourcing or twitter. one of the things to do is make

sure that is put out another media so people of other generations can see it. one of the things for people who aren't used to that technology this kind of open our eyes and look for other kinds of act as an rather than imagining act to this and i was most prevalent in our generation is the activism that is most effective for meaningful to this generation. thank you all very much. [applause] >> on behalf of the cosponsors, i want to sincerely thank cynthia for opening our eyes and opening the conversation here with a new group of women to this and feminist activist that can be both men and women. it started as also talking about the interconnection between

militarism, feminism, equality, development, technology and all the questions that have been raised have shown for the gap site or the need to continue working. this is really the start of the series where we want to open the conversation. cynthia, you've done that that and a wonderful and exciting way for us. it's good for us to get outside the u.n. bubble where we talk an acronym and to also ask about for a burn about asking questions. and that's what i'm going to take away from the lecture today. what are the questions we're asking? fire the important and who are we asking them to? i hope all of us can think about what is the gender analysis we're going to do? cynthia davis the challenge. we can take it in our own organizations, studies, thanksgiving dinner next week and really take forward some of

which you've heard today, whether it's joining of women's organization, reading cynthia's books are getting involved in that this and campaigned like the 16 days, which is happening the 25th of this month in the famous militarism, challenging militarism from the home to rid the world so you can take earning communities, tweet from your computers bircher and organization doing local activism in the u.s. i want to sincerely thank our partners and particularly cynthia again. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> hopkins could read the president smooths unlike anyone else. he came as close to anyone i'm gaining admittance into what robert sherwood called itself heavily forested interior. she, unlike mrs. roosevelt, she knew when to be still and the presence of the president, when to press him or when to back off until a joke. after he won the election, wendell wilkie, who he beat, with enough is. they remained friends. wilkie said to the president, why do you keep that man so close to you. batman being hopkins. wilkie did not like hot cans and

roosevelt set coming out, you may be in the south is sunday and you lenders can, but he asks for not need except to serve me. >> now discussion on the growing numbers of women serving in congress and the act. from "washington journal," this is about 40 minutes. >> joining us now, the president of emily's list. thank you for joining us. >> guest: thank you for being here. postreligious had elections. how did women fare? >> guest: this doesn't mandate. this is an election about an historic member of women sworn in to congress last week.

i'm filled with pride to see how these women walking in. this election was about women voters and women's issues, some of which i would've preferred not having debate about, but nevertheless, i really think as we move forward, we'll see more and more women stepping up to run. post out as a result, 20 senators, 81 representatives in 2013. there's a mandate, how does that work out her day-to-day workings and what issues do they bring specifically to women's issues? >> guest: to think about 20 women in the united states senate, we've never had 20 women in the united states senate. it is a great benchmark to hit. i'd like to see 50, so it got erased to go. what this means is we are adding diversity the debate and we believe at emily's list that when we have an equal number of women in at the decision-making table of our nation, and quite

frankly our corporate boardroom that will end up with policies best for communities. so these women are bringing different perspectives on issues, not just women's issues in health care, but economics, education, climate change, the environment. i think you see a lot of different opinions and thoughts and ideas of how to get sun and how we find compromise in the united states senate. >> host: how did that play out in the number of leadership roles in congress? >> guest: is a great place to be. we have a new number and then in the senate serving as chairs of committees. in fact, senator barbara mikulski is the first woman to serve as the chair of the powerful appropriations committee and how that would change dynamics of the committee will see in the years to come. dianne feinstein in charge of intelligence. barbara boxer, more and more.

patty murray goes through the list on budgets. and on the high side, we now have seven women ranking on major committees in the house. i should remind you that the house republicans a course in the majority have zero win in sharing any major committees. in fact, they are all white and cherry age or communities that have one women sharing a minor committee and that happens to be the administration committee. so we feel we are in a great place to have remaining top leadership positions. i think you'll see a lot of work from annalee's list in the next two years to get the majority back in the house and we will see these numbers of these committees rice to be chairs and an historic member in the house. >> host: what role did your organization play? >> guest: we been doing this now for 28 years. we are in it for the long haul and we start by training women, recruiting women.

they said women we've been working with for years, in fact decades. i'm so proud to say that senator tammy baldwin and macy carron l., emily's list has been working with those two women since the state legislature, preparing them to run for the house seat. we go and help gas their campaigns, help them with strategic banning. then we go to our huge network of women and men and ask for financial support and in the last two years, emily's list raised and spent over $50 million to help him like this historic member of women to congress. >> host: are gas transits until 9:15. 202-737-0001 for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans. send us a tweet as c-span wj and

send us an e-mail at c-span.org. what is the standard emily's list applies in deciding who they support? >> guest: amalie's mission is important. we ensure they are pro-choice and democrat. some of our democratic know cannot hurt to let that, but that's what we're trying to do. were trying to build a representative democracy. beyond that, we look at value village of a candidate. we work closely with women as they come up the ranks of running for office and we want to know that they've got the right staff to put their campaigns together, to move voters, both coalitions, when elections in gathering. we will help with the process, but they have to prove themselves to a membership before we say yes, this is an emily's list endorsed candidate. says some of our newest members of the house committee rescind

cinema in arizona, two young women -- three coming in under 40. they really did have to put together those campaigns. we support them. before we gave them the endorsement, they proved themselves and our proud to call them our candidates and not now be in congress a good long time. >> host: a viewer from twitter asked if they've ever supported a republican women. just do we have not. we support democratic women only as their mission for 28 years. when we started, we felt we needed to work within the party structure. keep in mind when they started, no democratic women had won a seat in the united states senate in her own right over in the history of this nation. until we got behind and supported barbara mikulski, who is our first campaign and helped her win her first senate campaign and that really started this moving and why you see

continued growth and a democratic women's leadership in the house and senate. we didn't get to 16 democratic women in the senate by letting it happen. we were card for 28 years to get there and i hope the republican women will do the same. i think it is not the right direction for the country to see less and less republican women. >> host: is a candidate gets her support, are they obligated to vote as far as issues are passionate about in your organization would support? >> guest: because our mission is to bring races, we are about changing the face of congress. we know that they're good pro-choice democratic women, but once they get in there, they are on their own. we are really about recruiting women, training women in getting them ready to run for election. and if an incumbent has the tax rates that, we get back behind

her, but we keep adding to the numbers because we really believe that congress looks more like this nation, we look at policies that are more progressive and stronger for communities. we need equal men and women in our job is to make sure we have women ready to run a campaign and get support to win. we let them govern after that. >> host: the website is emily's list.org. for those who don't understand the acronym, what is it? >> guest: is a good one. the truth is it's an acronym for early money is like yeast. it helps make the dough rise. >> host: then, independent line, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, c-span. her i women in congress limited to popular ideas for his innovative influence to encourage such as ideas, maybe

pertained to replacing laborers with artificial intelligence might mechanical engineering and kind of like producing more, since like that. my wife has ideas that. i wonder which her stances on women's ideas. >> guest: wide open. and what we tried to do at emily's list is by adding more diverse places them in this case, women's voices to the debate, we believe go get a whole series of new ideas on a whole variety of issues, with its technology, environment, education, community building. even national security. a great story senator gillibrand tells when she was on the house armed service in the senate, she and gabby jeffords would conmen and the pentagon to talk about military readiness. they would ask questions about things like mental health, how

the troops are prepared. but are we doing for families when they are away? these for new questions to the debate. they are important questions. they are not better or worse, but additional concerns brought in by the perspective of women and that's what we're talking about here and how will change the future by adding these perspectives to the dialogue. >> host: groups on the democratic line. >> caller: good morning, c-span. this is returned temple hills, maryland. i would like to ask our guest this morning but they're not emily's list is doing anything to support women of color. right now the senate has zero women of color and i would like to know whether or not they are promoting our soup ordain women of color. >> guest: you bet we are. we have so much to do on this

front and the united states senate. women and men, but we are proud to have supported the first asian-american women in the united states senate, may see her rondo from hawaii, a great addition to the senate. the house is actually where we've had more success. we have factious proudly supported joyce beatty, the new african-american congresswoman from ohio. she's fantastic. we also won the hispanic rent supported women including mcgrady macleod in california, but our work is far from done and we are looking to expand our training programs in all communities because representative democracy is about having an equal number of women and men commit though we are there for the number, but about earning people of color to the table and we are very much committed to doing so.

thank you for the question. post-o.j. commentary,, oklahoma. republican line. >> caller: >> caller: the problem we have had a lot of people simply ignore or don't want to recognize is that any time we have a minority or a woman put into office, including congress, if a republican, they are always in the case of minorities, particularly black americans, if a republican is for an office, they're not allowed in the black caucus. they won't accept them. i don't understand why we can't wake up and see that it's not right, not ethical for this country to simply stand by and watch one-party and the other accused him of not having minorities are black and

congress. i would hope that maybe airgas might address that. i'd also like her to explain why, when you see that this is a problem, and that you won't stand by republican minorities and women in congress. thank you very much. >> host: we talk a lot about the need for increased the numbers of women and we are well aware that to get to 50% of congress, which is what i like to say because we are 50% of the population, to get to 50%, we need more republican women. as i said earlier, one of the reasons we chose to work in the democratic party is we felt we really needed to make inroads. we've done that over 28 years. even in the democratic caucuses, we are still looking at 25, 30, 35%. so women are not 50%.

