discussion of weaponry, and he brings up david and salsa lending of his armor to david. and david stretch run in the armor and it's not the right fit. not the right persona that he should have fixed we has to arm himself and that's what it takes as little stone and that's the right one. he uses that as a metaphor for arming your own, making sure

that your armies are armed themselves i think. i guess i wish a certain continuing on, baby connecting to questions in a sense you have talked about, this idea of creating a persona but not, but is the also a sense of self fashioning, too? i mean, creating your own persona but you being subtle about it as well? >> well, i mean, you know, the first goal is to do it in such a way that it doesn't appear like you were doing it. that's what that means, literally. it means doing something which is cultivated an unnatural and making it appear natural. that's expected but as you are suggesting here, it's a spectrum. what i'm suggesting is that you really do it well, uses a sense of your performance. -- you lose a sense of your

performance. for those of a certain age will remember the advertisements about michael jordan, like mike. and, of course, when michael jordan made a jump shot, you know, it seemed miraculous. it seemed like this was an utterly unexplainable -- of course the man must have spent years shooting those, practicing and practicing and practicing. and that's a point where to do it right like playing the piano really well, you can't think about it. you can't, you've got to have got it down to the point that no thought, no recognition that this is a performance. it's just the body remembers and does it. and i think that's what's been talked about is the goal here. >> you have to be capable of turning it off also. that's just, when the time is necessary, you need to flip it

off. and that would require some knowledge. >> yes, that's right. >> be very, very good. one last question. here towards the front. >> my question is a little more i guess relevant, modern, not that the others weren't, but i guess the point that power and authority are two separate concepts really intrigues me. when you consider how wall street has been able to kind of create a power base without any actual political authority. and i was wondering what you think machiavelli's judgment would be of the men have been able to amass such power, despite the fact that in their of messing it, the system has given them the power. [laughter] >> this just got handed to me.

i recall something i said at the end of my talk, which was one of the very startling aspects of machiavelli's political sociology of republics is his awareness that inequalities of wealth are a source of corruption and a threat to the survival of republics, that rich elites are habitually subversive of democratic liberty. he has a very startling disabused, or disenchanted view, of wealth and magnificence. so that in the machiavellian sociology of wealth there's no

authority that comes with wealth by itself. it's just another form of power. and that's a different view of wealth you get and other sociology's of wealth and power in the same period. i think that's what i would say. i would not venture into the wall street, but i think that what you can take from machiavelli is, he isn't impressed, you know? that's important. he's not impressed by people who go to work and helicopter or get eight figures at the end of the salary. he sees this very totally as a form of power, power separate from any kind of authority. the authority that this i think was a strong point of what professor muir was saying,

machiavellian things as a note of proposition, the power comes from the people. that's what, he thinks that's where -- excuse me. that's what he thinks authority comes from. to the degree that there's authority in machiavelli's world, his vision of the republic, the authority is not with the money. it's with the people. and as i said once very striking in his vision of politics, and liberty being driven by social conflict, economic conflict, constant conflict. and when the people stop fighting and opposing the power of the merely rich, the republic is threatened. and that part of what machiavelli said was a very strong influence on the american republican tradition right

through medicine, federalist and all this stuff. they know what he was talking to a. jefferson knew what he was talking about. >> let me invite you to join us for a reception outside immediately following this come and join in thanking our guests tonight. thank you. [applause] >> satellite is to tell about today here on c-span2. the group, the national hispanic leadership agenda holds a news conference on immigration legislation. that's at 11 a.m. eastern. we will also be covering several events on the supreme court cases this week on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. including a cato institute discussion at 1 p.m. we will also be live with a georgetown university forum on the same-sex marriage cases at 4 p.m. eastern.

>> mr. secretary, we're going to put them down as undecided. [laughter] [applause] >> mr. chairman, as i listened to those comments, it struck me what a wonderful thing free speech is. >> that wasn't hearing where donald rumsfeld was making the justification for attacking iraq, and what you did here in the clip where questions that we've got a chance to ask him, which is how much money is halliburton going to make from this war? how many u.s. soldiers will be killed in this war? common iraqi civilians will die from this? and other like those questions answered by someone like donald rumsfeld. >> sunday night at eight on

c-span's q&a. >> judge advocate general of the army says the military may have to curtail the power that senior commanders have to ignore decisions by courts martial and military judges. lieutenant general dana chipman spoke last week at furman university on legal issues facing the military, including sexual assault, same-sex marriage, religious freedom, and women in combat. this is a little less than one hour. >> one of the hallmarks of the american democratic experiment, one of the hallmarks of our constitutional tradition is that for centuries as republic we have debated in our public policy and in our law fundamental questions that go to the core of our values and our american identity.

we debate the meaning of freedom of religion and the establishment of religion, freedom of speech, what equality means, how it translates into equality on issues such as race or gender or sexuality. we debate the role of the different branches of government, both the role of the president as the commander in chief and as the head of the executive branch, and the role honkers and the roles of the court in our complex system of checks and balances. and all of those debates, as much as they are contentious and difficult and constantly changing in the general ugliness of american life, must in turn be translated and interpreted and applied to our armed forces. and while it is sometimes true that the political decision, the social policy decisions, the legal or constitutional

decisions that emerges in the civilian arena is transferred in exactly the same manner to all military. there are times when it is not. there are times when the particular necessities of national security, or the particular intensity of the organization and values and mission of the military requires some adjustments of rules that we would adopt in the civilian sphere that cannot be adopted, lock, stock and barrel in exactly the same way in the context of our military. we are all deeply grateful to the armed forces of the united states and to those who have served this over the centuries, not just for all that have done, but for the extraordinary commitment over history like many ups and downs, powerful powerful commitment to our fundamental values, to our commitment to the rule of law,

to our conception of due process and to the constitution of the united states itself. we are fortunate to have with us as professor gordon has already noted one of the american leaders pay was in one of the most pivotal spots in our democracy, the judge advocate general of the united states army, lieutenant general dana chipman. he has had a distinguished career in the service of the united states, and as a lawyer, after finishing his commission, which was commissioned in the infantry at west point, he went to one of the nations law schools, the stanford university law school where he received his jd. he then went on to receive other academic degrees, including a master of law and military and signs from the judge advocate general's school and a master of

strategic studies degree from the united states army war college. he has had an extraordinary career within the judge advocate general's corps and he has been deployed in a variety of operational and staff positions, some of them among the most important in our recent history of the country. these include his deployment to the first special forces operational detachment, delta airborne. is deployed to the joint special operations command, united states special operations command, and the united states central command. in 2002002, he was deployed as a special legal advisor to a joint special operations task force for operation enduring freedom in afghanistan. for a long time, he and i were both in virginia as legal educators. he served as the head of the judge advocate general's center and law school in charlottesville. and now he has taken the

extraordinarily important position as a judge advocate general of the united states, it is he that carries with it the rank of lieutenant general. there is no one better qualified that i can imagine to help us understand how the ever evolving conceptions of equality, matters such as rape and gender -- race and gender as a child are now being applied in the context of the united states military. please join me in warming welcoming not only one of the countries great leaders but also i'm proud to say a parent of a furman student from his daughter is a junior. you are up allowed to clap on that. [applause] welcome, lieutenant general dana chipman. [applause] >> thank you. well, thank you, president smolla come and thank you from ever by the institute for a limey to come to to escape the

sequestering five in washington, d.c. i will train to time and not just desperate i was beginning on i was beginning of the dirtiness because i like to reserve some chances are you'll to ask questions. and you can ask a question about anything. i am singing for my supper, so please feel free to ask whatever you would like. i would like to tell you the first i came here first in 1970. because i came here as a 12 year old. i lived right across the street from furman university. i was a seventh grader at duncan chapel elementary school. coming from orange county, california, into a recently desegregating environment here in greensboro. a different time. i went to duncan chapel and we had the first through fifth grade and seventh grade because the sixth graders were bussed elsewhere. my system was a freshman in high school and she was busted. so i kind of saw firsthand for a kid from orange county, california, where i walk past orange groves and out of my

element to school, i saw a bit of a different environment as greenville was going through the challenges of racial desegregation. that was my first foray into issues of interest in the discrimination will. my next chance to see these issues play that more closely was 1990 -- 1976 when it entered the united states military academy at west point and i was in the first class of women there. i saw that institution tackle this fundamental challenge of figuring out how we will accommodate limited program that was probably all-male. and effect with the administration wasn't all that excited about opening up west point opportunities to women. i got to see how that evolves over the course of four years. then i saw again a different aspect of discrimination as i write at the army litigation division in washington in 1992, with the inauguration of president bill clinton in that timeframe. one of the things you may recall

before he took office he said look, i'm going to figure out to open up our armed forces to homosexuals and lesbians to serve our military. and at that time that ultimately crafted a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell" in 1992 that has been overturned now 20 years later. but i got a chance as i defended the army in discrimination lawsuits, not in that area but normal title vii cases, i got a chance to see how these issues play that in a different area. so i felt like all of those experiences were formative as i ascended my normal, my position now is deputy general. for the last four years in particular we have gone through some extra changes in social policy. and it's that. i would like to talk about tonight with my remarks here to you tonight. and so if i could have my next slide, please. i'm going to walk around a little bit if i could.

