>> good afternoon. my name is nicole hockley and standing with me is my house, dan. we have two sons, jacob sager of may third-grader at sandy hook elementary school. a younger son, dylan was murdered in his first grade classroom less than four months ago. before 12, 14 at this time of day you would find a preparing dinner for my boys, helping him with hallmark are taking them to a karate class. my family's world came completely that day. 20 of our children, six of our educators, gone. for some in our country, the way that the initial anguish may appear to have diminished. but the ripples continue to be felt here in connecticut and across the united states.

every day before trent three and everyday sense, people have died from gun violence. what law-abiding citizen, whether it gone on there or not doesn't want to address and save lives? when i used to see terrible tragedies and violence on the evening news, i'd be upset and wonder what i could do an essay became focused again on the details of my life, i'd start to forget and i would turn away. that's my daily routine. now there is no going back. for me there is no turning away. if you want to protect your children, if you want to avoid this file, you will not turn away either. do something before a tragedy becomes your tragedy. now is the time to speak and make your voice heard. there is much we have to do to prevent catastrophes like the

one at sandy hook. we need to address issues of mental health, build more communities and strengthen families. the task before us this week is to convince the senate to come together and pass commonsense gun responsibility legislation that will make our communities safer. [applause] before last month, i had never made a case to a legislator. we approach the connecticut legislature with love and logic and they listened. they responded with respect and the strongest gun responsibility legislation in the nation. [applause]

my expectations for congress are high. i believe at the same approach of love and logic, congress will be persuaded to act. for days after dillon was killed, i was so filled with grief i felt unable to move. paralyzed from shock, hollow and empty from the sorrow of losing my precious boy and they're still many days when i feel like that. but sometimes the razor sadness are so great a threat to drown me, i stand before you now and ask you to stand with me, with all the families, those in sandy hook and all the other towns and cities across our great nation that have lost loved to gun violence. hope this be the moment when real change begins. hope this be the beginning of turning tragedy into transformation for us all.

that is what the president is doing. [applause] that is what the president is doing and that is why it gives me great pleasure to introduce him now. the president of the united states, iraq obama. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

>> hello, connecticut. [cheers and applause] thank you so much, everybody. but maybe can buy thinking nicole, and he for your brave words. [cheers and appand applause] i want to thank don and all this newtown families who have come here today, including pat loadrunner. [applause] and nobody could be more eloquent than cool and the other

families on this issue and we are so grateful for their courage and willingness to share their stories to understand that nothing is going to be more important in making sure congress moves forward this week. i want to thank the educators from sandy hook elementary who have come here as well. [cheers and applause] the survivors. i love you back, i do. they still mourn and grieve, but are still going to work every day to love and praise for special children in their care as fiercely as ever. i want to thank governor malloy

for his leadership. [cheers and applause] very proud of him. i want to thank the university of hartford for hosting. [cheers and applause] thank you, hartford. and i want to thank the people of connecticut for everything you've done to honor the memories of the vic guns. [applause] one of your recent alumni, rachel doody now was a behavioral therapies at sandy hook. two alumni of her performing arts school, jimmy green lost their daughter, anna, an

incredible vibrant young girl who looked up to them and inherited their talents by singing before she could talk. so every family in the state were shaken by the tragedy that morning. every family were shaken. we had her kids were tightly and asked what we could do as a society to prevent a tragedy like that from happening again. we decided we have to change. we must. we must change. [applause] i noticed; others refer to baghdad as 12/14. for these families, it is the day they changed their family. i know many of you in newtown

wondered if the rest of us would live up to the promise we made in those dark days. if we change, too. once the television trucks left, once the bears are battered up again that the country would move on to other things. over the weekend i heard francine wheeler, who lost her son then that day say that the four months since the tragedy might feel like a brief moment for some, but for her it feels like years. and she is determined not to let what happened that day fadeaway. we are not going anywhere she said. we are here. we are going to be here. i know she speaks for everybody in newtown, everybody who was impacted. in newtown, we want you to know that we are here with you. we will not walk away from the