we have our work to do. but i am concerned about how many republican women, to talk specific about them in, there aren't the retirement of olympia snowe is upsetting because she was such a creep voice for compromise and discussion and we as an organization wouldn't have supported her because of what the organization stands for. we are supportive of seamer women stepping up in running. one of the challenges is when we saw more women in the republican primaries in 2010, and we did see a larger number of women, they really struggle to get through primaries because what is often happen now is a lot of republican women are more moderate and not conservative enough to get through primaries. it is something the republican party i so strongly has to

address and think about how they reach out to women and get burned it to run. it's really important for democracy. >> host: flushing new york, independent line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. recently helped campaign for elizabeth crowley and her failed bid for congress and at the time i raised a question, why would she want to go to this congress that outgoing our neighbor congresswoman carolyn mccarthy , who said she was resigning from congress because of the dysfunctional as some, the bipartisanship and on c-span, doug shown in his book reported on c-span hopelessly divided. this is a congress bought out and sold the lobbyists. you are basing this emily stands for early monday. this perception is 97% of the american people disapprove of their congress.

they loathe and despise these people. i appreciate your dcs and then i hate to, but how are you going to be different? >> guest: it is such a challenge. when olympia snowe left the senate, it was under the same statement that it is just so fun dysfunctional. we have to continue to believe that as we change both these bodies to look more like the contrary, they have to sit down and work things out. i think when you have two many of any one group, you end up with the same kind of thinking and that has to change. look at the fiscal cliff. i mean, there isn't an american who didn't know that we were going to increase taxes on the wealthy. maybe the number was negotiable. maybe 400,000 or 250,000 or 500,000. i visit my family over christmas and everybody knew where we were

going to end up and yet they took it to the brain. and particularly, speaker boehner was more interested in patting his chest and sitting down and getting the deal done but most americans knew where we were going to land. i have to believe when we have more women and people of color this debate, folks who are more tied to their local communities they were going to get compromise and decisions to move this country forward. we have to add this divide in the house and senate. but we've got to do it by working together and not continually running against each other. campaign for campaigns. you've got to win or lose. but when we get to the halls of congress can work that govern. >> host: with the topic of president obama, the sign for bloomberg news. by selecting three-way bass at the highest profile vacancies, mr. obama has invited criticism

is making diversity a priority. but she joined the criticism? >> guest: absolutely not. this is a president who has been a leader on bringing in women and people of color in the administration. this is the first president who has gotten to women of the united states supreme court. that is a generational change for that quarter. he has an incredible cabinet. janet napolitano is still sitting for secretary of homeland security, cat its affiliates at health and human services. i think you'll see additional women and people of color come into this administration. and let's keep in mind, he did talk about putting susan rice as secretary of state. i find this criticism unfair. he's finding the best people for the job and best hopes he can

get through the united states senate. c-span: those of us in a circle, to? >> guest: we work directly with women because for women's organization and i see more and more of that. this president has been incredibly strong on bringing people in the process, both women and people of color. he's also worked on policies on that front. this is a man who said he will sign act first. this is someone who really does lead by action will continue cns. this happens to be three appointments incredibly important. all three will be good strong folks, but at the end of the day, you'll see other people coming into administration, just as you have to last for years. >> host: minneapolis, minnesota. sharon schriock at emily's list. >> caller: good morning.

you just talked about some of the issues i have and because there is. will the women in congress look forward to helping some of the minorities that have worked in housekeeping, babysitting, you know, where some of these people that hire them are not trying to pay them the right amount of salaries. i have a sister that is 85 that right now she would be getting more social security when she worked for housekeeping back in the old days if she didn't draw social security, they pay into her. when she went back to get the money from the children still alive, they said no way. no way will they go back and research how much time she spends working as a housekeeper for their family. so i just want to know your opinion. and a utah devout the lilly

ledbetter act and i hope congress will look into making sure women are paid to write calories. thank you. >> guest: thank you so much for that comment in the struggle of so many women across the country are having. emily's list throughout last election did a series of research to really kind of understand where independent women voters were. so these are democrats or republicans. we saw over and over again equal pay, as one of the very most important issues facing women today. they made it clear they wanted candidates who were going to support equal pay legislation and we've had a republican party for the last two years who has stonewalled it, refuse to talk about it. in fact, said hookah back to you on that issue. this is a critical issue for

this nation. women are making 77 to the dollar. it's bad for women, children, families, our economy communities. we have to address this. when we look at women we help elect this year, we know it's a top priority at a number of senators leaning on it, how suffers as well. democrats want to take us on this here because it's critical. if we want to help move this economy, 51% of the population today: i pay will put more money in the system. we had to do this. >> host: by this older by two females as males are treated the same way, the losses to that. >> guest: that's an interesting point in the truth is for so long, women have been underpaid. across the board. if you look at teachers or nurses or business folks, women

are making 77 cents to the dollar. i don't want to see anyone discriminated again and that's not fair. as a group of people, 51% of the population is only making 77 cents with a dollar. we to address that. >> host: want us from florida, republican mind. >> caller: congratulations on getting a record number of women elected to congress this year. but i have a problem. you have all these women elected, they are progressive. we are coming up against the debt ceiling and i'm getting ready to rip up my voters fired if the debt ceiling is raised without comparable spending cut.

not spending as promised in the future sometimes down the road. the fiscal cliff was 41 to one. i will never vote again in this country if it comes up to that. >> guest: don't give up on voting. that's the one thing i beg you not to do because if so, so critical month of, the one thing we all have this so important. as i was talking about a little bit earlier, the debate over the first fiscal cliff, which is some thing the congress has set upon themselves. i think there's a really good ideas talked about early on, proposals by the president to really make significant cuts. i expect anyways both democrats and republicans are going to sit down and find answers for

economic situation. we have to do it. the good news they believe as we have new members. i'm proud to say we have new democratic women in these discussions. folks like elizabeth warren, tammy baldwin and 16 new members on the house side. >> host: who sought to watch as far as these discussions? casco senator patty murray and the budget committee will have a key role in this discussion. nancy pelosi continues on the house side of things. i think you hear some new voices. that's really important and the leadership is a two hearing but elizabeth warren, a first-term senator, has to say in her hearings with all of this. as i mentioned earlier, kiersten cinema, new congresswoman from phoenix, arizona, when she was growing up, but in such poverty

for her family visited and abandoned gas station for two years with no electric anything. by the way, she's an art or to use. this was in 60 years ago. this was 30 years ago. ..

>> caller: you're setting the tone by advancing the nation forward, and which is almost an incredibly arrogant thing to admit to i'll take your answer. >> guest: well, we are -- got to keep in mind where we've been and where we're going here. we have 20 women in the united states senate. we have 80 men. so we all have a very long was to go. only 16 democratic women in the senate and four republicans. we have a long, long way to go united states of america, i don't think it's changed all that month -- was 77th in the world in the percentage of women in elected office. now, we can't as an organization

take on the whole problem. we believe we need more women. our piece of the puzzle is to elect democratic women. pro choice, we don't have an issue with that -- most women we work with are pro choice, it's not an issue. so as an organization, when we started, women weren't running, and part of the problem today is not enough women are stepping up to run for office. part of what we dials not so much choose them and make it happen. we encourage women to step up and take this on, and we do not have enough women running for office in either party. >> host: why is that? >> guest: it's interesting. it's not something women naturally think of doing. maybe generations are changing and i see more and more of that.

there's a great study done by rutgers a couple years ago that asked the question of all these legislators, women and men, how many times did you need to be asked before you ran? a good question. and of the women, they had to be asked seven times. seven times they had to be asked before they'd say yes. and of the men, they didn't really have to be asked. decided, i'm going to run today. that's the difference between men and women. not good or bad. just a difference. the part of our job is encouragement. we're going to say, hey, you can do this. it's not impossible, and we've got an organization of support around you to take this step. it's still so new for so many women in the done there. >> host: massachusetts, richard is on our democrats line for our guest, good morning. >> caller: in morning, stephanie. stephanie, sheila bair.

head of the fdic, and the head of the commodities future trading, they won -- the bankers and wall streeters and subprime people that they were taking too many chances and too much risk. narl will you they weren't listened to. mostly white males. larry summers had a conversation with -- and insulted her. so there is a difference between men and women. you're much more averse to risk. you look at the bigger picture, women do they're more willing to compromise, and i think, steph niksch in the -- stephanie, in the business world, very few ceos, big corporations, very few women on the boards of directors of these corporations, so that's the grass ceiling that has not been broken yet. >> guest: i'm really glad you mentioned the corporate

boardrooms. there's been a number of research done, including at the harvard business review, but many other piece office research, about corporations, and when they get more women on their boards, three or more women on the boards, they actually see if their profit increase. we do reattempt shows you do better when you have a closer to equal number of women and men at the table. got only in government but in corporations. that just makes sense to me. that is just logical to me. people just think differently. not all women are the same and not all men are the same. we all know that women and men are different, and i think we need both views to get -- move things forward, both in corporations, law firm partnerships, and in government. now, part of what we need to do, particularly on the government side, is to think about what there are barriers for women to

move into these corporate roles or these law firms? do we have an education system that is supporting our women in this process? really when it comes down to it, a lot of it is, how are we supporting the family structure? that's what often it comes down to. this is a question for more and more men today. you think about men who are on the partner track and women on this mommy track. i have a lot of friends who are men who are in law firms who would like to go coach the kids' soccer games at night. we need to think about what the work environment looks like for families is in the country, and that will help equal a lot of this out. >> host: a story in psychology today about women running for an office. one analysis from the 2006 american -- researched found when it came to selecting a candidate for president, gender

matters more for women than men, and women are more likely to vote for a candidate because she is female and are also more likely to dismiss her because of that very same reason. >> guest: it's tough. it's interesting. we did some research this postelection. there's always been a sense of women will vote for women. will, women will vote for women if they really see that woman in a way she is accomplished, viable, and has the same belief system. it's more likely, women will vote for democrats first. there's an 18-point jennifer gap in the presidential election and went for president obama. we did some research and we asked this question. i thought this was an interesting turn of really thinking about the women voters. do you think it matters? does it matter we have women in there and why? we asked the question, we just elected a historic number of democratic women.