i think everything important in life comes from calvin and hobbes. first, many people who i see think that tiger has a very difficult task. that's hobbes. many of you were too young for calvin and hobbes did you even know. this is one of great american cartoons. and it's what calvin says. this is i want to do, this is what i tend to focus on. and hobbes said you should lead an interesting life. it's true. but what i like from this cartoon is more of the attitude of calvin. because what he says is look, there are things i can change and i will work hard. but there are things i may be can change but i will still work hard. because there are things that are to be changed. and calvin says, i'm going to apply the same effort, the same focus to try to change those things that perhaps i can get over, i can't get beyond the next step and get they are worthwhile. it's that attitude and focus i think underlie some of the work that's done in this area as we seek to change a policy to make

fundamental reforms on some of those social issues that are affecting all of us. i am mindful as i in here with you tonight, i just read a book report and it goes something like this. julius caesar is a long time ago. he was a general. he made many long speeches. they killed him. [laughter] and so i mindful of that as i talk to you here tonight, and hopeful that might and will not be quite like caesars, but again, i'm committed. i won't speak longer than 30 minutes. so we will get there. to think i would like to talk, for different areas in particular. i'm going to talk a little bit about our religious accommodation policies, some of the challenges we have in grooming, apparel standards and frefree exercise as it applies a military complex. i'm going to talk about some of our sexual assault issues that we're facing right now because i think that's the one remaining really fundamental area of inequality that we have to

address if we're going to fully integrate our ranks, all those individuals who would like to serve the nation. and the going to talk a little bit about some of the other two areas that are think we made some progress on over the last four years in particular, same-sex benefits with repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." so we get into that a little bit more. some of you don't know what a judge advocate general is, and so i thought i would at least tell you who we are. before i go into my remarks. in 1775 george washington appointed the first judge advocate of the continental army. him a $20 a month. i've done the math. at 6% rate of return, annualized since then, i think i'm underpaid. that's my since anyway. but back in the continental army and deserved, it's a british term, judge advocate general. neither a judge nor in advocate or agenda. i am agenda but i'm -- all three

of those roles reflect in what we do in our practice but this was the call of nature under, a british spy back in the revolutionary war. and then this is one of our judge advocates employ an operational practice here not too far, not too long ago. we have about 5000 lawyers, your tax dollars at work. probably the second largest law firm in the country right now. and that 5000 paralegals as well. so the enterprise is about 10,000 people and you think about that, that's just the army. i'm glad you are paying your quarterly taxpayers probably because we've got a lot of people to support. that's why there are challenges. but our practice involves six core disciplines, legal assistance, contracts, fiscal law, operational international law, military justice system, we provide contract law, advice to

our clients, administration civil law and litigation. it's a broad practice, practice i've enjoyed over the 27 years as judge advocate and it's one that i think is both richly rewarding and very challenging. so here's the first issue i'll want to talk about and it's secretary panetta's opening of combat role for women. how many recall this announcement? what's significant? first of all i think what's significant is that you think we did this out of just pure altruistic goodness idealistic reasons? know. i don't think so either. i think this was frankly one of the problems we had was with our operations in afghanistan and in iraq we need more combat medics are the great signature achievement of this war, this conflict has been a better capability for medical care at the point of injury. and if you would what our medical establishment has done

in these 12 years, we are saving people with wounds that are pretty significant unlike any concept -- off of racing. some of our combat medics our winter grade to figure a way to gegive additional power to the front of the battlefield. so what we did was we abandoned the direct ground combat restriction that had briefly prevented women make some serving as the point of being, at the point of injury. so that's one reason we did that. the second reason is, believe it or not, there are not as many folks who are qualified to join our armed forces these days. so this is really about maximizing power. expanding opportunities for military service for women who can complement the skills and a broad range of different areas. now, do i think of the a lot of women want to serve in this countries watch? i don't think so.

i want to law school to avoid an infantry squad your but the idea is that we will maximize talent that we have at least available to seek committee to meet the standards, you can serve. and so this is really about how we retain our share of talent in this global marketplace that is competing for talent and we're competing with the private sector, competing with other government opportunities. and so secretary panetta and the administration decided we would open up more opportunities for women to serve in combat arms and a front-line units. we are studying it right now in much the same we had to study the issue of integrating women at west point. we've gone through and are going through the analysis of what are the criteria. so for example, if you are an infantry squad, one of the things you might have to is to be able to drag a 200-pound person for three to four seconds for a distance of 20 yards. what's that about?

when you're doing -- it's a three to 52nd rush and if somebody gets hurt or shot, you want to be able to drag that person to the next point of safety. so three to five seconds, 200 pounds, if you can meet that standard you can serve in the infantry. that's the kind of analysis going on right now. certainly motivated by continental fares and the idea that we need to open up opportunities for those who are most qualified. but, frankly, it's also a prudent personal effort and the time there are other opportunities to serve. so that effort is underway, and by september 2015 we will have made decisions on opening up these additional specialties. there are courses right now that women are pursuing. to ranger school is probably our most elite light infantry kind of school. it is not yet open to women, but i fully expect it will be

shortly. that suffers coal which is a combat engineer school is one that is already open to women. women have performed magnificently in earning their taps. so there are those kind of efforts underway, and i see that as yielding great dividends ahead. we will see how, by january 2016 is actually the in state when we have to determine which of our specialties will remain closed. and the idea is pakistanis that apply will be gender-neutral. and if women can meet those standards, they will be allowed to serve. again, i think going to be an interesting evolution from my perspective. the israeli defense force, the idf, absurdly deployed women across their ranks. other countries, our allies have done the same in opening up specialties for women to serve. but at the end of the day i think it's a fundamental decision for america to confront the idea that not only our sons

but our daughters are going to be fighting. i think that's a test thing for me as a father to still think about. the home have approached it differently. it's worth thinking about. our demographic has changed. this is the reality of where we are with women in the service. you think about what is going on across america at the top of the pyramid. on the army staff we've got about 12 of what i call the college of cardinals, three star to those of the folks who sit around the table. of our 123 are women. we had long periods of history -- of the 12, three are women. we had a 4-star commander who is the the. we have three-three stars serving up and it's really just showing how much more that rank has been opened up. the three largest defense

contractor in washington every right now, their ceos are women. such as recognize that this is been an explosion of talent across the top leadership opportunity. last week i had the fortunate opportunity to testify before the senate armed services committee, and i say fortunate with tongue-in-cheek. but seven other senators are women. so just recognize again, this has been really a significant change in our motivation of course is to reach the best and brightest to retain the best human capital you can find across the enterprise. can i have the next slide, please? same-sex benefits. this is an issue that, frankly, interesting time. i look at how this issue is playing out now in washington, and i think this is kind of showing me what's going to happen here ahead.

we have the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" back in the fall of 11, and it was pretty much a nonevent. i mean, people said oh, this will be really a hard change but it will be significant. and upheaval of massive proportion. it's been a nonevent. and many of us kind of do that. we knew that going in that wasn't. a generation that you'll are larger represent, this is nothing. you all have understood this for a long time. it's not about who you are with. it's just about the quality of the person you are. we have seen that play out, but it's been an interesting change to see the following from that because notwithstanding the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the opening of opportunities for service, we still have this defense of marriage act issue, double. and/or really is the obstacle that remains that will prevent the same integration of same-sex

couples across the armed forces. so a week from today supreme court will hear an argument in the doma case. it will be an extraordinary significant event come and i think what i'm seeing right now is shaping out in washington media. so this week i've seen an article on the family choices of our supreme court justices where they describe the demographics of our nine justices from never married, the married late. some adopted children, some had no children. so it's interesting because the fundamental defense the remains under doma is the idea that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only vehicle in which you can have row creation. it's the appropriate role to raise a child. that really is the strongest argument for those who would still seek to attain doma and a marriage between a man and woman is still the only legitimate vehicle. what i see in the post this week is a series of articles as i methodically to strike down that idea that procreation is the

only thing that's worth saving. and so we've had now nine supreme court justices, we had a poll of the views of very citizens on same-sex marriage. the poll indicates 81% of those recently surveyed are in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. the profile of a same-sex couple that is at the center of the dome a lawsuit now being argued at the supreme court next week, another profile of a congressman submit a republican congressman who cannot recent instead i'm in favor of the gay-rights, with a child in college. and then today, nfl veteran in favor -- i'm thinking nfl? you've got to bring in the national football league to justify same-sex marriage? i'm thinking, we just about library consistency i can think of in support of this. i see the effort ahead, and i don't know where the court will

have but if i'm a betting man, i fully expect that doma will be struck and i just think this issue has evolved so rapidly and has gained such support across a broad range of constituencies that if i were to predict how i would say that doma is going to fall. that will be okay. we will be able to move along from there. slide please. the issue that i've seen some efforts on, and this is an interesting one to see if all over many years. i came to the army in 1976 and i recall soldiers of the sikh faith that served, and had all of drabs for them. you know anything about the quality of seek and burqa soldiers, one of the soldiers coming in, how does been serving in british regiments. so i said okay, that's fine. we can live with this. welcome at some point along the way, later in the late '70s, early '80s, that was fun, we

are no longer going to allow people to have different agreement, different apparel, different uniform standards. so the idea that you could serve as a seat and audio face by wearing a turban, that was the night. and at some point in there was a supreme court case involving rabbi goldberg, and the idea was if you could wear a yarmulke and hide under a normal military headgear, that would be okay. so under that decision we then had jewish rabbis and others serving openly, and that was fine. that was the only accommodation made for grooming standards. so then along the way we start to fight this war over in saudi arabia, and following the gulf war invasion of 2003, the army start saying hey, you know, if you're a woman serving in saudi arabia, you need to wear an unbiased when you're off the base, been a long cloak that

muslim women typically wear in public. but we have an air force lieutenant colonel who says hey, not so fast. i'm an officer. i'm serving the nation. my male counterparts do that for any special accommodation for uniform. i don't want to with it. and so congress got into the act and pass in 2003 the authorization act and said no more. the statute was passed and said look, you can't encourage come you can't persuade women to wear that who don't want to. so then i saw that play out. interestingly than, we've had in 2001 was for the operation joint freedom in afghanistan to i deployed with special operators and the first thing everyone who assisted was grew a big bushy beard. and i thought wait a minute, i thought we got away from beards? we did. we got away from beards in the navy.

the long tradition there. but the special operative said look, we need to blend in. we need to have these beards so that we can better preserve our force protection get more credibility with the afghans with and we'll be dealing. so the men wore beards. it's been an interesting thing to see them in 2009 when i assumed my current position, we had five religious accommodation request for grooming granted with muslims who want to wear beards, two were with orthodox jews to want to grow beards as well. and then we have a woman who wanted to wear the headdress and the air force ran the right hardware that. but it's been a little bit of a challenge in the sense when the congress passed the law that allowed to work, because, he couldn't affect the external

view of the uniform. you couldn't affect how the uniform appeared otherwise. and so the other services became very unhappy about this, this woman wearing a headdress. so she was banned for her specific order and the pentagon. should only be in the air force area to wear. what you would to other areas she would have to remove. we are fighting through now what's the we were going to do with these religious accommodations growing and their request, that remains as the last frontier. this plays out in another area as well because not only can you have the grooming and apparel issues now have to work through, the idea of free exercise clause. so if you're a chaplain in the military with the advent of the same-sex benefit our demise of "don't ask, don't tell" and the right to have the sexual orientation of the choosing and to serve openly, what is your

role as a military chaplain? we have chaplains from reach over different faith groups across the dod. and so you might be a rabbi and yet your chaplain duties require you to minister and take care of thofthe spiritual needs are andt can you, not just her own faith group. so if you've got a requirement to perform counseling to a couple looking for counsel on same-sex couple, and your conscious prevent you from doing that, what is your role than as a military chaplain? look, your duty is a chaplain to your duty is a judge advocate. i have judge advocate people perform civil law systems to everyone in the military, the duty of the judge advocate issue supply -- to everyone and you don't discriminate based upon what's the nature of the issue. so we are seeing some of these issues play out with of also chaplains and civil ceremonies, and we've essentially said is