promises we face. we are determined as ever to do what must be done. [applause] i am here to ask you to help me to show we can get it done. we are not forgetting. [applause] we can't forget. families grieve in ways most of us can't comprehend. so many who used to that grief to make a difference. not just to honor your own children, but protect the lives of all of our children. so many of you have mobilized and organized and petitioned your luck at officials with love and logic as nicole put at, as citizens determined to write

something gone wrong. and last week in connecticut, your elected leaders respond to the legislature led by many here today past-due measures to protect more children and students from gun violence. governor malloy signed that legislation into law. [cheers and applause] i want to be clear. you, the families of newtown, you hope to make that happen. your voice is coming your determination made that happen. obviously the elected leaders didn't extraordinary job, but it couldn't have been if it weren't

worth hearing from people in their respective districts. people across the state, that's the power of your voice. by the way, connecticut is not alone. colorado, maryland have all passed gun safety reforms as well. [applause] these are all states that share an awful familiarity with guns violent, whether it's the horror of mass killings or street crime that's too common in too many neighborhoods. all of these states also share a strong tradition of sport shooting and gun ownership it's been a part of the fabric of people's lives for generations in every single one of the states, including connecticut decided we can protect more citizens from gun violence will still protect dean our second amendment rights.

[applause] a protect our kids and our rights. so connecticut has shown the way and now is the time for congress to do the same. [cheers and applause] now is the time for congress to do the same this week. it's a time for congress to do the same. [cheers and applause] now back in january, just a few months after the tragedy in newtown, i announced a series of actions to keep our kids safe.

and i put forward commonsense proposals, much like those that passed here in connecticut for congress to consider. you'll remember in my state of the union address, i urged congress to give those proposals a vote. ..

[applause] >> but here is a we have to do. i appreciate that. here is what we have to do. we have to tell congress it is time to require a background check for anyone who wants to buy again so that people who are dangerous to themselves and others cannot get there hands on a gun. let's make that happen. [applause]

we have to tell congress is time to crack down on gun sales so that folks will think twice before buying again as part of a scheme to arm someone who will pass a background check. let's get that done. [applause] we have to tell congress it is time to restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit from magazines. let's put that to a vote. we have to tell congress it is time to strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems if the treatment they need before it's too late. let's do that.

i know that some of these proposals inspire more debate than others. but each of them has the support of the majority of the american people all the more common sense, all of them deserve a vote. [applause] all of them deserve a vote. [applause] consider background checks. over the past 40 years background checks have kept more than to marry in dangerous people from getting their hands out a gun. a group of police officers in colorado told me last week that thanks to background checks they have been able to stop convicted murderers, folks under restraining orders for committing violent domestic abuse from buying a gun, in some

cases they have actually arrested the person as they were coming to purchase a gun. so we know that background checks can work, but the problem , loopholes in the current law led so many people avoid background checks altogether. that is not safe. it does not make sense. if you are a law-abiding citizen and you go through a background check to buy again, would you expect other people to play by the same rules? if you are a law-abiding gun seller, wouldn't you want to know you're not selling your gun to someone who is likely to commit a crime? [applause] should we make it harder, not easier, for somebody who has been convicted of domestic abuse to get his hands and again? [applause]

it turns out 90 percent of americans think so. 90 percent of americans support universal background checks. think about that. how often the 90 percent of americans agree on anything? [laughter] and yet 90 percent agree on this republicans, democrats, folks who own guns, folks who don't own guns. 80 percent of republicans, more than 8 percent of gun owners, more than 70 percent of the nra households though it is common sense, and yet there is only one thing that can stand in the way of change. you'd think that with those numbers congress would rush to make this. that is what you would think. [applause]

is part of democracy is working away is supposed to an 90 percent of the american people agree on something, and the like a tragedy you would think this would not be a heavy lift. and yet some folks back in washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. think about that. they are -- they're not just saying no. they're saying there will do everything they can't even prevent any votes on these provisions. they are saying your opinion does not matter. and that is not right. that is not right. we need a vote.