due think it's going to matter. and 60% of the women said, yes, and only 8% said, no, probably won't matter at all. that's a significant change. part of our job here at emily's list -- i would argue our job in government -- is to -- and politics is to say it really does matter, and women's leadership is important for our society. and that's part of what we're doing. >> host: republican line, leo go ahead, canton, georgia. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i just had a appoint and the fella from virginia stole my thunder and before him, another fella. but you keep presenting your position, and the position of your firm, as a women's organization. in actuality all it is is a democratic organization, and since the other guy stole my thunder i wanted to make that

point. i hope my friends and colleagues in the republican party are listening to how the democratic party and folks like yourself have done a fantastic job of packaging a little -- the little pieces of the voting bloc and appealing to certain people and basically saying, here's the only option that you really have. so i think you've done a wonderful job of presenting your case, and i hope that my republican brethren and sisters will all join together and create groups like yourselves, because -- >> guest: i want -- just wasn't point there. the packaging of little groups of we package nothing. we talk to independent women in this country. i love -- we talk about the coalition where the new democratic coalition of hispanics and youth and women. like women with special interest. women are 51% of the population.

the last tomorrow i checked that's the majority of the voteres, and actually women vote more than men anyway. so we're talking about a huge, huge majority of the population. now, granted, they're not all democrats and i realize that, but in our research on emily's list, what we have seen amongst independent women, the most independent women, we have seen two really interesting things. one of which is a really looking for candidates who understand their lives and who have the right priorities to move the country forward, and are very opposed to candidates who want to roll the clock back, particularly on our rights and freedoms when it comes to whether access to health care or economic rights -- i'll put those together in this situation. that's one of the reasons we did so well this year with women's -- electing women, is because not women went, i want

somebody who understands what i'm going through, who wants to move us forward. and that's a really big piece of the work we're doing here, and what the independent women do not want are candidates who are going to roll the clock backwards, and that's actually what the republican party needs to address. >> host: charlotte, north carolina, independent line. dell go ahead. >> caller: yes, hello, emily. my question to you is i'm an independent african-american male, and i am concerned because i am -- i understand the struggle and the plight of women. never been -- i have to deal with the backlash from the struggle of women trying to reach equality as people, regardless of gender. what concerns me i notice the more that women progress in the urban community, the more households that are broken up, the more men in prison, the more women that end up single parents, and i want to know what your opinion is as far as

offering a solution to, when these women are progressing, what can we do as a hole, as women and men to keep the families together long-term, despite ourplight. in order to come together. thank you very much and have a great day. >> guest: thank you. that's a very good question. something we're seeing changing over the last many decades when women entered the work force. i'm not going to pretend to have the answers to these questions, but i will say that the women who are stepping up to run for office, congresswoman beatty from ohio, have come out of this environment, out of an urban center in particular, to talk to the urban question, and we have our own different struggles on the rural parts of america. and to bring these experiences to the discussion, that's what we need to do. i don't think we're going to find the solution to the

questions the caller had until we get the people who are dealing with those struggles at the table, and that means more women, more african-americans, more hispanics, more men and women of color, that i really feel strongly we need more women in this discussion. we're still sitting at 20% of congress. 20%. we've got a long way to go. >> call are from virginia, the democrats line. >> caller: hi. my name is lola, and i was wondering how are we ever going to get equal pay when states like virginia have the right-to-work law and they can fire you for any reason? and then the company i work for, if you discuss how much you make to another employee, you can get fired. >> guest: you brought up a good point. at it about laws, and laws are made by elected officials, and so who is representing us at the

state legislature and in congress matter, we can change these laws. we can overturn right-to-work laws. we can pass equal pay laws. we need the right people who are going to support these kind of changes in our economic future and that's what we have to do moving forward. >> host: hillary clinton if she decides to run for president, what does she have to consider in your opinion? >> guest: in my opinion she has to decide to run. she would be fantastic. has been an incredible secretary of state. the democratic party, even in polling in a primary setting, has her already at 56 and the next person at 16. it's really up for her to make a decision, and it's a big decision, and i think she deserves all the time and space she needs to make it. if, though, she makes a decision not to take it on, because she has given so much of her life to public service already, and i'm sure she will continue one way or the other. i really do think it is time, it

is our time, to have a woman on the ticket in 2016, and i think we're going to see really great women stepping up and running in 16, 20, and 24. the bench is deep and it is growing. we have got senators right now and senator klobuchar, and a number of others i would consider today who could run. we have secretaries, kathleen sebelius, the governor of kansas. not an easy gig to get, andant napolitano, previously the governor of arizona, both of which could step up and run for president. that's before this next two years where we have 38 governorships up for election, re-election, and we're going to have a lot of women stepping up to run for these governorships. that's the bench for '16, '20, and '24. >> host: she says the president, emily's list.org, the web site of the organization. thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you.

my pleasure. >> tomorrow on washington journal, >> next on c-span2, a forum on the future of the guantanamo do tension facility. then the secretary of the air force talks about the state of that branch of the military. after that, discussion on the role of women in military conflicts. >> now guantanamo bay prison opponents criticize president obama for not vetoing a defense

bill that bars the transfer of detainees from the detention center. panelist describe the situation where dozens of prisoners have been cleared for release but cannot be moved because of bills passed by congress. the facility has now been open for 11 years. this an hour and a half. >> i'm the director of national security studies here. the 11th never -- 11th 11th anniversary of the opening of guantanamo. we have an exceptionally well-informed panel to talk about that. we had exactly the same group speaking in this room a year ago, and i asked andy worthington how many people have been released since the event a year ago, and of the -- the

answer is four. so, there's still 166 detainees at guantanamo. the question that's panel -- the big question, is the obama administration moving towards a policy of indisnet -- indefinite detension or have the already moved towards that. first up to speak will be colonel lawrence davis this he could prosecutorrer in the goon commission, and now teaches at recall and had a distinguished career in the u.s. military. to his right is andy worthington. andy weapon to new college oxford. and he has been at the forefront of really investigating who was at guantanamo. this is really a question that wasn't well answered.

the detainees didn't have lawyers and andy wrote a book called goon files" published in 2007 that laid out in a public sense who was at the prison and what their stories were. he also codirected a film about the guantanamo detainees, and we're happy to have him. he was come from the uk to mark the anniversary of the 11th 11th anniversary, and to his right is tom willner, a lead counsel in the case which established the right of habeas corpus at guantanamo, an incredibly important case and continues to be involved in representing detainees. so we'll standard with colonel mo davis. >> i start out by saying it's a pleasure to see you, but i hate to start off lying to you. a number of you, as i look

around the room, i saw you last year and the year before that and the year before that, and i keep hoping we'll meet here on one day, january 11th, to take an historical footback on an egrettable footnote in our nation's history rate rather than an ongoing chapter in our nation's history. i do appreciate your coming out this year. it's like ground hog day. we keep coming back here and replaying the same story over and over, and not much happens in between. but, thanks to peter and the new america foundation for having us, to andy for organizing these things every year, and staying focused on this issue, and a lot of other people fine it more convenient to focus on the kardashians or whatever catches our attention at the moment, and tom for his years of working

diligently to try to right this wrong. so, howard law school and that gives me optimism, sitting down with young people who are fired up. they're going to graduate and go out and change the world. i can remember when i was their age, thinking my generation would change the world if i grew up in the post-vietnam, post-watergate era, and my generation was going to be different and we were going to make a difference and make the world better, and here we are. so, gives me hope seeing this new generation coming up behind me, that has that same sense of apt optimism and determination to make a difference. it's easy to be's pessimistic, too, because we have raised a

generation that has only known a post-9/11 world, and what it's become is the new normal. i tried to explain to them that 20 years ago, somebody was feeling your groin at the airport, that wasn't called preboarding. it was a sexual assault. but it's become an everyday practice of life. things we just accept now. and you see how it's changed public perception. during the bush administration, polls showed that a majority of americans were opposed to torture. if you look at the polling now, a majority of americans are okay with torture. so, you have to stop and ask yourselves, what has happened? and why has this become the picture of america? i'm somewhat optimistic that if we go into the second term of the obama administration, perhaps there is some room for optimism on the national security front. i think there arlet of different

pieces that make up this puzzle, that portrays a bad picture of america, and guantanamo is one piece of the puzzle. there's the question of indefinite, the programs, the military program and the cia program, impugn any for -- impugnty for torture, and pieces in the puzzle that in my view fit together to present a bad picture of america. so i'm hopeful that in the second term the administration will pull those pieces apart and clean them up and put them back together to make a better picture. but an important piece of that is guantanamo. my concern with guantanamo, makes a nice bumper sticker, close guantanamo. but closing guantanamo in my

view, just creates a new guantanamo somewhere else unless you address the underlying issue of indefinite detention. i think some -- tom some some others are going to talk about is in detail, but last year on the mental anniversary there was a lot of media attention and press coverage about the tenth anniversary of guantanamo you. go on google news today you won't see it on there. that's an op ned "the new york times" who, when i was a chief prosecutor, jennifer bascom was benning my ear what an evil the guantanamo commissions were, who is now saying, oh, keep guantanamo open. so, it's been interesting over time watching this process evolve, and frustrating to see the public largely could care less about it. i think closing guantanamo this

right step to take but we also need to address the underlying issue, how we got guantanamo to begin with. you know what? now we have had this big debate about the fiscal cliff. i don't know a bigger fiscal waste than guantanamo. there was -- we spend $139 million a year operating the facility at guantanamo. there are 166 detainees at goon, so that's almost $850,000 per person per year at guantanamo. maximum security con finalment at a federal prison in the u.s. averages $30,000 a year. so we're spending 27 or 28 times more per person, per year, to keep people in guantanamo and maintain this blight on our reputation, than it would cost to detain them in the u.s. if you consider a majority of