you do not have to perform a marriage or marriage equal the ceremony that your faith would not support that. so we're working through those issues and how that will play out. but judge advocates as far as i'm concerned, judge advocates will seek legal mr. heflin who has an issue. that's what we see right now. can i have my last slide, please. and so this is the last issue that i think we see, particularly fun in the right now because we are seen a number of sexual assaults across the force that i think are inconsistent with the idea that we are truly made the integration of women are in state. this was last week. we had a panel of all the judge advocates general at the senate armed service committee chaired by senator joe brand of new york, inquiring about our you

seem our courts-martial system and how we're handling allegations of sexual assault. it's interesting to me, this system that was a creature adopted in 1950 following world war ii. those of you who are students of history may know that in world war ii we had 16 million men and women in uniform, americans in uniform. from that number we conducted 2 million courts-martial. a fair amount of investment in the ranks. a fair amount of issues for commanders to resolve, but the follow on consequence of that experiment was the passage of the ucmj with the idea that we would rein in commander discretion to handle accident discipline. so general dwight eisenhower testified before congress in 1948, collins testified as well,

and other senior leaders taught that what's different about our system, how does it play out. and that ultimately, ultimately to ucmj. that is now under attack because what our critical seems to is no longer any for special assistance of them to justice set them apart from our supreme court systems. you all are providing too much of a role for commanders and use of commander discretion in how you handle, so that's the court has been founded on capitol hill right now. our allies have largely gotten away from a commander justice system. in large part the european convention on human rights directed at their militaries make that evolution in part because they look at the commanders as having too much discretion to abuse the rights of soldiers. we're getting the opposite now. that our commanders are not adequately enforcing the rights of victims. i think with that narrative, to

me the fundamental issue here is if we're going to achieve full equality for women in our armed forces, it's going to be because we have opened up all of our assignments to women. we have set the conditions for them to serve in every capability. we have ended the restrictions on sexual orientation that has anything to do with the ability to serve professionally. we have set the conditions to end sexual harassment in the ranks because we think that sexual harassment -- sexual assault and we've adequately made a culture that deters sexual assault. when we have done those four things that i think we will achieve an environment where all of us can serve in the armed forces. so with that i thank you for your attention and i will take your questions. [applause]

>> general come you stand right here. stand whatever suits you, not by any one in the audience to pose a question. and i particularly encourage our students if you have questions. okay. >> [inaudible]. >> 81%, yeah. >> [inaudible] >> the question is what role does public opinion play? i think public opinion plays this role, first, we had, back

in 92, for example, when we had the policy that oh -- old ended up as "don't ask, don't tell" you may recall president and came in, one of the objectives of his administration, colin powell came out strongly opposed to the issue. but there's a sociology at the time. very well-respected, and had done the demographic data, the research to show why this policy was appropriate and why america had not yet evolved to the point where open service by homosexuals and lesbians could be appropriate. i think public opinion was a change of that social logical idea, the idea that this younger generation, 18-29, has grown up the idea that this is not a choice. this isn't a matter of, you know, you can choose not to be gay. this isn't about any of that. this is about allowing people to be who they are. i think what we've seen is public opinion both drives that

shift and follows the shift to provide greater evidence that, in fact, we can change this policy. we haven't had any change in the legal regime, frankly. if you look at title vii, civil rights act, it still doesn't provide sexual orientation as a separate class. but that -- it's frankly, it's the pace of change that really struck me as significant since 92. >> [inaudible]

>> so what i'm wondering is how the military culture sees it. [inaudible] >> okay, so the issue here is really what was the uniform military role in response to those conditions that ultimately enhanced interrogation techniques, torture, waterboarding, whatever you want to call them. one of the reasons that i'm wearing a third star now is frankly the result of senator grams insists unlike the judge advocate general to have a seat at the table with some of the published decisions were made that influenced the actions of the administration right after 9/11. so the thought was that the uniform judge advocates who are

saying wait a minute, we've got some pretty good expensive how to apply the law and the geneva convention. that voice was not being heard perhaps as much as it need to be within the policymaking apparatus that was considering these changes. after 9/11. so as a three-star in the pentagon you have a voice. you get a seat at the table. we have never changed the law of war manual. fm 2 27 tashkent is the law published in october 1956. rules haven't changed much. yurika conventions of 47, i know they've been around a while. we actually understand how to apply those but i don't think it was ever any passive approval by the uniform military establishment of those techniques that ultimately have been in question and, frankly, it's effect is so fundamental in terms of perception of credibility with the international committee. i look at the ongoing challenges we have in guantánamo.

166 detainees left, about 80 perhaps we'll policy at some point and get we will never be able to get beyond the taint upon those. it's a fundamental problem. i've got a brigadier down there, mark martin, wonderful officer. he is the chief prosecutor at guantánamo. and he is doing everything he can to show that these are legitimate proceedings, transparent, and all the rule of law. and yet the commentary he will continue to receive from anyone he is been involved in this issue since 2001. he just can't fix it. but we need capability. it's not guantánamo, if it's about around, where is a? is a chicago? isn't rios city? it's got to be somewhere spen si like as ask a question about your professional identity. american military has always employed people who are professionals in another sense but as you mentioned we have

ordained clerics. where doctors. and, of course, we have lawyers. and i'm wondering, to what extent you've seen your identity as a lawyer effort in tension with your identity as an army officer, to what extent the values and traditions and roles you play and have been trained to play and faithful for your whole life in the legal profession. sometimes post difficult conflict in a very different culture of being a distinguished member of the armed services. >> that's a great question. i'm very proud of the fact that i'm a member of two distinct professions. the law and the army. and i take professional pride in both of those designations. there are times when i think that my role as a legal professional is not fully appreciated by my client, the commanders i served as a day, you know what? you lawyers always get in the way. why do you just keep saying no? how but help me do what i do.

that is our desire to push but the idea is that as a legal professional, ultimately i have loyalty to the clock. and that client might be bradley manning. backlight might be major nidal hasan. that client might be staff roger robert bills -- robert bales. if your defense client you have a client. your obligation is to be. a little less clear in the legal profession is who might client is as an army officer. it's very clear under my code of professional responsibility that my ultimate loyalty is to the department of the army and not any individual. and so the commanders i if i sometimes don't like that particular attention and they will say wait a minute, i thought you were my lawyer? and my response is, i am not your lawyer. my client is the office. the only alternative is to the constitution. sometimes that is in conflict with what you asked me to do here. so i think that's one thing.

>> other questions? we have one over here and over there. we will take both. >> thank you again for being here. [inaudible] >> i was just wondering if you thought that traditional military culture has influenced sexual assault within the ranks -- help prevent that now? >> they are two fundamental issues i think that we will fail if we don't solve, and sexual assault is and sexual assault is personal. se&i suicide and i'm not going to talk about suicide, but to answer your question, here's what i see as part of the challenge. when you come into the military, we tried to have you abandoned a personal identity in part so you can adopt his sense of being a part of a larger human identity.

so in many cases the sexual assault are occurring in your first 90 days of service. we see it with 18-25 year-old crowd. it's been shrinking and then we see something. that's really the common fact pattern. so the idea then is wait a minute, i came into this army thinking i was joining a team. 18 would take care of me, the team would look out for me. and now i've got this conflict in reporting that fellow teammate of salted me. so there's a reticence to report. there's a hesitation to notify the chance command that is trying to bring into the values that we think are appropriate for military service. we've got to get beyond that hesitation to report. this is an act of an assault on a teeny. i can't be any more plain than that. if there were 19,000 reported assaults over a year across the department of defense, 19,000

estimated assaults, 3000 were reported. 80% of those assauare never reported how do we change the culture such that people understand it's my duty to report this? this is a criminal in the ranks, he or she doesn't values that i sworn to uphold. so we've got to double to change the culture to ensure that we get the prompt reporting that will enable us to follow on. >> thank you. >> i saw a hand over here. >> general, could you tell me what major differences are between the civilian law enacted and the military law? what are some of the major points? >> okay, we have under the uniform code, we have a series of -- just like any state court, federal court, there's a criminal code. we have that same. can have a series of procedural

rules. we follow the federal rules of evidence. we call them the military rules of evidence that they're the same numbers, the same, they evolve to keep pace with the federal evidence, and so that's not a change. what's different is that we have this role of commander as the convening authority or 20 civilian system, there is no role for the mayor of the city or the governor to take a party kind of capability or the president. there is no role for any elected official for the boss of an organization to exercise military justice. procedure. but in our system i as a judge advocate would take a case, we have a pretrial investigation. we would take that case then to the command to say, commander, this case deserves a general court-martial or a lesser form of court-martial. the manner could look it means a

judge, i disagree. i don't think the evidence is here. that would support that kind of disposition. i've not had that happen in my career, but it did happen most recently about three weeks ago in italy and ripping every significant price for the decision by commander who ignored a verdict from the jury, he ignored the ruling judges of this trial is probably conducted with more the recognition of his judge advocate said boss, i decline trial for this person but my commander said the verdict aside and released an officer who is serving in charleston, released after four months of serving a one year since. and that's the case the generated in part -- questions in congress, we think might be time to remove the convening authority. they're not legally trained. why are you deferring to their command authority in a case where we think the trained lawyers ought to be making those decisions? what's different about our

capability versus any allies from whom we deploy, i have visited our allies in the uk, australia and in canada, all of whom have gotten away from the system that we have. but none of those countries deployed 300,000 men and women in two theaters at the same time where there's a need for justice to be impose swift, physically, and locally. that's what's different to our system has to be portable. so we can actually ensure that discipline is in the environment to which our courts -- forces are deployed. with have that commander from ip remain in the system. we just have to constrain and guide the discretion. and one of the things i think will change in the congress will help us is the idea that the commanders can overturn the jury or judge for without any basis for doing so. >> one question in the back i see. someone politely deferring to summon in front of them.

how civilized. >> i notice i guess in your discussion one of the previous questions, you may a lot of talk about how to increase the reporting on some of these sexual harassment cases. which obviously are -- [inaudible] >> so there's two prongs to the problem. there's the prompt of prevention others the prong of response. and so for much of the interests of been on the response from, and many of our critics say which i did it is prostitute your way out of this public if you prosecute a number of cases you have the time it is probable way. i don't think we can prosecute our way out of this product i don't see that as being and develop a feasible. so we have to change the idea of

prevention. what we do from our training base ca can we provide the traig that says look, these are your values. as an army soldier, these are the tools you have to report inappropriate fans, condit, whatever. we assigned buddies but we have a buddy system. we have to make the door choice, the barracks safe environs for young men and women to live in. we have to figure out better how to encourage bystander intervention. because you know when there's a predator, you know when you're setting up somebody for a situation where your predator can take offense. so it's that attention between roles the chain of command can take to shaping five and the idea that look, we are all adults and we can make choices. and, frankly, we are having a hard time with that balance. but i do know that we have to reduce the number of overall incidence. i don't know, you know, i think some of these problems is on college campuses as well.