the 166 people at guantanamo are people who have been cleared for transfer, yet the cia and the department of justice and the fbi and the department of defense have left that and concluded that we're not going to prosecutor them, we don't have evidence they committed an offense and we don't believe they present a significant risk, and we don't want to keep them. but they have been sitting here year after year are after year at guantanamo because of their citizenship, primarily yemeni, because we don't trust the yemeni government to be responsibility with the detainees, which is interesting because the had the cop sent of theem meni government to fly the drones. so it seems we're a bit hypocritical in our view of the yemen. and i think guantanamo remains a stain on our reputation. recently congress passed a bill

that prohibits granting visas to members of the russian government accused of human rights violations, and president obama signed it. in retaliation the russian government passed a bill that prevents americans from adopting russian children. and president president putin be signing it, had a news conference and was quite angry about the bill our government passed and he said, who is the united states to condemn us about human rights when they have guantanamo. so, it remains a blight on our reputation and one that we waste an awful lot of money and an awful lot of credibility to keep open. seems like at this point, 11 years into it, it's become more of a, by god we said we can do it and we're going to do it, whether it makes sense or not. so we have people over on the other side of the city that have made the decision that

guantanamo is going to remain open. probably seen congress has a 9% approval rating. there's a poll came out last week, where, in addition to saying 9% of the american public approves of congress, who created these barriers to closing guantanamo, also asked people to look at -- more favorable opinion of, congress or -- give them a number of choices, and congress ranked behind a root canal and head lice. so part of guantanamo if you recall when president bush sign the order in november of 2001 that authorized the detention of -- detainees and military commissions, was created -- has now been going on for about 11 years. we completed a grand total of six and a half trials in 11 years. i say a half because the last one was kahn, who has pled

guilty but hasn't been sentenced. his sentence was deferred until he is supposed to cooperate with the government, and in the couple years he has cooperate head will get back into court and get his sentence. i count him has a half. so six and a half trials in 11 years in this court system that has failed time and time and time again. another six and a half we have recently had the d.c. circuit, which has been in any opinion terrible on habeas, and effectively drove a stake through the heart of the decision from the supreme court. that same court which -- i guess it's why i don't bet because i wouldn't bet 50 cents 0 on hamdan winning but the ruling is support for terrorists is not an international law for offense. so of the six and a half convict, one has had his conviction overturned. so now we have five and a half convictions to our credit after

11 years of effort. if you followed the hamdan decision, there's another case -- abalu convicted of providing support and conspiracy. the department of the defense, brigadier general mark martins -- the fifth chief prosecutor, but he is -- the department of defense concluded material support and conspiracy are not legitimate international law offenses and they have declined to participate in the appeal and dropped the conspiracy charge against khallid shake mohammed the other detainees. so the department of justice insists on moving forward on the appeal that these are legitimate offenses. the government has two different points. but general martins did a podcast yesterday, if you follow that. and he -- why military

commissions are necessary. number one, there's no other option where to prosecute these guys, which is true because congress said you can't bring them to the -- you can't prosecute them in federal court. we created the obstacle that makes military commissions. we created our own justification. you say it's the best form in a small number of cases. but if you peel that back and look at why, it's because of the no rights advisement and abusive treatment in detention. if you peel it back, it's not about what they did to us. it's bat what we did to them that makes military commissions seem like an attractive option. and you can't have trained police out in the middle of an armed conflict, picking people up and doing rights advisements, which is true and that's a great argument and i think the public nods knowingly, makes sense, you can't have soldiers giving rights advisement, and i thought

they should prosecutor the military commission, every person apprehended by a soldier on the field. i can't think of any. so khallid sheikh mohammad, all arrested pakistanies. you hat nashri who was arrested in dubai, and -- who was arrested in somalia, so this notion we have to have a special forum because of the battlefield conditions is a great smokescreen for the second rate process that says more about us than it does about the people we're trying to bring before it. another important piece of the issue is the issue of torture. the senate select committee on intelligence completed their report and probably saw john mccain and dianne feinstein said, the report concludes

torture didn't work. and it's a stain on our reputation. i think it's important that the report be declassified and released to the public, particularly after the premiere of zero dark 30, which purports to be a factual representation of the finding and killing of osama bin laden. my fear is that it's going to do for torture what jaws did for sharks. going to become the public perception of reality, and it's a lie. it makes is doubly important for the senate's select committee report to be declassified so the public can have a debate placed on the truth and not this hollywood line. and it's ironic that, to this day -- john kerry on the 25th 25th of january is -- set to go to prison for revealing the name of someone alleged to have been involved in torture, so

talking about torture will get you sent to prison. committing torture makes you a hero. you've got jose rodriguez and all these people who have written books and they're heroes in the eyes of folks that believe that torture works, and they're walking free, and we're send somebody to prison for their words and nobody has gone to prison for their actions. and i mentioned the drone program is another area where it's a mistake to talk about a program when we have a military program that is governed by the laws of war. where you hear people talk about the drone strikes the proportionality and military necessary at the and distinction and all the rules that regulate the armed forces, and by following those rules, military personnel have combatant immunity. if you kill during con -- combat it's not murder.

you have immunity. and combatant damage is a core lay of that. you drop a on some guy and the people around them, as long as you applied the principles of the laws of war, then those deaths are collateral damage covered by combatant immunity. but the cia has a drone program and that's a civilian agency with civilian contractors. they're not part of the military, and the laws of war doesn't apply. they don't have combatant immunity and collateral damage doesn't apply, absent combatant immunity. so i'm not a sure where we get the authority to send civilians around the world to commit what i believe is murder. you finally have the kill list, where the president -- when president obama campaigned in '08, talked about how the bush policies were based on fear and we turned our back on our values and we were going to restore our reputation. but i don't recall president

bush having a kill list that gave him unilateral authority to decide an american needs to die without trial. so i think all those pieces of the puzzle i'm hopeful will get reexamined in a second term. if you're following ambassador stephens' body came back from benghazi and president obama met the plane at andrews air force base, he talked about the sacrifice they made and said we were not going to be deterred, america is always going to shine as a light to the world. and i think what we have been for the last year is -- the last ten years, we have been a warning light, not a guiding light. so i'm hoping in the second term we can turn that around and live up to the values we purport to represent. [applause] >> thank you, mo. and hello, everybody. it's great to be here and see you. i wish we were here to be

marking the closure of guantanamo. and four years ago when president obama came to office and issued that executive order that i'm sure we all remember, promising to close guantanamo within a year, that was absolutely the right thing to do. since then, the prisoners of guantanamo have been failed by the obama administration, by the united states congress, by the united states courts, by the majority of the main stream media in the united states and by the american people. that sadly is the truth. when you look at what that means, what does it mean for the people in guantanamo to be -- the most important fact we all need to be aware of on this day, and as mo eluded to, over half of the prescribers in guantanamo have been cleared for release from that prison by a very sober and responsible group of government officials and lawyers, from all the government departments in the intelligence agency in a report issued three

years ago. so these are decisions made maybe four years ago. as mo very well put it, these are not people needed to be held because they pose a security risk or because they have ongoing intelligence value to the united states, and yet they have not knot been released. the united states went through a very high level process of saying to these men we don't want to hold you anymore, and then didn't release them. now, in half of these cases these men were previously cleared for release by military review board under the bush administration. in some cases -- you've may not know this -- some cases these men were cleared as long ago as 2004. and yet they continue to be held. some of them were cleared in 2006. some of them in 2007 by these military -- in september, one man who was first told in 2004 he was going to be released, and i've seen the paperwork from the united states government that

recommended him for release in dem 2006, and the very latest -- at guantanamo under circumstances described as him committing suicide but it may be along about it was six years after he was told he would be leaving and he was still there he was one of the yemenies who was not allowed to be released because the united states government said all yemenies are terrorist threats, even those cleared to be released. the point i want to make to everyone in this room, and everyone who i hope is going to be able to watch this or is watching this,er is that just become that what it means to be the government of the united states and to clear people for release from guantanamo and then not to release them and compare that to some dreadful totalitarian regime that puts people in prison and throws away the key and says, that's the end of it. you're going to rot here for the

rest of your life. that is more honest than doing that than saying, we had a review process and we said we're going release you, but now we're not actually going release you. that's more cruel than a dictatorship, and until those men are released, that will be the situation. now, this apparently is not a great source of shame to many people and i don't understand why that it is. if we were honestly saying, we're just going to indefinitely detain these guys and that's the end of the story, it would be a different matter. would be attacking this from a different point oft view. so wore mobilizing people to be outraged that men are still being held that that government said should be released. we know one of the stumbling blocks is congress, and it's absolutely career that congress has been a major stumbling block in the president being able to do anything. congress has imposed own onerous

restrictions on the release of prisoners. and refusing to allow prisoners to be released to countries they regard as dangerous, which is pretty much everywhere on earth, refusing to allow prisoners to be released to any country that single prison has engaged in recidivism, returning to the battlefield, which is part of the black -- prop began dark records continue to emerge to claim that a significant number of prisoners have returned to the -- and the americas foundation have done a lot of research over the years to debunk these claims. i think if you did a google search you would find one in four or one in five prisoners from guantanamo have returned to the battlefield and actively engaged in terrorist activities which i a wild exaggeration and black prop began dark produced by people whose intention is to

keep guantanamo open, people who not only like the fact that guantanamo is a place of indefinite detention, whether they want that to carry on. there are many people with -- those who would like to add new people. they like the idea of holding people without any pocket of release for the rest of their life. so it's a terrible situation we're insuring but if we are to believe that the president of the united states is somehow powerless, i think we're rather underestimating the role of the commander-in-chief. there are ways in which president obama can at least argue with congress. we haven't had an argument of the necessity for closing guantanamo. and not just on the long-standing basis it is damaging abroad to be having a place like this, and continues to be damaging, but it's so deeply insulting to the values

americans hold and we need to persuade president obama it's not enough for him to not to be revisiting his promise and trying to fulfill it, bought it's proved to be politically difficult. it's his second term. the wisdom in the united states is that you don't let somebody have more than two terms as president, and the united kingdom -- we run into trouble win we have let prime ministers have a third term. they were all barking nadal by the end of -- barking mad by the end of two if they're not already. but president obama as an eye on his legacy. he has an eye on his legacy. he knows what happens in the second term will decide how he is viewed by history, and these guys -- all of these people in important positions want the history books to record they were good people. bush, cheney and rumsfeld still want the history books to say a terrible thing happened and these people took a robust

approach to take care of things and with the help of people like katherine bigelow they are saying that it was necessary. president obama knows that he will be judged on what happens over the next four years, and i really don't think, fundamentally, he wants to be known as the man who promised to close guantanamo but then didn't do it because it was politically inconvenient. that, i would say, very clearly, is what the history books are going to say. so there are people within the administration who know that this indefinite detension program is more a legacy of the bush administration than something they constructed themselves. this is not say the administration's hands are clean. as mo was explaining, this is an administration that prefers to kill people drones rather than

deal with the mess the bush administration created. but it's something he completely owns now. so whatever ways we can we need to reach out to the administration and say, this is a difficult issue, but it's not something we can't all deal with. we have to, first of all, be saying in whatever way we're doing it in our conversations, with our friends and family and people we meet and whatever way we can campaign, those who write things to keep saying, this is not a position that the united states can be in. that 11 years after the dreadful torture and indefinite detention opened, we are still in the position -- we're in the worst of it -- where all three branches of the united states government failed and we are holding people we said we wanted to released. we're holding men we said we wanted to release eight years ago, six years ago, five years ago, three years ago. we have to release these people.

and one of the issues that is talked about, the yemenize, and the problem that because of this man who tried to blow up a bomb in his underwear in 2009, from that moment on there was a ban of releasing the cleared yemenis in guantanamo, as if all yemenis are terrorist suspects. so you clear them but say, i still regard them as a threat. please make your mind up. the issue is that these are not significant people. it's been too easy, as a result of saying we can't release them because they're all dangerous, even though we cleared them -- to ramp up the significance we have had to exaggerate forever. these are not significant people in any manner. otherwise they would never have been cleared for release by the task force. so need to focus on that issue.

on the fact we said to these yemeni men you can go home and then said, hang on you can't, because you're from yemen, and all people from yemen are dangerous. that's a horrible message to send out to the people of yemen and it's completely unjust for these men. the other issue is there are about 30 prisoners from countries, mostly from countries whether it's not safe for them to be returned because their government would treat them at least as badly as the united states is treating them, or worse. there are still a few prisoners in guantanamo we just -- the muslims from chinese, opressed from the chinese government. there are syrians in guantanamo what he been cleared for release, tunisians who have been cleared for release. i don't understand it. they were all problems of the dictator who has been deposed. so that's one issue that needs

to be looked at, why specific people are still being held. the one that many of us have been campaigning on for many, many years, is shaka alimony, -- allmann, and the united states government says they want to release him. he is on the list of prisoners suggested for release. the first time the united states government publicly said, the names and identities of these prisoner and he is on that list. so we have it prepared the united states government doesn't want to hold him. we have from the british government the statement over the years they want him back to be reunited with his british wife and four british children and yet he is still held. those of us who have been studying this case it's because he knows too much. he is a very eloquent man, has

always fought for right office prisoners and knows the dark corners and maybe he knows stories none of us have heard. he will be an embarrassment if released. he is part of the whole situation we we reached the point of -- he is a good example of how neither government actually wants him to be released because it will be embarrassing. but nobody cares of it's the reason that president obama has been able to just blame congress, because people don't care anymore. so the only message i can leave you with is to return, yet again to how i started, is it acceptable? is it at all acceptable? that you clear people for release and then don't release them and do that for 11 years, and we-push on that one and make that perhaps our biggest message

we need to give to the administration congress, and maybe when we meet in a year's time we will at least have had in progress. thank you. [applause] >> i'm going to stand up and talk here because it makes me feel taller and i can see more people. i have had, again no idea what i was going to say when i came here so i had to be inspired by mo and andy, and they did. coming again, thought, oh, god, we come again and nothing happened. so depressing. but i've got to tell you, i'm actually now -- i realize this is an opportunity, because guantanamo is off the map. used to be the day when we first took this on where we could do interviews and people would listen to it. now you can't even get a story in the newspaper about guantanamo. so in a way this is an opportunity to talk about it again, and i see c-span is here so let me say something. and it's really going to be what

you all said, but maybe in my own context. i think it should be clear to everyone, not only people in this room but people around the country, that guantanamo is wrong it was an excuse to escape the law. the theory of the bush administration you can take for north america -- have foreigns outside american territory you don't have to give them n any legal right. and that's an offensive concept you can escape the law by putting people in guantanamo. the government still argues that for most rights, except the right to habeas corpus and that has been gutted by the d.c. circuit, the most conservative circuit. and their interpretation would have allowed people in nazi germany to hold people in concentrate camps because they say any evidence presented by the government must be accepted.

it's absurd. guantanamo is fundamentally wrong for the reasons, and of the 160 people this 86 have been cleared for release by an task fort of the most conservative security experts who were saying we're holding people we shouldn't hold. and that's crazy. and we say we shouldn't hold them because it's leslie inconstant vent to let them go? it's just wrong. absolutely wrong. guantanamo is. secondly, what mo said, over christmas i was away and i happened to be at a dinner, and a young girl was there, it was her 13th birthday, and he mother introduced her and said, tom was the lead warrior on the guantanamo case before the supreme court, and she said at a friend's school in new york, what's guantanamo? she didn't know what guantanamo was, and i -- of course i was hurt she didn't know who i was, but it was more important that it had become the new normal.

that guantanamo was not something on her radar screen. she knew about gun violence. she knew about trafficking of women. she knew about other issues. she even knew some things about the fiscal cliff and the economy but didn't know about guantanamo. it disappeared. and i'm not going to say anything really much more relevant. we can answer questions, but when you have something -- people said guantanamo continues to hurt is around the world. i asked peter, is it still an issue in the middle east? still an issue that makes people in the great sort of debate after the arab spring between muslim moderates and extremists, that makes a difference in that? that influences people in the way they think about the united states, and, sure, it is. it's still on the list of reasons that people become extremists, the reasons that a

recruiting tool for terrorism. it hurts us that way, and it just is not us. trafficking, we want to fight trafficking. it's a terrible thing. but that not u.s. policy. this is u.s. policy. this defines who we are. it's a sustain -- sustain -- stann on our reputation. i want to finish what if andy same don't know how many people heave hear world the movie lincoln. and it's the story how abraham lincoln pushed through an amendment through the constitution to free the slaves, and when you look at it, that wasn't something -- there were a lot of other issues around, that he could have avoided that issue to bring the states back together, for economic reasons, to stop killing, to end the war. lots of other issues and people

are saying, why does this issue matter? and he forced it through. a moral issue of defining what the country was going to be, what it was about. there are lots of inconveniences we can talk about yemen or other things, to closing guantanamo. political inconveniences, some opposition from right wing republicans but these are things that can be dub, that can be worked if the president has a commitment to close guantanamo. there's been nobody to find in the white house since greg left four years ago to close guantanamo, which is a priority. looking at c-span and going -- mr. president, this is your legacy. if you don't close it, it will be on your historic watch that it wasn't closed. you've got to take charge of this and you've got get this place closed. that's it. [applause]

>> thank you all for your very, very persuasive and interesting presentations. before we open it up to q & a with the audience, wanted to ask you some questions. i wanted to begin on a personal note in a sense, this has been very much part of your lives, and starting with colonel davis and then andy and then tom willner. what prompted you, sir, to -- you were the chief military prosecutor. why are you sort of -- why have you moved to the position you now hold, having that position in 2007, and andy, how did you get involved in this issue, given the fact you are a journalist doing many other things before this, and similarly tom wilmer, now were managing partner in a leading firm in washington. this is by no means a popular cause with your fellow partners, that's my intuition, and why

didout get into it, and if you can give us a sense of the timing. >> my first involvement was back in 2005 when i became the chief prosecutor, and i came into the job that summer, believing what i think most of the public did. i was told by my government these men were the worst of the worst, and the kind of people that would shoot the high drawlic lines on airplanes just to kill americans. believed that and then i got there and looked into these cases and there are -- some of the other people at guantanamo really are the worst of the worst. but for every one of those, there were some factor of others -- 779 people detained at guantanamo we were told were the worst of the worst. once you get rid of the 80 some we want to get rid of now -- as you look back, the ones that the government intends to

prosecutor, it's 30 people total out of 779. so it's less than 5% of the people who we were told were the worth of the worst, that we even feel we can start -- charge with a crime. during my tenure, i felt that the government was really committed to trying to have a fair process in the military commissions that -- i think the country has this romanticized notion or neuralberg, which i think nuremberg was a significant accomplish independent its time but time marched responsible the law has progressed, and i had hoped what we did at guantanamo, the military commissions-that our grandkids would look back on it the way we look back on nuremberg, having been an achievement and not a debt trip. towards the end of my tenure there were some new officials placed above me in the chain hoff command that maymy policy had been we wouldn't use any evidence obtained by torture oren hanesed interrogation

techniques and then i had people appointed over me that said the president said we don't torture so all this evidence you're not using, get it out and take it in there and get these guys convicted and get this show on the road. when i joined the military -- i believe very strongly in our country and our constitution and our principles and our values. if president obama, when he acceptedded the nobel peace prize, said, it's doing the right thing not when it's easy, but when it's hard, that makes us who we claim that we are. and i think for the last ten or 11 years, what's been the land of the free and the home of the brave. we have been the constrained and the cowardly, because we have been living in fear and letting the government run roughshod over us, basically take our accomplish just give us some security and we'll tolerate whatever. so my commitment when i joined the military, i wanted to defend the country and maintain our

values and our principles, and i think that the state that we've been in for the last -- post-9/11 era is contrary to what america is all about. we -- what made us different was our belief in the law, and we chose guantanamo because we thought it was outside the law. and created these processes in order to avowed -- avoid the law. so it's certainly not -- i've gotten fired from jobs and ostracized and -- certainly is not a career path i recommend to my law students. but at the end of the day you got to believe in something. you got be willing to stand up for it. the public i largely tuned out on these issues, and i'm going to try to make it as uncomfortable as i can for them by continuing to remind them.