but we are fairly transparent in reporting our numbers. we have a challenge of getting some numbers. 18-25-year-olds is a different demographics. we're seeing that, and yet we have to be able to take steps to alter this dynamic. >> general, as our time draw sure i'm going to take advantage of your being here to ask you one of the question that always most intrigue me. it's one of the hardest questions that can occur within the context of military justice, and it's in the famous novels and plays. fortunately, rarely actual occurrence, but can you describe that acute dilemma that occurs morally and legally when a subordinate is ordered to do something by a superior that is manifestly illegal? sometimes in a dramatic circumstance was a prisoner of war or someone else. explained a bit about the moral and legal conflict that can

exist when you are issued and illegal order specs of the question is, what is your responsibility, what is your role in terms of executing an order that is clearly illegal. and it's a role that you sometimes exercise at your peril, because you've got to be sure that the order you are given is, in fact, illegal. each of us has an obligation to follow the orders of the officers and noncommissioned officers appointed over us. that's just the nature of military disciplined. so when i get an order from the commander, initially my presumption would be, that's a lawful order. probably -- properly considered and executed and i should do that. soldiers first duty is obedience. having said that, there are orders were you know they are clearly illegal, and from the prosecutions we've seen over the last 10 years involve law of war violation, for example, in one case there was a detention where

the senior noncommissioned officer came back and said i told you, no prisoners. what did you not understand about my order? that is a clear illegal order. attitude take a pressure but if someone is wounded, out of combat, had to be able to be brought and again. what is my judge and? first i go back to the individual and say, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, can you tell me again what the order was you gave me? saw want to make sure i'm clear my own mind about so i didn't fully what the officer or noncommissioned officer expected me to do. if i can still satisfied it is an illegal order, have an obligation to go above that individual to the next level is that i've received an illegal order. and it doesn't have to be just a command attribute inspector general, the judge advocate, it could be somebody else. it to be a different command. bunch of an obligation to go forth and report the illegal order. there is no by vicki doby today

that was my boss to give me the order, so i'm okay. i follow that order, even if it is illegal. as a soldier i'm personally responsible to the county of the order, my own decision and has a superior we have the standard where we should have known that the order was issued was illegal but i've got a duty to clarify that and do not follow with it if it is not legal. >> thank you for your service or country i think you for the wonderful presentation. thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you everyone. enjoy the evening. several live events to tell you about today here on c-span2. ..

his answer was to states for two people, a jewish state and palestinian state, but only when that palestinian state will be a decent, stable, peaceful, space on corrupt government.

first, that means arafat has to go. the u.s. ambassador to pakistan, richard olson, says relations between the two countries have improved since pakistan reopened nato supply lines last year. ambassador olson was at the stimson senator monday. he also talked about elections in pakistan and the relationship between pakistan, afghanistan, iran and india. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the stimson center. we welcome you.

this is the third year that we've been doing these occasional discussions at lunchtime and the first time we have had a sitting u.s. ambassador to the country. i am honored to welcome that u.s. ambassador to pakistan. thank you. [applause] there's a particular reason why i am honored that he would be our first ambassador guest. richard olson took up this position in pakistan in september of last year before that he served as the coordinating director for development and economic affairs of the u.s. embassy in kabul afghanistan. prior to that he was u.s. ambassador to the united arab emirates and had previously served as the general in dubai so a well-known american face and expert on the affairs. his key washington assignments include the director of israel palestinian office of iraq

affairs, nato and he served overseas and posts all over the world. mexico, to nisha comer ugonda, saudi arabia. and i would be remiss if i didn't mention his wife, deborah jones, also a diplomat that served as the ambassador to kuwait and president obama has nominated to be the next ambassador to libya. as of this is a family that is serving in the united states with great distinction and a great model for the foreign service. thank you. >> i'm going to ask a broad questions and then we will leave time for the guests to ask questions. let's start with a broad question about the u.s.-pakistan relations. when you took up the post last fall they had been some unfortunate bumps in the relationship and the question is where are we? are we moving toward a positive u.s. pakistan relationship and how do we overcome some of these? >> first, thanks very much for

organizing the defense and to the stimson center for inviting me to join today. i agree with you. it is no secret we went through difficult period and our relationship in 2011, first part of 2012. things really began to improve last summer with the pakistani decision to reopen the nato supply line, the ground for communication. but in the period leading up to that, both sides had looked at the relationship and realized the importance of our partnership and the need to put a relationship on a more even footing. and i think that is what we have been working towards since last summer on both sides. i happened to have been a part of that but it was a process the was already well under way before i had arrived.

a few examples we have a lot of engagement between our senior leaders since that time. we have reestablished some of the working groups that are sort of the policy mechanism for managing the relationship. we had meetings in the economic and finance group, the energy working group, the defense group, the non-proliferation group and the counterterrorism and counter ied. we've gotten back in the business of focusing on the key elements of our relationship and structuring the them as a way forward. looking forward i think that both sides recognize that in the past we've had a relationship that tended to go in cycles, and it went from perhaps periods of enthusiasm to periods of neglect and i think what we want to do

is avoid that going forward we want to get the relationship on a more stable footing and an even keel and i think the way to do that is to work hard to identify common interests and work on the basis of mutual respect between the two countries. and i think if we follow those principles and look at areas where we can cooperate i think that there is a lot of possibility. long term it's a very important relationship in the united states it will be the fourth largest country in the world demographically. a nuclear weapon state. a state that we want to see succeed so we have a lot of interest and in the short term we have important issues especially managing between now and december, 2014 as we prepare for a transition in afghanistan.

but we always want to keep thinking about the long-term relationship and the bilateral relationship in the two countries as we deal with some of the shorter term challenges coming up. >> that's right. staying with this relationship, looking at each side of it, and obviously after 9/11 there were exigent circumstances the country is faced. they cooperated in ways the had never anticipated and those were not easy to do and there were obviously bumps in the road and prior to that obviously there had been some very significant ups and downs in their relationship but on the upside, we have the deep and abiding friendship with pakistan and it's generational going back to independence. so the question is for the washington crowd and the think tanks heading as we have devised the american people our thoughts on what we were looking at, there always seems to be two sides to this story. there's a good side of

cooperation. we are doing some good things on one side but there are other issues and we often hear we wonder in washington sometimes is pakistan entirely pursuing the same strategic objectives that we think we are pursuing and you hear about different departments and agencies on the security services what can you tell washington about how we should think about in a holistic way? >> i would say a couple things. one of the challenges in the relationship that i think you have identified is that there is a bit of compartmentalization in the relationship and some of the corporation takes place isn't as we think it might be. the discussion on the revision of the pakistan trends towards

the lowest common denominator on the head lines and things like that. there are a couple points that sometimes are not really recognized in the debate and one of them is that pakistan has played an important role in part during over the past decade in the war against violent extremism. we do not tend to focus on this or acknowledge it very often but i've been told 40,000 pakistanis have died over the course of the past decade in the confrontation with extremism in putting something like 6,000 security personnel. there are heavy diplomas to the left which is new in history. the army is heavily deployed in the troubled areas.

this is something that we have to recognize. there have been frictions that in the past year or so particularly pakistani diplomats have been talking about the strategic shifts that have been taken place within pakistan and the intention of the pakistan policy towards an emphasis on its relationships with afghanistan and also with india. and i think that is something that is quite important and we want to continue to encourage. >> let me pick up on the point of the extremist element which does seem to be social and geographic in some respects. from the american standpoint,

obviously he would find unity across the spectrum and wishing and hoping that the pakistanis that want a full and modern existence and don't want to be threatened by extremists succeed. do we have the kind of tools and programs that can help contribute to their success against extremism domestically? >> we do have tools, and congress has allocated a lot of the systems over the past few years for pakistan a significant portion of that is devoted to the education programs and also we are doing a lot of work in fostering entrepreneurship. those are two areas where i think it's particularly important that we create opportunities for the emerging

diouf in society. it's like a lot of developing countries and one of the challenges that pakistan faces in the society is accommodating all the young people who will be coming out of the job market. that is one of the reasons we are supporting entrepreneurship and small and medium enterprises but also working on education particularly focusing on the literacy programs and i would note in that regard our british allies have some very comprehensive worthwhile programs in education and they have focused their assistance effort in those areas, so i think that's very important. we are also attempting to address what is one of the paramount concerns of pakistan's society which is the power sector. they face a crisis and it is the subject of considerable

discussion. there are lots of reasons for it but we are a very good partner in that regard in helping to refurbish the hydroelectric stations and we are on track for about 900 megawatts to the national grid by the end of this year so those are some of the examples of ways that we are working with pakistan. looking forward it's going to be important for the relationship to be more about trade than it is about assistance. we all recognize the fiscal constraints for the united states right now and we've been transparent with our pakistani friends about that. but we need to find ways to encourage more trade for pakistan regionally and

globally. we are their largest trading partner. so, we can flush out the slogan. >> the u.s. has a long tradition of assistance to pakistan and for reasons we have covered the sentiments in sight of the population can run hot and cold. we've done some things which caused great public unhappiness with the united states overtime and other things one gets a lot of credit for for being touching individuals and helping them change their lives for the better. with elections coming up in may and the former president musharraf having just arrived with the president in the party over there seems to be a lot of activity. is the united states and issue for the pakistani public and we have a vibrant press. do they talk about u.s. relations with the debate the

issues for the selection and it's been talked out in the future. >> that is an excellent question. let me just say that for us we want the elections to take place and we would like to see credible free and fair elections but other than that we don't have any desire not coming and that is something that i repeat and every occasion when i'm speaking to pakistan is. we are backing democracy. we are not backing any one individual or any one party. and i think that it's important to know on the elections it's a very significant accomplishment we look forward to congratulating the pakistani people first after the elections

scheduled for may the 11th that would be a first and pakistani history and a significant accomplishment because i think that pakistan among other things needs predictable politics and needs some systematizing and a lot of that has happened over the past few years. it's a significant accomplishment that there have been five years of democracy. i think the president gets credit for having brought pakistan through five years of this period and that would be an important milestone. >> i want to ask you about the troubled border area because many people in washington know a lot about it in its history as

being a slightly different flavor of sovereignty with a history to it and the more recent and more involvement of th pakistani military and as sensitive areas that are deeply steeped in tribal culture and i want to mention one subject in particular the u.s. combat officials will talk about in the that is drones. i want to let people know if i made that simpson is going to launch a project the issues surrounding the use of drones and the general john abizaid is going to chair that. i want to mention that it's not all about that region of the afghan pakistan border, but it is there are affected populations and we are sensitive to that issue. but i really wanted to invite you -- >> my microphone is adjusted now >> we didn't even breve for the

last 60 seconds. the question is past now. what do you want them to understand about the fattah publicly so they can make generalist, so they understand this isn't just like any other part of the country? >> it's meant for observation. they are areas that continue to operate under effectively the colonial rules. there is a move to change that for the politics right now for creating new provinces. one that has been most prominently discussed is a province somewhat teacher evan bayh the fact that it's a

different part of punjab but there is also a movement among the political parties towards normalizing the status of the federally administered tribal areas and bringing them into the political process in pakistan and a more normalized fashion to bring them under rules in a legal regime that corresponds to the rest of pakistan. that is up to the pakistanis to decide that. in terms of the security threat, obviously this is an area where pakistan has a great deal of concern about the presence of the violent extremists principally from the perspective that is to say the taliban but

other extremist groups as well. it's what they've been dealing with as i mentioned earlier they deplored a number of forces in the federally administered tribal areas for much of the last decade a significant chunk of the army is there on a day-to-day basis. we are supported of the efforts and that is one of the reasons we have the coalition's support fund that reimburses as participating in the war on extremism. >> the former commander of the u.s. and isaf forces in afghanistan has in his public

out brief said that he finds some of the military to military engagement with the pakistani military in this area but they are with the afghan army and the coalition that he sees it an uptrend. can we expect to see the military presence in this area for the long term? and having an interaction. >> i'm reluctant to make any predictions on the deployment of pakistani forces but probably most pakistanis would say there continues to be a threat. you mentioned the relationship in afghanistan and i think that is promising. it's a relationship that is complex and the historical

antecedents and grows up and down. there have been some positive effects recently. the military is interested in developing a relationship with its afghan counterparts. there was a visit by the afghan defense minister a month or so ago had a very positive relations and positive meetings in islamabad and that is particularly important because getting a little bit on to the afghan side saying that the minister is not just the minister defense and comes with a lot of background on the relationship with pakistan and that he had a positive set of engagements is pretty delegable.

it's from the military and the government repeatedly when they do want greater engagement across that border. they want to work to prevent the reoccurrence of 2011 which is one of the things that really drove our relationship in the united states and pakistan into very difficult positions. so i think there is a lot of interest in the engagement and the border security. >> moving to the political dimension of the post 2014 regional picture from islamabad, would you say that there is a

commonality or is there an emerging version of the end state if you will presence of training from the coalition countries that the combat troops would be gone but on the political side how would you describe the challenge or the opportunity for the united states to encourage a common picture notwithstanding all the complexities on all sides of the players? >> it is a great concern for pakistan. they look at the history of the last 30 years to see how much of a challenge it has been for them to deal with the security issues they have great concerns frankly about what is going to work.

one of my principal jobs out there is to explain how we see afghanistan developing post 2014, and with that spending a whole lot of time on afghanistan we have a lot of vv katella not regard and we have been putting in place a number of measures as an international community to make sure that afghanistan has the best chance it has ever had in its history building of the afghan forces. it's an increasingly capable force that has taken the fight to the leading operations on the critical enablers and the commitments that were made in chicago and tokyo helped to assure the funding for the afghan government post 2014 through the decade ahead.

the question that remains out there there is still a challenge on the question of reconciliation or political settlement if you will and this is an area where pakistan can be very helpful. the united states and afghanistan are committed to the process of reconciliation. we are trying to get an office open in doha that will allow for the discussions and i'm happy to say pakistan has been very supportive of our efforts on reconciliation and i think it is not too much to say that pakistan can play a key role in the afghan reconciliation going

forward. >> we've been talking about pakistan and its international outlook for half an hour and we haven't mentioned india whereas for the longest time that would come out early in the outlook. i want to ask a couple questions. still in afghanistan the leadership has a sophisticated view of all the mechanisms going forward. do they precede that india is perhaps trying to achieve a level of influence that gives them some concern in afghanistan in the international part? >> we probably have some challenges just add addressing the question going forward.

my perception is very much that india's involvement in afghanistan has been primarily in the economic and commercial arena. one of the advantages is blessed with a great mineral wealth and looking slightly broader. there was the growth of a huge market economy in india at the same time and it's starved and then you have the vast energy resources of central asia and economics being what it is there is an to be a connection. so i think the challenge is

where the lines are going to run. i think that from the perspective of the u.s. government what we would like to see is for the energy supply to run through afghanistan and through pakistan and i think there has been progress in the relationship between pakistan and india on the cusp of pakistan granting the most favored nation status to india. they are an enhanced economic relationship. >> no argument on the stabilizing influence including pipelines that run afghanistan, pakistan and india when they originated in iran.

>> i think our position is very well-known. iran in general we have had a duty to warn our pakistan friends the pipeline that is under consideration is likely to be sanctioned under the u.s. law. i am attempting not to conduct the megaphone diplomacy on this particular issue and i think they are aware of that position and i think one thing is that india, excuse me, iran has proven to be less than a reliable partner on many such energy projects with other countries so we hope that our pakistan friends will take this as friendly advice for someone

in the country that has been an important and significant partner in the energy field through our energy dialogue and the projects that i mentioned before, one of the five core elements of the systems program half. >> for the longest time there has been a sense that you look at the balance, the military balance between india and pakistan for the subcontinent is it fair to say that india and's continued conventional force modernization is putting some pressure run pakistan to ask itself whether the balance is holding and does that have some effect either on the choices it makes its funding to go for economic development education.

>> these are questions that really at the end of the day he would have to ask the pakistani government how they see these, how they perceive these questions i would say that the pakistani military and government has been very focused over the past few years for the insurgency is and the threat along the western border in the federally administered tribal areas and focusing on large amounts of resources but i think any military planner obviously be looking at a variety of things and looking at conventional threats as well and

i think that they have been paying attention to the developments on the eastern side otherwise you say the situation is stable and we have confidence at the stewardship for their materials so that is about as much as i would want to say on that. >> i want to finish that off by asking a question this way. if it were becomes an issue with

a second obama administration wants to pursue disarmament deal with the rest of the world and ask these questions and pakistan potentially i will pause it could be quite useful and important if there was enough sort of trust for the two sides to engage on the subject. >> how would you raise the potential for the meaningful conversations? >> by the two sides remain u.s. and pakistan. >> well, we do have a dialogue going with the nonproliferation working group, and we have some

fairly high level engagement. this is a topic that is best handled discreetly and quietly there are some opportunities in this regard as well as in addition to the risks that are more dramatically presented. >> what i really want to get from you is something on the public diplomacy arena because in the past officials have met at high levels and the public has speculated on what is being done and some officials more recently i would say secretary clinton engaging in public discussions in pakistan and letting the u.s. views be heard whether they were in 100% accord with the pakistani sentiment or

not, and that seems to me to beg the question what advice would you give official and unofficial visitors from washington where in gauging the pakistani media what is the opportunity in the public diplomacy realm and what is the message? >> i think there is a lot that can be done in this area and we have been doing a lot by the way. one of the things we need to do is open up the of pitcher in the dialogue. we need to have as many american voices out there telling our story as possible. we have a lot of people who are engaged with the press all the time, subject matter experts and portraying our story. i think what we want to be doing is getting past the story of the day because the story of today

may be up or down but talking about a long-term partnership we make a great deal of effort to get the pakistanis to appreciate what we have been doing in let's say the energy field in the work we have been doing in terms of refurbishing hydroelectric and we are intending to be a leading supporter of a big project will be transformed it over -- transformative. the message has to be about one of partnership and mutual respect and we do have our disagreements. we are going to have our disagreements but i think the important thing is that those disagreements would be aired as much as possible transparently, and with respect for both sides.

i think over time the other thing that's quite important i have to say is that it is important as americans that the most effective voices in the subject or pakistani voices rather than american voices. so the fact that the foreign minister was talking about a positive trajectory in the relationship and the ambassador here was talking about the relationship that carries more weight for the senior officials in the government and the bilateral relationship and mutual respect but also make sure that our messaging is consistent. >> this is my last question before we open it up to you.

do you think in washington and congress would the recession and budget cutting and combat forces one could imagine people saying our strategic sort of involvement is declining to read should we look at the assistance and trade benefits to pakistan and that sort of category and these may be becoming more significant. what would be the message to the washington policy committee in terms of how this fits in a broad strategic ra of engagement >> i think that the way that i would respond is to say there is a lesson from disengagement from pakistan and afghanistan and this is one of the central message of my ambassadorship in pakistan is that 2014 is not and

should not be a repeat of 1989 or 1990. that is very much how the region is interpreting 2014. that is to say to some extent we've done a lot of successful work as i mentioned before and pakistanis and others are interpreting the transition in 2014 as somehow being a repeat of the soviet withdrawal and obviously i would reject any comparison between what the soviets or doing and what we have been doing over the past decade but that is how the narrative has developed and i think that we've paid as a country a very steep price for our disengagement in afghanistan our explicit refusal to consider political settlement is a part of the geneva accord and our decision to impose sanctions on

pakistan. we paid a price for those decisions on september 11th 2001 and we still pay a price i think in terms of some legacy of concern. i can't predict the future and i certainly can't predict how things are going to develop in funding levels but i do think that there is an object lesson from history here that we need to be very cautious about. we have disengagement, a huge catastrophic mistake. >> with that what the open the floor to questions. please wait for the microphone and identify yourself if you are affiliated with an organization. yes, sir to the >> eye and an assistant

professor -- i am an assistant professor and coordinator [inaudible] it's a big subject matter. i've been doing this for awhile. [inaudible] it's very difficult but the u.s. pakistan relationship has been for such a long time and is still the case. it's very - with the united states because there's an inherent contradiction in the

actions especially over the questions. the united states must recognize it does not trends side. [inaudible] i have a lot of questions here. you are doing a lot of work there are real solutions.

we have to 20,000 more electricity. production capacity, manufacturing. >> well a couple things. first of all i think the context for our position on the iran and the pipeline has to be understood in the context of the iran's policy. the entire world in the international community has a stake in the iran not developing a nuclear weapon. i would think pakistan as a member of the security council and board of governors and the international agency have a similar appreciation of the danger of proliferation. and sanctions have been imposed on iran to help bring the iran to the negotiating table sat

issue can be addressed so i think there is a broad question of international obligations. we are sympathetic to the situation. and as i said, is also about -- i mentioned the hydroelectric power plants in pakistan and we have questions about the reliability of iran as a partner. but the final point is i think there is room in pakistan for the reform of its energy market and energy reform has to be the key issue for i would think any upcoming government or actually the substantial resources

available within pakistan including gas and other domestic sources of pricing mechanisms and questions of address in debt i don't want to get into in detail here. there are a wide variety of things that could be done. and i think that the united states has been a good partner in this regard. these are issues that we have regularly discussed in the government of pakistan through the energy working group. so i don't think -- i think our position on iran needs to be understood in the full context of all the points i am making. >> in the front row. this is the co-founder of the simpson center. >> thank you for being here. yet it's hard to see how they

can give a greatly increased trade. my understanding is currently there is no infrastructure for containers to cross the border. is this an advancement for the u.s. government and u.s. commerce? infrastructure development in support of the direct trade. >> i have to admit i am unaware. thank you for surfacing that. i would say broadly yes, we want to be supportive of an enhanced trade relationship between india and pakistan.