i appreciate opportunities like this and appreciate people that are interested enough to come out on kind of a dreary friday, and listen, and i hope you'll go back and talk to your friends and neighbors and we maybe can reverse course on what we've done the last 11 years. [applause] ...

i didn't have that in the beginning. but it's not a damaging message is that the conservative daily mail in britain was calling it torture in the very beginning. in britain, within the last as time went on a small amounts of information came out until the supreme court rules. it was totally closed. the bush administration could did do anything they wanted there. no price was delivered. the british prisoners as they were released, particular comes up eloquently about what is happening to them and i got more and more interested and i really began full-time working on about seven years ago. but what motivated me was partly

that it was the united states had such a prominent place in the world and was fairly open-minded declaring to the world the existence, even though they didn't want anyone to know about how her and he was holiday. but they were doing there is so fundamentally the that it needed to be, to. i haven't changed her mind about that. if you deprive people of their liberty enclave nature in a civilized country, there only with to these we can do that. you accuse somebody of being a criminal. within a short time, you put them on trial and then they are sentenced to prison. the other right to deprive people as you captured them in military and imprison them unmolested with the geneva convention until the end of hostility. none of this happened.

the men were the really hot without rights for two and a half years until the supreme court said these men have no redress. they have to have the right to do this and this is the method that it should be. the other thing that happened is between the seventh of february 2002, when bush claims the geneva convention didn't apply. until june 2006, when hamdoon versus rumsfeld said in a person or your holding has the minimum protection of article iii of the geneva convention, which guarantees you cannot be tortured or abused. between us today, the united states is happily torture people because they claimed they did every. so the very, very fundamental issues that journey into this

and keep me involved. along the way, what happened was that i have been to the employees and i have the ability to be there been a huge amount of information was released for freedom of information laws is in 2006 and the names and nationalities of the prisoners for the first time i met up these pages of the allegation and transcript of tribunal set to please began this process of finding out who these prisoners were then told their stories and started to tell the world what i discovered in the research that these guys were not the worst of the worst, but you're analyzing where and when they were captured him what was going on that most of them came to guantánamo, methane was done about them, almost nothing was known about them. i've come to realize more and

more in this story gets worse the more research a few, that they knew nothing about these people and had to put up a story and they did this whether through torture or breaking prisoners, pushing people until they said i can't take it all. what do you want to hear? up to you a story. the evidence against the prisoners is mostly statement made by fellow prisoners, either in guantánamo. most of it are allegations made that quite a small number of prisoners and when you're subjected to any analysis whatsoever, any object gave, it falls apart. the whole thing is a house of cards built on these false statements come extracted in

most cases in some cases by parading prisoners. the whole thing is hollow on discussing. that's why i got involved. i plan still you're trying to push these issues because everywhere you look at the story, the kind of injustice taken place is horrible and it's not an indictment of the american people, that indictment of the american people of the crime still going on continue to happen because this is the conscience of the nation at play here. a small number of people. it should matter how people are treated individual. it's not just these individuals at one time. the principles at stake here and we've been in a very, very troubling please for 11 years and this does become the new normal in god for bid in four years president obama is an

office in the place remains open forever. i hope you realize the implication. [applause] >> this is not to say what to complement andy, but know who started this because he really represent the very best of the military tradition in this country and i want to say since i've been involved in the autonomous site since the beginning, a lot of people use it for american principles for military guys that were overridden by civilian. they stand for the principles of the united states, i have the utmost respect for them. for my own personal story, look, i'm a little jewish kid whose

grandfather came from russia in 1887. one doesn't know whether the stories of your family are true, the only belief my great-grandfather was a famous rabbi and in the 1870s with the declaration of independence in the gettysburg address and said if there's such a country, i want my children growing up there and my grandfather and his three brothers came to the united states. my grandfather more than any religion, my grandfather would recite the declaration of independence, the preamble and gettysburg address to his skates and we came to those things as the most important thing. we believe in the principles of the united states, justice and rule of law. i believe that ronald reagan said in much more than our wealth or power, our values are registering in the world and i

do believe what most had and andy said that principles are not something you have a paper. they matter when they are tested. i also believe, and i might screw it up on the baton to saying that the worse places than how our research for this to stand silent in the face of injustice. >> thank you. [applause] opennet two questions. if you could identify yourself and then ask a question away from the microphone. lady or the blue dress. >> high, free speech radio news. he spoke a little bit about roadblocks in congress. can anyone on the panel talk more about specific ones just renewed or pass and what impact that will have?

>> as we touch before we came in, i mentioned this is a new year's eve tradition. you know, congress passes the national defense authorization act in the last couple years they've included language that prohibits using any funds appropriated in the massive bill to bring anyone from guantánamo to the u.s. and also a new and of guantánamo, they've got to do a certification to congress and notice of the reasons for the transfer out. this is two years in a row that the president said he would veto the bill if it passed and i new year's eve it becomes which is going to drop first, the ball in times square or a promised veto threat because two years in a row, the president backed down. some people say he's a pragmatist, but there's another word i would use to describe what he's done by not standing

up and keeping his word and restoring the reputation. he says all the right things about the rule of law and values in print goal, but he has failed to live up to his words. so congress has made it difficult. a lot of the same critics are the ones that said that anyone who try to interfere with his exercise of unilateral executive discretion, you know, was unconstitutional to infringe on that power, the same people trying to handcuff president obama in exercising the same powers and making it difficult. it takes the president as commander-in-chief using the bully pulpit. as is done on the fiscal cliff and gun control and other issues, where he has stood up and taken the fight to the other side. he hasn't done that on these national security issues.

>> just as a point of information, if i'm correct he issued a signing statement, meaning he receives the right to ignore the provision of the act? >> correct. if you recall, is critical when president bush used signing statements. now he's using signing statements to do exactly what president bush did. at the end of the day, he signed a bill that says you can't bring a detainee from guantánamo to the u.s. or transfer to another country without notifying congress in advance. >> the problem on that is subtle, too. most people put guantánamo is full as terrorists. the word has not gotten out who they are. in that context, members in congress play to that fear and hysteria by saying we're going to see another protectionist issue in that we won't let them in the united states or

somewhere else. you've got to oppose it by saying that they are wrong. you can't just going to veto the bill. it got to work earlier and take it on. when you fight the fiscal cliff and other things, the administration doesn't like take it on. republican party doesn't even want to take on crazy people. some restrictions are there. it needs a long-term plan of how you stop them and work this out. >> a question for any of you. the 86 people cleared for release, just a little more detail about who advocated for those releases. was that i may run by matthew wilson had a national counterterrorism center, long-term doj lawyer. who else was involved in the process? how careful with the process? >> after obama was it, you have

these people in guantánamo. they didn't even know who they were. he didn't have files on your files are scattered all over. with the obama administration had correctly, let's review to put together a task force and release. the task force has put together. that mccusker got to start with because it took forever to put it up and it included every agency. matt olson appointment as director. lisa monaco, assistant attorney general for counterterrorism and they have representatives from every tee, the cia, defense intelligence is from a defense department. it is a very conservative agency and there had to be unanimous

opinion to clear anyone for release. all the agencies have do agree this person is not a current threat to the united states and not of intelligence value. so it was an extraordinarily careful, the grouper has come a long process. many people who were cleared up nothing on them, but they couldn't come to unanimous agreement. it was very conservative. >> given the fact that so many of these cantonese and the counterpoint to what is the nardi discussed is of course as you know the yemen prison system, senior members of al qaeda have escaped not once, but twice. so this is simply a better yemeni prison? what is the fix that would make people gemini were cleared for release, how would this work?

>> are about 30 yemeni prisoners that the united states government doesn't want to release. when those decisions are made by the task force, some of those are put forward for trial, recommended for trial. some summer protect many for indefinite detention because the government said it was too dangerous to release, said it is not sufficient evidence. i think it's important we remain focused on the prisoners who were cleared. is this task force of the serious sober officials approved the transfer to guantánamo, surely all that is required is the most minimal supervision. then it's not the suggestion they should go from one prison to another. it is that they should be released. i think primarily because lawyers all involved, it isn't just for reasons of security for the rude people to transfer

rather than saying cleared for release. let them go free. wear your seatbelt admit any responsibility because then we'll get sued. these people are not dangerous. when you asked that question, and having to calibrator dangerousness. the task force would not have approved them to go if we were not talking about people insignificant. >> so what is the stumbling block on the yemenis in particular? >> here is cnn is unstable so it's more political. let me stand back. moe is. other than the 15 to 30 people who may be dangerous, everyone agrees is other people are nothing. even if they thought it didn't

just in afghanistan for 12 years they really not dangerous people. they basically not being people. so this series that yemen is unstable, that one of these people get out, republicans in congress would give them. one of the reasons some of these people could be released in the united states congress for a guy around and say their dangerous. don't let him near our children. people instead everyone admits error in the same, the uighurs. congress won't let uighurs into the united states. yemen is unstable. we don't want people in the united states. if you don't take the men, why should we take the name? it's a stepping stone.