i think that this is an area where obviously we are going to be guided by the government of pakistan. as lincoln pointed out there is a lot of history on these issues. that's why it's fair to say there are legitimate security concerns. so a lot of progress has been made over the years and pakistan has moved from a positive to a negative. so i think that we want to be supportive but we would want to take the lead from frankly india and the pakistani government in this regard. >> let's come over year. wait for the microphone, please. >> my name is doug johnston. i had the international agency

for diplomacy. we've been on the ground in pakistan for a number of years working with the madrasas. despite the demographics, it is still a country at heart and this accounts for a lot of the systemic problems in public schools but despite the $100 million they gave pakistan after 9/11 not a lot has improved marching into the future and it probably accounts for the madrassas. >> i do see one area that is helpful. one of the things this government did during its five years in power was to develop authority for helping education to the provinces, and so this is

something that i think we would recognize with many of our educational programs handled at the state or in the lower levels and in particular i would say in the punjab that opportunity has been seized. the government of punjab has put a lot of resources and to public education. this is as i mentioned earlier to our british friends, heavily invested in supporting education in punjab. they are introduced i think the governor of punjab has introduced some serious metrics for tracking performances of

schools and tracking the educational levels. there is indeed in a long way to go. but i think that is a bright spot and perhaps one that can be emulated more broadly. i certainly agree with you on the importance of this subject and one that is going to have to be addressed buy any pakistan in government. >> in the back. >> thank you for your remarks. i covered the hill and i just got back from about ten days in the center. i am curious based on some of the remarks you've made that it was going to expire what do you see the potential replacement, what lessons have been learned over the course of the last few

years in terms of implementation and specifically something that will emphasize a great deal if you think that is realistic given that my experience was that the head line seems to be dominated and the destruction from what is an american war on terror and not understanding the war on terror do you think that we need to focus more on developing and not on the popularity? >> i think that, you know, assistance -- i think that it would be a simplification to assume that because we are providing large levels of assistance that automatically pakistanis are going to be grateful for that and that is and be reflected in the numbers i think that that would be of little bit simplistic.

but i think that what we have tried to do is demonstrate the importance of our partnership. and i think that some of the projects we have done have in fact engendered a great deal of good will. part of this the levels of assistance that we are talking about it takes time for the project is to come on board especially when you are talking about large infrastructure projects. but the fact that for example we've opened up and ob/gyn medical center to deal with a huge levels of maternal health issues i think that those are appreciated and they do in fact ultimately over time help to

build an understanding and i don't think that there is such a great contradiction between the development and doing larger scale programs. so i would say even though from a legislative perspective where fairly far down the pike as you mentioned and getting things out and developing it takes time to develop these and that will increase over time. i also think as i said before we are going to have to in the future define the relationship and so will their ways getting into the nature of the constraints that we are operating under. and i think that in that area the creative thinking on the subject of trade and what we could be doing on the trade going forward would be important because pakistan does have a substantial natural resources and those are harnessed and that will be more productive basis

for the relationship over time. >> we have time for a couple more questions. >> my question has to do with of the elections. do you think that he will have an impact, plus or minus or zero and do you anticipate any policy changes as opposed to ppp? >> thank you for coming. first of all, clearly on all of these domestic relations we don't have a decision and we are spectators on this. the traditional joke in pakistani politics has always been the pakistani politics is determined by the army, and i

can tell you for sure that he is out of this one and the army so i won't speak for allah. but it's up to the pakistan is obviously to address the question. he may have some legal issues to address and that is for him to address with the judiciary but my pakistani friends tell me he doesn't have a great deal of political support is a large significant event but i don't see this as terribly consequential. >> i don't want to speculate on who is going to win elections or what their positions would be. i think that any government that

came to power in pakistan would want to have a positive partnership with the united states and we would want to have a positive partnership with whatever government came in. and i have no doubt that would be the case among any of the leading contenders. >> we will help this gentleman back there. yes, sir. >> i am a graduate student at johns hopkins university. >> we are going to break away from the last couple of minutes to take you live to the national press club where the national hispanic leadership agenda that's a collection of 30 latino organizations was a press conference just getting under way as a push for the comprehensive immigration reform.

live coverage on c-span2. >> unprecedented campaign on immigration reform. .. >> and for the nation to make sure that we have immigration reform. we have waited a long time to make sure that we take the right step in the right direction. today, we have a great campaign

that we are launching for some of the work we've been doing for some time in the name of the campaign is latinos united for immigration reform. it's a very important campaign. we been working for a number of months. on both sides about making sure that the principles that we're going to present to them are on the table, that our priorities, strategic mobilizations all over the nation. this would be represented today. so we're really happy to be here. we look forward to working with other coalition from with everybody to make sure that immigration reform takes place this year. [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] >> and now i would like to start and introduce my colleague, my good friend, president and ceo of the national council for la raza. shall speak about the importance of this issue but also about our priorities. gracias. >> thank you, hector. did morning everyone. pleasure to be here with someone my distinguished colleagues. the organizations in this coalition represent latinos from across the political spectrum represented basis, labor, civil rights, faith, social justice

groups, and women as well. we are coming together because while our areas of work may be different and we have a wide variety of viewpoints, we believe that companies that immigration reform is a necessity. we believe that immigration to the united states should be orderly, legal and reflect our nation's values. congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to deliver immigration reform that really centers around three key principles. restores the rule of law by creating a real path to citizenship, and implementing smart enforcement that promotes security and respects rights preserves the rule of law through legal immigration channels that uphold the unity of all families, and respond to both the needs of employers and our workforce. and, strengthens the fabric of america by advancing immigrant integration. the bottom line is that we

should have immigration system whose components work in tandem. that is why if we are to restore the rule of law, ma the single most essential element of immigration reform is an earned legalization program with a real achievable roadmap to citizenship. not because enforcement is not important, but because enforcement is all we have done. and restore the rule of law requires that we devote. and once we restore the rule of law, our ability to preserve it will rest on having a legal immigration system be signed for the 21st century that does not create incentives to go around it. the cornerstones of our current system have been family and employment-based immigration, and that should continue. and while some cds as competing categories, the reality is that they are highly complementary, and both feel our nation's kills of strengthening

family values and of achieving the global economic competitiveness that we want. so the time is now. members of both parties are committed to delivering a solution, and our communities and organizations will be in the trenches to make it happen. thank you. >> united states hispanic chamber of commerce. >> buenos dias. good morning, everybody. i want to thank the national hispanic leadership agenda for inviting the united states hispanic chamber of commerce to participate, and for allowing us to share our thoughts on one of our countries most pressing business issues. comprehensive immigration reform. the u.s. hcc represents our nation's 3.1 million hispanic owned businesses that, together, contribute over $465 billion to the american economy every

single year. in addition we advocate on behalf of 187 major american corporations. and we do our work through a network of 200 local chambers and business associations throughout the united states and puerto rico. many of our members are immigrants. so we have a very unique you of the role that immigrant entrepreneurs play in building this american economy. each day will in of a new favorable development in this movement, whether it's a bipartisan consensus reached by the gang of eight, or a major corporate ceo calling for reform as we've seen very recently from the rise in coca-cola, jpmorgan, chase, and others. just last week at our national legislative summit, we heard from leaders as varied as democratic and republican parties, including leader nancy

pelosi, all the way to the senator rand paul, as they shared their vision for comprehensive immigration reform. what i have learned from numerous conversations with national business and political leaders is that it is no longer a question of if immigration reform will pass, but whether when and how. the united states hispanic chamber of commerce is committed to helping pass comprehensive immigration reform, and given the proven entrepreneurial impact of immigrant owned businesses, one cannot claim to support small business without supporting immigrant owned businesses. america attracts the best and brightest minds from around the world. and year after year our shores receive ways of new investors, entrepreneurs, students, and workers of every stripe. for over two centuries the united states has been a haven for immigrants from every corner

of the globe. these immigrants bring with them a new energy, new ideas, innovation, and above all, a strong worksite and a desire to succeed. we seem immigration reform come to the forefront of our national dialogue. and like many national debates, the issues and the rhetoric can become both heated and emotional. however, that approach serves needed to inform decisions nor advanced new solutions. at the u.s. hcc we believe and we welcome bipartisan efforts that look beyond the rhetoric and focus on the commercial impacts of comprehensive immigration reform. it's not only about emotions, it's also about economics. there are many important voices in the discussion, but at the u.s. hcc we feel is important focus on the economic benefits of a sound immigration system that accounts for the needs of a 21st century and globalized

economy. consider the following, immigrant owned businesses contribute an estimated $775 billion to the american economy every single year. one out of every 10 american workers is actually employed by an immigrant owned company. some of our country's leading brands, including google, at&t, ebay, intel, and even kohl's department stores were all founded by immigrants. and the fact is that 40% of the fortune 500 companies were either started by immigrant or the child of an immigrant. now, economists tackle it that comprehensive immigration reform would add an additional $1.5 trillion to america's gross domestic product over the next 10 years, while creating $56 billion in tax revenue. fact is, immigration is an

integral component of our economic policy and directly impacts the competitiveness of our country's workforce. our broken and outdated immigration system hinders our economy's growth, and, frankly, puts america's global leadership in jeopardy. immigrants are critically important consumers, producers, and job creators boosting the economic well being of all of america. and while there are an estimated 11 million undocumented individuals currently in the u.s., just imagine for one moment, and imagine what the small business growth would look like if we provided them a path to an earned citizenship. i'm also very proud to announce that very recently the results of a new national poll released by the small business majority, a great partner of the u.s. hcc, that poll conducted by a bipartisan group of pollsters shows overwhelming support for

comprehensive immigration reform among america's small business community, the entirety of the small business community. data from that poll will be passed out to all the members of the press today. the findings reinforce the u.s. hcc's position that immigration reform is an economic imperative for this nation. iq result of the vote is that two-thirds of all respondents believe immigration reform is good for business, and that makes a good for america. as our congress continue to debate this issue, this poll shows that a major segment of our country, the small business community, where two-thirds of all jobs are created, stands strongly behind comprehensive immigration reform. the immigrant entrepreneur is an asset to this nation that should be acknowledged and celebrated. for these and so many other reasons, congress must act, and they must act now for