>> five years ago, when more people cared and kind of percolated through globally and domestically that something is deeply wrong and there is criticism, president bush was releasing prisoners. the questions we have now starting from a point of view seems to be very, very deeply unsafe to believe anyone am the most massive case has to be made for the release of anybody. so it ended up at this extraordinary situation where clear prisoners are held, which i keep repeating this deeply unacceptable. but it was almost easy for prisoners to be released. were not fundamentally talking about different people. around half of the cleared prisoners were cleared for release under president bush, they didn't get around to releasing them. the yemeni issue has recently been there.

if your nationality is saudi, it became at a certain point quite easy to get out because the united states has a much closer relationship to saudi arabia in negotiations for undertaken. but it's really not except it will. we can all agree there's a few days yemenis and said this appeared to be quite dangerous people. we have to be very careful and hopefully we can put most on trial. so the prisoners sent to being treated the same. that's just wrong. we need to be able to make the case that people who are pretty insignificant really are. let's not crank up the hysteria and fear. since president upon and made his announcement to close guantánamo and then didn't follow up and hasn't taken the

lead, we've had people filling the vacuum whose mission is one of stirring up fear and political motives, not because they genuinely believe it. >> it doesn't seem like it's been that long, but i was driving on npr there is a story about someone being imprisoned in cuba and it was unfair. i thought it was going to be a storybook wonton amount and was about alan gross as an american citizen in prison in cuba and our government is good if in your head mahdi was the american geraniums are going to put on trial for the hackers to death, really good about how dare you hold an american citizen in insisting it's a violation of the rule of law and you can't do

this, yet we've got people that have spent more than a decade in prison because of their citizenship. to not commit a crime, they're not here to be punished. they are here because of their citizenship. i would imagine the right wing airbags on the radio and television would be pitching a fit if americans were held because of their sedition should year after year after year in another country. but american exceptionalism creates an exception when we do things we condemn others for doing, which is fundamentally wrong. >> to shove him in here. would you wait for the microphone? >> and eric lewis. i look at the case on behalf of the british detainees civil

torture and religious abuse case. i think to ask you about next year with the which all troops in afghanistan, what is your view on the basis under the law of war for continuing to hold without detention or trial that people love to guantánamo? >> just to add to that, it's potentially an opportunity for congress to revisit the authorization for military force, which most congresspeople and they voted didn't think with us for 12, 13 years. is there any chance there might be a modified authorization once combat troops leave afghanistan? >> i think there is. the question is this really no authorization. as mao and andy said, you really

can arrest people for criminal charge or in a combat situation, take troops and hold until the end of the battle. the purpose is not to punish, but keep them out of the battle. the battle is over. i would say congress has no right to authorize their holding. the argument for most people is we are in combat. the government will argue they were picked up in the continuing war on terror. this is technical. i don't think the kiss which authorizes detention, holding people is at least that case was decided on, but picking someone up in the context of particular combat going on. this is confusing for people,

but if the war is over, you can't hold people as reported prisoners of war. >> jay johnson, criminal department of defense who is leaving to go back to private prep is, who in my opinion is a person that got that got a lot of respect for, gave a talk at oxford, somewhere in england recently or he didn't go into great detail, but suggested the same thing. this war is winding down and when it does, the legal justification reviews to detain these people likely goes away when the war winds down. >> would not take away legal justification for drum strikes out of convention? >> that's another issue. >> what is the answer? >> i will let someone else answer because i'm trying to keep the drones away from this

issue. i'm terribly troubled by it. one isn't contingent on the other. >> we have two lawyers here. the authorization for the use of military force, is that the underlying legal rationale in places like yemen? >> again, you have to keep in mind there sutro programs. the military program, based on where it wore thin combatants can kill the enemy, even if they're deemed unlawful enemy combatants. it's much harder to make that. it's the authorization for the use of military force. >> i'm not asking if it's completely legally kosher in

your own minds. is that the legal basis under which the administration, but sure, authorizes strength strikes. >> what i know for sure because they won't tell us. in the aclu's lawsuit trying to get legal justification, the argument is the government has not acknowledged that we have a drone program. >> even though they talk about it, they said the government has never officially acknowledged that we have a drunk program. the argument in somalia and yemen and pakistan has been that the consent of the government to hunt down reggae in them as well. homolog foyer is the legal

rationale for those strikes. >> i think the government can make a strong argument based on the commander-in-chief power into the constitution that he is right to take action to protect the united states. it's a slippery slope in the co how far it goes. that is independent of the authorization for the use of military force. the passage by congress makes his powers stronger. as justice jackson says the new congress and the president together is hard to do it. one of the differences is the right to detain people is always some thing that has been covered. the right to detain people is always been something when the judicial branch in covered by judicial review and the law. so you may have more right to

use force than you do to detain people, the government. >> with the au at math for the constitutional authority, the constitution nor the transfix, the constitution aminorex of congress have been passed or irrelevant. >> i just say if i could get if the united states really does thought of afghanistan and that brings to an end the principle that you can have wartime detentions. the problem we ran up against which has been avoided for 11 years the people detained wartime haven't been detained as people should be detained.

we have five steps completely cover the geneva conventions and the fact people are held to the end of hostility. the withdraw of u.s. troops are definitely signified. the problem is the supreme court decisions were made, the judges echoed the geneva conventions by saying that transfix applied, setting up a parallel geneva convention puts based on the tran six. it won't be given up lightly by people but power and responsibility. the ndaa provisions to expand so that different neroli conger al qaeda and taliban, that expanded to whoever the president decides is the enemy. it's very troubling. or put in a position where we can argue we've reached the end, but the last 11 years have shown

there's a lot of institutional push for the end. >> gentleman over here. >> german embassy. i have a question, and the hypothetical or theoretical, but what would happen if president obama would decide tomorrow, i close one time though. what would have been done? could anyone, or could congress block it? if you would make this decision tomorrow. >> well, there are practical problems now with where people can go, so it takes work to get it so you can empty the people

at one time though. you need to open it up so people can come to the united states, certain of them certainly did make it easier for them to go to their country. i go back to the lincoln thing. lincoln couldn't just say i'm not going to have slaves anymore. he needs to work a three democratic local press is here that is difficult, but she's got to work it. there's a certain number of people who can't go back to syria, can't go back to china. others can't go anywhere. they may need to be in the united states. by the way, if they're the united states for a while we can challenge contentions of those being illegally detained. they were kuwaitis there who could go home. you need to work it, but she need to be committed to get the monastery. the fact is he hasn't done that.

>> the problem is that to define the groups of people are. i just realized there is one statement of palestinians. you can't return palestinians because those negotiations never went anywhere. while the other palestinians in guantánamo resettled in other country. this young man was almost taken in by the german government. the germans were going to take three and only to two in the end. he can't go anyway until someone offers him a new home. so they're the enemies, other prisoners and then the rest of the prisoners, the once designated for detention. that's what we have to push them are talking about it. >> if you look bad at the

madness have arisen that it gave president bush the justification to do what he did say this as commander-in-chief you have limitless, anything that will constrain the exercise of authority is unconstitutional. basically the president has limitless power. i was good advice back then, the president as commander-in-chief could make a decision in that capacity. the ndaa says no money for reading herein. the president controls other executive branch agencies that have the ability to arrange transportation. so it would take growing a bit pair, but if he ever did. >> when you come the administration came up and saying the order to close within a year, there was a plan. first was this review process.

it took longer than it should have, but they realized in order to get the countries to take some, we have to take some. there is a plan to put the uighurs in northern virginia or there's a uighur community. these are totally innocent people. the congressman found out and said you can't these terrorists to my country. frank wolf. obama hasn't set the speed he announced guantánamo. this is a horrible idea, first of the worst, a statement publicly false because 40 people have been cleared of the bush administration. either cheney was lying consciously or didn't know the facts. in any event, the obama administration didn't take the monitor being repeated. when they were going to take readers into virginia, frank

posted to dare do that. the obama administration backed down. from that, congress jumped in and said you can't take them. somebody's got to do it again escrow a pair of big ones. this guy to have a plan to any skype to work it. it will take a few months, but he can do it. >> there's no political value in doing. >> it's got to be immoral. >> is your legacy. >> lady here behind you. sorry. >> and from the constitution project task force. colonel davis mentioned jennifer

left us op-ed in "the new york times" and other sundry and a corollary of the previous question, that there are rightly or wrongly number of individuals cited for indefinite detention i know mr. wilner just as they're brought here we could argue against the intention, but there's also the argument emerging if they were to be brought here, they would likely be held in super max prisons for conditions to be much worse than at guantánamo. i was interested in your thoughts on that. >> you mentioned the red lake leak, which jennifer did in the newspaper. likely? this isn't confirmed they would be held. what she's done with a very damaging op-ed is made it look as if there's no argument to be had about what might happen if we were to proceed with the

arguments the prisoners need to be brought here to begin the process and would undoubtedly have more rights. maybe it is likely, widest not say we could argue, negotiations that take place about what conditions they would be held in. why would they be held in super max conditions and they've never been tried or convicted of anything. there is no direct correlation between people in guantánamo and anyone out at any prison system in the united states. it would have to be negotiated. >> it's very important with this article. first of all, guantánamo is a super max prison. it is a super max is to prisons here. people who say conditions are good they are, they're terrible. and let me tell you why. not only are the super max conditions, but they are in a

place where they are isolated and can't see families. in a super max prison in chicago or somewhere else, families get to this day. they haven't seen their families for 11 years. they are allowed a call once a month with a top icon. that is something if they were in the united states to get to see their families. another significant factor jennifer another stop relays. while they're in guantánamo, i probably shouldn't say this publicly but guantánamo is within the jurisdiction of the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit has adopted a rule, which is if you lose abs case and the government has any evidence against you, that is an absurd rule. if they were somewhere else, they'd be in a different circuit and you can challenge their indefinite detention is not legal under u.s. law.