comprehensive immigration reform. the time is now. our economy needs it. our businesses require it, and our country demands. thank you very much. >> now i want to introduce the president and ceo of the u.s.-mexico chamber of commerce. >> good morning. the united states mexico chamber of commerce is 40 years old business association that was created between the two presidents of the united states and mexico, 40 years ago. more specifically the idea was to bring the private sector together to be able to impact the policymaking process that would affect the private sector, and that has been a process that we have steadfastly worked towards. i think there's a couple of things that i would like to just highlight, because i think you will hear from everybody today

that will give you all the information that a think you will need to go forward as far as statistics as well as other positions. but let me state this, that every president since ronald reagan, both democrat and republican, has moved towards a comprehensive immigration reform. it has had its bits and pieces to its had its fits and starts, but the key thing is the time is right and the time is now. it's important for all of us to realize that a trillion dollars of trade and investment goes between the north american countries of canada, the united states and mexico. and what's more important is that you see a developing process happening, what we call workforce mobility, the movement and the ability for workers to move across international boundaries, international borders, or specifically the u.s.-mexican borders. there's another i think the

important piece that goes right directly to the core of why this is the right time to do what we are doing. it's important to note that hispanics have fought on every single war from the revolutionary war in our country to today. as part of that, they have borne the brunt in higher numbers of% in both casualties as well as participation in the military. in more specifically will find that eight of the 44 of which was originally 24 before we got into the vietnam war and the wars of late, eight of those original 22 medal of honor were of mexican noncitizens back out their citizens out of the governmental of our because they served in our country. the other part of it is that over 20% of the casualties and participation of hispanics in all our wars, especially the last war since the second war,

have been us. and so we paid our debt and we paid it in many ways. and i think it's time now that we really understand that we are part of the fabric and we continue to grow, and we continued to take our rightful position of leadership. thank you very much. >> now, thomas saenz, mexican american legal defense and education fund. >> thank you, hector. good morning the only half of maldef which is over its 40th anniversary this year i'm pleased to be here this morning to join my colleagues in launching league of united latin american citizens for immigration reform. last year latinos voted in record number to select a president an and a congress wita clear message that the expectation was that immigration reform would be a part of the agenda of that congress and president in 2013. that message since last november is reinforced what is being

launched today. but critical important outlet and opportunity. for those latino voters and their supporters within and outside the latino community. to demonstrate their support for basic principles behind immigration reform, the votes of last november were a vote in support of the concept of immigration reform, but more importantly they were votes in support of basic principles behind smart and progressive immigration reform. this effort, bipartisan, including folks from across the political spectrum, is a recognition of basic principle that we support as a community. those basic principles which you have heard involved in sharing that we have a pathway to citizenship, that recognizes the contributions of so many to our country over years without full legal protection. second, smart enforcement of our immigration laws. federally driven and rights

respecting. and third, reform of our immigration system to ensure that our immigration system reflects our nation's constitutional values and principles, and will serve well our economy. at maldef as the latino legal boys, we understand the centrality of legal values and constitutional principles in every area of policy and endeavor. in immigration reform it means that those basic principles put forward by latinos united for immigration reform have to be the backbone of the legislative that comes out in 2013, that will come out in 2013 that will be enacted in 2013 to reform our immigration system. what is being launched at this point is an important opportunity for everyone within the latino community and those who support them, to demonstrate their ongoing support initially

expressed last november for immigration reform that respects our nation's basic values. at maldef we are joining in this launch and recognizing that it's an important message to our policymakers about those basic shared principles. thank you. >> josé calderón. spend gracias, have to. good morning, buenos dias. latinos from east to west, north to south have come together unlike at any point in recent memory to demand for broadband just immigration reform. that was clearly evident that tom mentioned and lashes potential election where 12 with 5 million latinos went out to the polls really march to the polls tuesday enough, we demand, we expect broad and just immigration reform. so today represents a coming together of latino leaders, right, that here you have my colleagues that represent tens

of minutes of latinas across this nation that are coming together to make sure that our communities a voice is going to be heard, to make sure that our communities mobilize and engage in key congressional districts across the country. one of the things we look to do today moving forward is having town halls across america to make sure that that voice is loudly and clearly heard across the country. it is critically important that latinos are heard in this debate because ultimately the reason that we stand today, the reason we talk about immigration reform as a nation is because latinos have said, enough, we want to make sure that our broken immigration system is six and that it is fixed this year. so one of the mobilizations, 60 town halls across america, has been a federation with many of our colleagues here will be conducting these town halls with hundreds of people in key congressional districts as i mentioned to make sure that congressional members across

america get the point that this is not on an important issue for our community, it is a defining issue for our community above all else. we care a lot about a different things but this issue has united us unlike any other issue before, and we demand just and broad immigration reform. and i stand with the police to make sure that that happens this year. gracias. >> i know we have other executive, lead of the united -- the league of united latin american citizens, lulac. spent thank you, hector. on behalf of the league of united latin american citizens i'm proud to be here today to be able to support the launch of latinas unit for immigration reform campaign. it is an unprecedented grassroots campaign that we believe is going to have an incredible impact across the country. and that's because it's a campaign that is designed to engage our community, to make sure that we are getting to every single latino across the

country, and telling them it's not enough just to vote. we have to make sure that we deliver a message to congress. and so the campaign, when you look at the principles of course, the big focus for us was to make sure with our principles that we're driving that message out to a community of how are going to do that? we been meeting with members of congress already and we got a lot of folks is across the country. but we also have our interactive website, www.latinos united.org. this website engages our dignity by giving the chance to sign up for the campaign whether you're an individual or an organization. you can sign up and be part of this campaign. this could be much bigger than the national hispanic leadership agenda organization itself. we anticipate having hundreds of organizations and hundreds of thousands of individuals to sign up and be part of the campaign. what we want them to do is to make sure that we are delivering the message to the members of congress, contacting the

congress, and that's what the website is designed to do. as you can see the town hall locations will help us drive that message out to our community. but in addition to that, when you look at the actual focus for us, we want to make sure that the members are sending letters, that they're sending postcards, that they're communicating through e-mail, that they're calling the members, that they were tweeting, that they're using that text messaging services. that they are engaging at every level that they can come and that's what unique about the campaign, it's a campaign that focuses on the traditional grassroots organizing combined with the latest technology and advocacy to deliver a message. so as the president said, the time is not the best comprehensive immigration reform. but by launching latinos united for immigration reform, what we're saying, it's our time. it's the latino communities time to stand up to the plate, deliver a win for our community on comprehensive immigration reform. and today, is the beginning of that effort. thank you.

>> thank you. and today we're joined also by a number of leaders from all over the latino organizations that are part of the coalition. thank you for being here. at this point as you can see, it's a very important national campaign. we will open it up for questions. we take questions in english and in spanish. [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish]

>> this reporter has asked a question about the timing for immigration reform. the fact that when the congressional border side isn't led by senator mccain, and others, who have been part of the negotiations process. and what are the implications for getting, for these discussions, that site visit for getting a bill that it is fairly quickly and the time for the process over all. so that they respond in english and then i will see if i can do in spanish. but look, we believe that there is been very good progress.

i know a lot of that has been behind the scenes, but we have seen a lot of the bipartisan negotiations continue. and we understand that they are very close to introducing a bill that would then be considered in the committees within the months of april and may, and that we will see for consideration by june. i know that there are a lot of people are very anxious, including all of us, to actually see that bill introduced. but we've seen commitments in a very bipartisan way, as many of you know you're these discussions have been led by both republicans and democrats, including senators mccain, senators rubio, senators schumer, senator menendez, then it, durbin, flake and lindsey graham. so there has been -- if this is a been engage, and i think that we will see a bill introduced.

i think very helpful patch of senator schumer on this visit with senator mccain, and others pick up with senator bennet is also there, too. and that there actually looking at how they can address some of these issues. obviously, the border security issue is one that has been of great importance to a lot of folks. we happen to believe that a lot has already been done in terms of investments on the border. we saw a very well-regarded report that came out earlier this year that said that $18 billion was spent last year alone on border enforcement, more than all the other enforcement agencies in the federal government combined. so i hope that, i'm glad that there are on the border to i hope they see that we've done a lot already as a country to make sure that border is secure. i'm very confident that we will see a bill soon after they come back. i know that there are still a few issues that they're trying

to resolve, but i think why it is taking so long at the front it is because they want to get consensus so that they can move this bill quickly, or as quick as possible, through the committee process and onto the floor. so we are hoping that this time that he spent up front to get as much consensus as possible will pay off as we go through the legislative process. that is our hope and expectation. where not going to rely on hopes and expectations, and that's what this campaign is about. this campaign which represents as you see your democrats, republicans, business, labor, civil rights groups, faith-based groups can and many other in our coalition, are committed to moving forward to keep the pressure on, to keep the momentum going from the election in november, as tom stay become and to make sure that we are strategically targeting those members who will be asked to vote for this bill, and making sure that they hear from the latino community, and understand

we are community. we are not a monolithic community. we don't have all the same issue. we work in different areas but we are gathered here today in unity because we have one common denominator, and that is what all support comprehensive immigration reform. not because we think it's just important for our community but because we think it's important for our country. you want to take some of that in spanish? and español? [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] >> actually i will do in english. there's a lot of concern you. we don't even have an immigration bill yet, and there's already a lot of talk about the laws that threaten to derail immigration reform just like it did in 2007. can you address how real the conflict is between the business community over a guest worker program, for instance? ..

to make sure that we can get over the top in terms of passing immigration reform this year and so we are going to be targeting the key congressional districts and members across america that are either on the fence we think we can sort of get them over to our side to send a message about the importance of this issue for the community and really sort of reemphasize the number of latinos that are in their district. i think that's an important

message for us and will ultimately be the deciding factor where we have these town halls. >> i just want to add part of this is the engagement strategy. how we make sure we mobilize our community just like we did for the election so the places we are locating are in those key district but also in place is that we have a strong membership in our campaign and we are also developing a tool kit that is going to be provided to each of these town halls that we will be using to basically deep principles inviting many of the leaders that you see here today to participate in the town hall but we believe 60 is already on the table and will have more than that at the end of the day so we are excited about the fact that there's an incredible enthusiasm for the town hall across the country. we have a map that shows the town hall. we show the locations that are on board and we have many more as well. thanks.

>> [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish]

[speaking in spanish] [speaking in spanish] >> of the participants? i don't know if they've been getting the number lately. it won't be as big as we saw in 2006. but we are going to make a very serious effort to demonstrate that there is widespread support for this.

>> we are going to be available for one-on-one interviews. thank you for being here. we look forward to collaborating with you and 2013 is a year of immigration reform. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

that wraps up this briefing on the immigration policy. if you missed the program you have it available to you shortly on line at cspan.org. other events coming up to tell you about let's take a look at the scene outside of the u.s. supreme court. justices at this hour during the second of to same-sex marriage cases. today dealt with the legality of the defense of marriage act doma

that states that marriages between a man and a woman. we got a preview of today's oral argument from a reporter covering the issue. let's begin with what doma is. what is the defense of marriage act? >> guest: it's interesting you talk about the signing of law act in 1996 it tells you how much things have changed. the 1996 defense of marriage act is a reaction to the early state action notably in hawaii moving towards same-sex marriage. hawaii -- massachusetts being the first to legalize it but members of congress and other people across the nation became concerned about states moving towards allowing same-sex couples to marry. members of congress passed a law that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and a critical for today is the provision that federal benefits can only go to married opposite

sex couples even if you happen to be legally married in massachusetts or new york before today's supreme court cases you can't get benefits. >> what are the constitutional arguments for and against back in 1996? >> back in 1996 there was more traditional religious cultural societal arguments about why marriage should remain between a man and woman, and frankly back then there were some state constitutions that advocates were trying to use to say that same sex should be allowed in various states but in no way -- there was no federal push for same-sex marriage at all coming and what the federal officials were trying to do at the time is to sort of stop it and ensure that if one state did allow same-sex marriage, the federal government wouldn't have to honor its. >> how did it get to the supreme

court in 2013? >> guest: it's interesting because it does have to do with the section 3 that federal benefits only the opposite sex couples. a woman by the name of edith lost her partner of many years. they had been married in canada and that marriage was recognized in new york state and when her partner died, edith bought a high tax bill for state taxes that she wouldn't have gotten if her partner had been a man. newspapers reporting this morning she will be in the court. >> host: i talked to one of her lawyers yesterday and she will be there. >> guest: she will be there and i think that's pretty exciting for the people on that side. >> host: who will be arguing for that site? >> guest: a woman named roberta kaplan from new york will be representing edith windsor. we have a long line of the beginning with a woman named

vicki jackson who is a harvard law professor and a supreme court appointed specifically to our view the case cannot be decided on the merits because the federal government no longer is defending the section 3 of the defense of marriage act and a bipartisan republican dominated group of house members have come in to defend it, and the question is can we do it, do they have what is the legal standing to do that? >> host: as we are talking people are heading into the court right now. is only about 20 minutes to 8:00. so to get along in the folks have to sit there? >> guest: many people were lined up since last thursday. what the court officials will do is eventually let them in out of the cold to go to the bathroom and once we get to this point on the day of the argument they get in and they start queuing up inside of the building. >> host: who will be arguing on the other side of the case? >> guest: the main advocate

against the federal government and against edith when sir's claim is a man by the name of paul clement who many of the viewers are familiar with. he actually was the lead lawyer challenging the obama health care law last year from the u.s. solicitor general under george w. bush. he will be representing the house members, the republican dominated house members are doing it is bipartisan legal action group. he will be representing on two counts. one to say yes supreme court justices have jurisdiction here and yes we are allowed to bring this. and then on the merits saying congress was right back in 1996 to pass this law and that it is still constitutional. >> host: how will which break down? how much time as the court dedicating to doma and how will it break down today? >> guest: today we have a one-hour or and 50 minute

schedule. the first will be on the procedural question to the sow for anyone in the courtroom or anyone listening leader to the c-span tapes, what they will hear will the mostly procedural questions about who is able to challenge this. and there are two questions actually. one is can this group from the house of representatives, the bipartisan legal advisory group -- thanks for giving me the a word, the group doesn't have the legal standing to challenge it. that's one issue. the other is once the federal government says that it didn't want to defend this which the obama administration says in february of 2011 does that complicate the case? does that is essentially make the legal challenge go away. so, as i said, the lawyer vicki jackson will be arguing that both of those elements actually deprive the supreme court of jurisdiction to decide the merits over whether section 3 of doma can be struck down. >> host: and then the last 60

minutes on the merits. so interestingly it's been to go first, roberta -- excuse me, vicki jackson first, and then a deputy solicitor general will come up next to again say even though we are not defending law we think you can still decide it and then will come up paul comment and there will be a short break and he will simply switch hats and come right back up and then argue the merits of the case in the house. >> host: how does yesterday's argument on the proposition eight impact or reflect today's arguments on the defense of marriage act? >> guest: to remind people what happened yesterday it was a challenge to california's's proposition 8 marriage should be reserved for a man and woman, and the court in that case took it narrowly and struck down california's all and something

broad for the nation. the signals were very clear yesterday that the justices didn't really want to go anywhere near the national rule for same-sex marriage and that they were flipping to say we are not going to decide the merits. >> host: having seen that resistance in the court yesterday hiding we are going to similarly see no suggestions that they want it ruled broadly. >> guest: this is an easy narrow question for them today. it is first of all of the lower courts that have looked at this provision of doma that restricts federal benefits to only the opposite married couples have struck it down. judges appointed by democratic presidents and the republican presidents, you know, have believed that this is not fair. that it's unconstitutional to have this kind of limitation. remember who it affects, people who are legally married in the nine states in the district of columbia that do allow same-sex marriage. and i think that generally the

justices as the lower court judges have already indicated that is unfair. so i think this would be an easy question on the merits if they can get to. >> here is what some of you are saying about the cases. we welcome your thoughts on the matter. tweet with your opinion to #samesexmarriage. >> what do we do about the israeli-palestinian conflict? it took until june, 2002 to develop an answer. and the answer was to states for

two people, jewish state and a palestinian state. but only when that palestinian state will be a decent, stable, peaceful, space mom corrupt government -- mullen corrupt government. former defense department general counsel jeh johnson said he's skeptical about the idea of creating a special court to oversee the targeted killings of american terrorist suspects abroad. but the idea is worth considering. the obama administration has come under pressure in recent months to reveal more about the legal rationale behind such legal operations. the remarks of the university in

new york city mr. johnson expressed confidence in the white house and the new cia director john brennan whose agency plays an active role in the lethal drawn strike program. from earlier this month, this is just under an hour. >> good morning. it is a pleasure to welcome you here today in the never ending winter. i am very excited about today's conference. but first i want to give a few thanks. i want to thank the assistant director of the center on the national security for the painstaking work putting this conference together with me. you can imagine this which i know many of you are here for is

god's work so we've done that as well as everything else. today we are looking at the 21st century law and the enemy and the battlefield. what i want to do is begin by saying that for the work of the center and for the other national security centers at law school, basically this is what we have been looking at for the past 12 years. we have been looking at the legal paradigm authorizations and the space between oh-la-la and the war sallai thought it was time to have a conversation that probably we should have been having all along. what is the future of warfare in the united states? where is it involved and not involved. where is the enemy going to be five years from now and ten years from now. where is the battlefield going to begin and end? how generally we think about the

war it is a clue about where i think we are all going and where we will be a year from now when we have our next conference. one thing to point out today at the outset is that lawyers have been unusually involved in the war on terror and of the case was the bush administration is more so the case with the obama ad registration. lawyers are the spokesperson's behind-the-scenes and in front of the cameras and obama has to explain to the nation what he is doing what his administration is thinking and to make an interface between the public and the administration policy and that means lawyers have been inseparable from the questions of policy of and particularly about the war and conducting the war under the present administration.

to speak about the issues to which this conference is devoted from johnson who recently left the department of defense as the general counsel and other public service was as many of you know prosecuted here in the southern district of new york for the past couple years he was also general counsel for president clinton for the air force. from what i've seen and read and heard, things are important to say he just accepted the challenge of the responsibility of the fact that one individual, one man, 1% of confidence, one woman. the policy makers can lead and work with it is a mark for good or a lark for error this is why

we invited him here today. robert kennedy said here which he dedicated this building to the law school at the lincoln center. he said, quoting justice jackson, the attribute of a lawyer is courage jeh johnson starts on a particular interest today. we know something about what he thinks, but not a lot. but here is what we do know and i am quoting from the speech he gave at the oxford union several months ago. the war he told the group assembled their must be invited as a finite extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. it violates the natural order of things in which children bury

their parents come in the war parents buried their children. he went on to say we must not accept the current conflict and of its details as normal. he is mostly regarded as the normal for the human race continually strives. today we think not just about the perpetuation of the current war against al qaeda and is as yet forces, but about the war. is it important and possible to keep it from spreading, do we want to keep it from spreading? the rule of law and thinking about for fair what is the role in litigating the run into the war in conflict. is there a point where it can be placed in the military or at least medicated? several of the panelists today have been involved in the past 24 hours and i invite you to read even in today's brief for on the site about the

authorization to the military force. it authorized the united states after 9/11 is exhausting, would carry us into the next year or to the next decade or do we need more? these are the questions that confront the nation and experts on wall and others that interested in the intersection between the warfare need to confront these earlier rather than later. these are among the questions we ask today and i am delighted that you come to join us without further ado i give you jeh shom singh. [applause] >> thank you three edge. can everyone here me especially in the back? i can see heads nodding.

before i begin, i can't help but recall every time i teach at a cle i remember i was the general counsel of the air force 12 and a half years ago i was giving a talk at the cle at the u.s. embassy in london to the station around europe and was in an auditorium about this size and i can't remember what i was talking about litigation, settled litigation and in the back was the ambassador. the u.s. ambassador to the kingdom to a speech and i could not resist the temptation and i asked him mr. ambassador what brings you here? south carolina. everybody needs their cle.

thank you all for your interest in national security. we went to law school 30 plus years ago. these types of subjects were discussed in rather sleepy international courses and i find it fascinating that there are for courses and conferences devoted to what i used to do. today i want to join the current public debate about the national security court for the prior approval of lethal counterterrorism operations and as some have put a drone court. many have come out forcefully on one side or the other. my goal is to set out why i believe the pros and cons based on my prior personal experience

as the senior legal officer of the department of defense as the former federal prosecutor and as a career litigator. as a preliminary matter, i can't help but deflect for a moment on how we got to where we are. most people i think do not have the bottomline conclusions and results most legal commentators would believe with the general proposition that a u.s. citizen who is a senior leader of al qaeda in the terrorist personally involved plotting from an overseas remote location to kill innocent american men and women and children and who cannot easily be captured or arrested is inappropriate target for the lethal force by the u.s. government and most observers would agree i think that as a result of the government's counterterrorism efforts spanning both the bush and obama

administration and which have included targeted lethal force against the known individuals the u.s. homeland is safer today from a terrorist attack launched by al qaeda from overseas. some would say if it isn't broken don't fix it. the problem, however, is that the american public is suspicious of executive power shrouded in the absence of an official sector of what our government is doing and by what authority many in the public fill the void by envisioning the worst. they see dark images of civilian and military national security personnel in the basement of the white house as a judge, jury and executioner going down the list of americans deciding for themselves who shall live and who should die pursuant to a process and bystanders no one

understands. .. >> at the same time through unauthorized leaks of sensitive information, the government looks to the american pu