there needs to be a basis. if there's no basis, other circuits made except me. let me say the other thing. and he is absolutely right. three years ago when a bomb administration said let's take these peoplecan't i talk to the obama administration. if you do not want these people in super max conditions. they said we will agree to hold them consistent with the geneva convention. so is on negotiable. assume the worst. i frankly think the reason a lot of people assume they shouldn't come to the united states is because their son who benefit from guantánamo being no pain. because unemployment and notoriety and it's as simple as that. human rights organizations opposing it, indefinite detentions to the united states is just wrong.

it's wrongheaded thinking. >> this gentleman over here. >> thank you. i am with washington research and analysis. happy new year. i met you last year, two at this time. he mentioned the cost of detainees, but the cost, not the dollar cost, but the cost of the night states in terms of reputation and credibility of having guantánamo bay is probably much higher than the dollar cost and at the end of this presidential election, one of my friends in japan -- i'm japanese, too. wrote to me and said it's a pity the american people have the better choice for the american

people for a foreign key such as president obama. the reason he said president obama as a flunky was because he couldn't even deliver on the very simple statement that he's going to close on time of day. now listening to you, it's a little bit murky. i'm not so sure whether you are concerned about civil rights in the prisoners for the fact that guantánamo bay itself is something the u.s. should not keep open as the german gentleman has said. my question is, which is set? closing guantánamo bay or giving justice to the people in the 186 people. when you go into that track, everybody loses track of what's really the issue. >> i don't understand the distinction. it's certainly unjust to hold

people indefinitely without hearings or cause an guantánamo as a symbol of that. he tried to close out and get them out of there. >> i don't want to get into an argument. >> your first point about the cost, not economic you can put a dollar figure, but the economic cost to america, the intangible costs. not too long ago, abu haunts the extra day from the u.k. to america -- our closest ally in the war on terror in our closest ally in its promise before they would extradite, we would send him to guantánamo and prosecute them in a military commission, which she meets a statement about one time ago in military commissions and we have to promise her closest friend that we won't use it. >> we've got about two minutes

left. anything anybody wants to say in closing? >> i want to repeat a gun -- see, there are some people at guantánamo who should justifiably be punished and tried accordingly and punished and that will be justice. for most people, justice will be releasing them and getting them home are added reason. on top in the stands in the way of doing that because it's isolated, outside the normal u.s. court system and to the extent they have review, stuck in the d.c. circuit. there are a lot of little practical problems. it's easy to do the political problems. my main point is this is your legacy. get it done, make it a priority. but so many church in the white house are doing it.

but your own power behind it. there's also problems in this country from the fiscal cliff. this is a moral issue that i find her nation, that will define your president see. you will be to blame if this isn't done. get it done. >> reflate, abomination legally, ethically and morally, spiritually. without charge or trial is the reality for nearly all the men held at one time about and will be for the foreseeable future unless we act, have become very obviously begin a highlight in enacting on most obvious of clearing people for release in not releasing them. if you didn't know before, november some of these men were cleared eight years ago and are still held and that's unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever.

>> america is a light unto the world and it's a question of whether we are warning late or guiding light. i think we had to be a guiding light. >> install. you can thank you to the people for coming. [applause] >> hollywood's most famous movie started this account full text the government no war bonds. irene dunne, hedy lemire, grouper and, all part of a contingent of 50 celebrities giving time and talent to lead the national war effort. >> what we want to look at today is how popular culture presented

the water. how is the work presented in movies from the 1940s? poesy presented in common books from the 1940s? how is it presented unathletic event from the 1930s and 1940s? how is it presented in june pan alley in music from the 1940s? >> air force secretary michael donley said sequestration will have a negative impact on readiness, and quote from if congress fails to enact across-the-board budget cuts including $500 billion defense cuts. speaking to reporters at the pentagon, secretary donley explain how the air force is preparing for the possible spending cuts.

this is 45 minutes. >> good morning, all. thanks for being here. the chief and i thought this to be a valuable opportunity to begin the new year by sitting down with you to discuss the state of our air force and some of the issues and challenges we expect to address in the year ahead and beyond. to start, i would like to thank the house and senate for approving the conference report to the fy 13 national defense authorization act and think the president for signing the bill into law. this important legislation provides authorities and policy guidance that enable dod to support were fighters, provide for airmen and families and protect the american people. the enact mint of the ndaa is a significant achievement and demonstrated strong bipartisan commitment to national security. we hope success may spur progress on critical issues that

still remain. those issues include efforts to develop a balanced deficit reduction plan to prevent the arbitrary sequestration cost required by the budget control act. a final fy 13 appropriation bills to replace the current continuing resolution in the upcoming consideration of the presidents fy 14 budget. congress' recent provision to delay pulling the trigger and sequestration for two months was a positive step and although we welcome the delay, we are still deeply concerned about what may have been should we fail to reach deficit reduction agreement by the end of february. our nation's ongoing budget gymnastics exert cost the consequences the air force and sister services and create an atmosphere of unease among many of our uniformed and civilian

airmen. failure to enact a settled budget boost to repeated budget iterations, which along with the overhanging threat of large and large they arbitrary kies creates wasteful turns. given we are now into the second quarter of fiscal year third team, we can no longer live under the uncertainty of sequestration and continuing resolution without taking action now. secretary panetta described yesterday, even though were not presenting this worst case will occur, prudent planning for the third and fourth quarters is required. we receive secretary's guidance to begin implementing prudent measures that will help educate budget risks, to ensure measures are reversible unrecoverable and to the extent feasible, minimize harmful effects on readiness.

the air force is currently turning the secretary's guidance into direction to nature commands, which we expect to issue in the next few days. impacts to the air force will be in the same category outlined by the secretary yesterday. civilian hiring restrictions curtailing on readiness on mission essential flying in travel, curtailing our stopping minor purchases such as furniture and i.t. refreshment and deferring nonemergency facility sustainment restoration and modernization. to be clear, d. s-sierra term actions cannot fully mitigate the impacts of sequestration should that occur. if we do not have resolution by march, sequestration will have immediate and negative impacts and air force readiness, specifically flying hours and eight mins. i secretary panetta has

reiterated, focus must be on taking the threat of sequestration of the table and enacting a budget agreement that will stabilize defense planning for the remainder of fy 13 and years ahead. looking ahead, air force will continue to balanced offense needs among the size of our force structure, today's readiness for the future. from previous defense tried as we learned during periods of a sturdy, tough decisions have to be made to avoid a hollow military, one that looks good on paper but has more equipment than it can support, should maintain them or keep up with advancing technologies. to avoid perilous and a hollow force the best path forward is to become smaller for the ready

for us to improve in capability over time. within two decades of war and operations have ended typed on her readiness, streaming airmen and families, reducing opportunities for training in taking a toll on my equipment. the need for modernization is pervasive across her air force will service life extension programs and modifications have kept her inventories at today, the cost of making sense of steam steam and is rising as budgets industries and technologies require new investments. they will work with defense and national leadership to fine tune our plans as we confront a dynamic security environment in the nation's fiscal challenges as well. we'll adjust and compromise, but

when a broad consensus in the way forward to avoid a hollow military. this must be our priority. nevertheless i'm pleased to know we've made areas and can point to accomplishments during the past calendar year. looper to the active component for structure challenges part of the fy 13 presidents budget proposal to produce a compromise which congress passed unfreezing previously approved for structure changes. we confront the problem is sold to professional relationships of basic military training and have convicted offenders. we're strengthening our assault prevention efforts in recent initiatives include the air force health and welfare inspection in the establishment of a special that this council

program. with regard to space launch committee are first completed nine successful national security space launch campaigns in the eelv programs and this makes 55 consecutive launches to date and 90 consecutive successful national security space missions. we've implemented a new apposition strategy to efficiently purchase up to 36 cores clinch reducing a competitive environment for new entrants, starting as early as fy 15. this gives new entrants a clear path to compete for national security space missions. procurement strategy resulting and saving for the billion dollars on the high-frequency satellite and savings projected at more than 500 million for the

sibrs program and put the critical aircraft from return to flight to full operational capability. the f-35 continues to mature with how operational utility evaluation, oue and will begin this month. although combat operations in iraq are complete from the missions continue in afghanistan and we remain a nation at war. over the holidays, chief master sergeant of the air force had an opportunity to visit air force commanders in airmen throughout the centcom aor and found despite challenges of deploying it from the morale of airmen is high. america's airmen are focused on missions and demonstrate every day what it needs to be members

of the worlds finest air force. thousands of our uniformed and civilian in the u.s. and around the world worked to support their men downrange and total first duty guard reserve and civilian other reason i say that that was nation estate of our air force remained strong. general welsh and i are committed to doing all they can to ensure the air force stays that way, strong, ready and capable of delivering air power whenever and wherever the nation calls. another major milestone this year was the rifle over 20 chief of staff, general mark welsh has brought tremendous insights and inspirational leadership to the top of our air force team. before we take your questions, i'll ask general welsh jamaica

fiume racks. >> thank you for taking the time to be here. i apologize for my extra hardware this morning. it's ugly in the sequestration meetings. we're struggling for resources between the service was the first and they realized how big rate zero dear no days. i'm recovering slowly. yesterday we released a vision for the u.s. air force for% are men, innovation and the intent to capture the air force is about in the theories we should be focused on in the future. it outlines the five enduring contribution so continue to guide us as we move forward a matter what have been so fiscal realities of the future. there'll be her contribution to the nation's defense and the air force calling cards. it is almost a genetic trait and i believe that's true in order for us to be successful, it has

to be true. it's only a thousand words long, takes three minutes to read. if you'd like to take a look, the bottom line is we intend to remain the world's greatest air force powered by airmen in scope and. as with the vision says. it's not news we have budgetary uncertainty as the boss mentioned. become a confidence confident they will shrink by how far remains to be seen. secretary donley has made decisions and the efforts are aimed authorization act for those decisions translate into it to the first about the famous when they became a separate service back in 1947. in the last 10 years we retired 1900 airplanes, not separated, the charred 30,000 active duty pilots are active component in none of those things is bad, by the