[chanting] at eight. >> we need a vote. now, i have also heard some in the washington press suggest that what happens to a gun violence legislation in congress is either going to be a political victory or defeat for me. connecticut, this is not about me. this is not about politics. this is about doing the right thing for all of the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence. it's about them and all of the

family's going forward so that we can prevent this from happening again. that is what is about. this is not about politics. [applause] this is not about politics. this is about these families, and families all across the country who are saying, let's make it a little harder for our kids to get guns down. i said in my state of the union address that these proposals deserve a vote, the families of newtown an aurora and tucson and a former member of congress , gaby giffords, virtually every

member of that chamber stood up and applauded. and now they're going to start denying your family's a vote when the cameras are off, when the lobbyist, you deserve better than that. you deserve a vote. now, we knew from the beginning of this debate that change would not be easy. we knew that there would be a powerful interest that would be good at confusing the sub beckham amplifying conflict in extremes. they're good at rant -- drowning of national debate, all of which stands in the way of progress. of our history teaches us anything it is up thus, the

people, to stand up to those who say we cannot or we will not. stand up for the chains that we need. [applause] and i believe that that is what the american people are looking for. you know, when i first ran for this officer said that i did not believe the country was as divided as our politics, and i still believe that. i know sometimes when you watch -- sometimes when you watch cable news or talk-radio or you browse the internet you say, man, everyone just take these other. that is not how most americans think about these issues. there are good people on both sides of every issue. so with regard right to move toward we cannot just talk past one another. we have to listen to one another. that is what all of these legislative leaders did.

i have stacks of letters from gun owners who want me to know that they care passionately about their right to bear arms, don't want them impeached apologize and i appreciate everyone of those letters in the blood from them. a lot of those letters also said, they're not just the numbers, parents, police owners, veterans. believe that we kasten by and keep letting these that it does happen. with our rights, responsibilities and obligations to our communities and ourselves and most of all to our children. we cannot just think about us. we have to think about week, the people. you know, i was in colorado and told a story about michele. she came back from a trip to rural iowa. we were out there campaigning.

sometimes miles between farms, let alone towns. she said, coming back now would understand why someone would want a gun for protection. someone drove up into the driveway. always appearances have been positive, but i also realize that for others all the experience with guns has been negative. and when he said that i thought about suburban chicago. this month tell me, i hate it when people tell me that my son was in the wrong place of the wrong time. he was on his way to school, exactly where he was supposed to be commander right bicep the right time, and still got shot.

there were at the right place. they were exactly where they're supposed to be. there were also exercising their rights to assemble peaceably, to worship really in safely. they are exercising their rights of life and liberty, pursued a fabulous. so, surely we can reconcile those two things. surely america does not have to be divided between rural and urban and democrat, republican when it comes to someone like this one to do something to

prevent more families from knowing the measurable english that these families here have done. now's the time to get engaged come up push back on fear and frustration and misinformation. now is the time for everybody to make their voices heard, from every state house to the corridors of congress. finding out where your members of congress stand on this. they're not part of the 90 percent of americans were grim background checks and ask them why not. what is more important to you?

our children or an a-gray from the gun lobby. and for them both talk about what the left is that like sense their son was taken. one thing she said struck me. she said, every night i beg for m to come to me in my dreams so i can see him again. and during the day i focus on what i need to do to honor him and make change. now, if nicole can summon the courage to do that, how can the rest of us do any less? how can we do any less?

if there is even one thing we can do to protect our kids don't we have an obligation? if there is even one step weekend take to keep somebody from murdering dozens of innocence in the span of minutes, shouldn't we be taking that step? there is just one thing we can do to keep one father from having to bury his child. isn't that worth fighting for? i have to tell you, i have that tough days in the presidency in the said this before. the toughest day of my presidency. but i have to tell you, if we don't respond to this that will

be a tough day for you, too. because -- because we have got to expect more from ourselves. we have to expect more from congress. we have to believe that, you know, every once in awhile we set politics aside and just do what is right. [applause] if you believe that the member asking you to stand up. if you believe in the right to bear arms like id but think we should prevented irresponsible few from conflicting harm, stand up. [applause] stand-up. [applause] if you believe that the families of the town an aurora and tucson and virginia tech and the thousands of americans who have been gunned down in the last

four months deserve a vote, we all have to stand up. you want the people you sent to washington to have just an iota of the kurds of the educators at sandy hook showed when the danger was right on their doorstep we will all have to stand up. and if we do come every come together and raise their voices together and demand the chains together, i am convinced cooperation and common-sense will prevail. we will find principal, intelligent ways to make this country stronger and safer for children. as to the right thing, to right by her children, these families, get this done, connecticut. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] let's to the right thing, to [applause]

[applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> now, a discussion of gun laws and that second amendment from the program of the rockies in colorado springs. this is an hour. >> there are a few topics that capture the national conversation with more ideas to about command emotion than gun laws in this country, and i am pleased to announce a very

distinguished and unique panel that is here to discuss this very issue right now, a panel that is entitled our second amendment, a guarantee of freedom. to speak on this topic, allow me to introduce our speakers. here we go. mary kathryn -- mary katherine ham who has spoken here. editor at large at hot air and contributing editor at town hall magazine. she brings to our panel a deep understanding of the national media, politics and gun control. on any given day you have amelie seen her on the fox news channel taking on some big names from the left, most recently. she made national headlines when she had a heated debate with mr. williams about the politics and backs of gun laws in this country. dave kopel is here, research director at the independence institute and the says the

policy is to do with the cato institute in washington and adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law at the university of denver's stern college of law. before joining the independence institute he served as an assistant attorney general for the city colorado. it is -- he is nationally recognized for his expertise and firearms policy. his book, the samurai, should america ad dubbed the gun controls of other democracies, named book of the year by the american society of criminology, the division of international chronology. as a president -- i'm sorry, as a resident of colorado and expert on firearms policy, dave will bring an interesting and resource viewpoint on the issue of control from the point of view of a colorado and seeing all these gun laws being made right here at home under our goldome.

trevor burris is a research fellow at the cato institute's center for constitutional studies based in washington d.c. his research interests include constitutional and criminal law. his work is appeared in several newspapers, magazines, and law reviews. he has ties to the state of colorado and holds a b.a. in philosophy from the university of colorado at boulder. the age a be from the university of denver. the college of law. often they go to expert by the washington d.c. media on virus policy, background is an inspector explaining laws being proposed at the national level today. last but certainly not least, a police officer who shot and killed a gunman who entered the church right here in colorado springs on december 9th, 2007. [applause] jean engaged in a shootout

inside the church and is credited with saving countless lives that day. her background include several years as a patrol officer with the minneapolis police department, criminal domestic deficit of colorado, and as a parole officer for the colorado a permanent corrections. in january 2008 she met with former president george w. bush at the president's request and is also the recipient of the eleanor roosevelt award and second amendment foundation. she refers book called god, the gunman, and me. needless to say, her experience brazen incredibly personal perspective to the issue of firearms policy. please help me welcome our panelists today. [applause] mary katherine ham, qaeda we start with you? >> hello. it is a pleasure to be here. i am a sucker for colorado. anytime you guys need me, just holler. i love it here. and it is a pleasure to be on this panel with folks who

frankly know a lot more about this issue that i do, and especially over here, the bonafide hero. is exciting to be here with you guys as well. the toughest fire i go up against. just kidding. last week i did get into a fiery debate. it is actually about as close as i get to biting someone set up on tv because the implied, of course, and you will recognize the strategy, somewhat disappointing to me because there actually friends in real life, he implied that i did not care about victims of gun violence because i happen to believe the second amendment is useful and coming you know, part of the constitution. useful, particularly to me as a woman the public to protect myself at some point. he turned this into, why don't you care about people who die in washington d.c.? and this is where i want to say,

i think on this particular -- during this particular debate they have gone down the road. they have done a good job of repeatedly asking them, you show me how this helps. you show me how this change is anything. as he watched ben shapiro up against pierce morgan on cnn, he just crushed them, and the question because he made a very logical arguments. he did not get touted as saying, well, of course it should do something because the fact is, doing something, which is the assault weapons ban which did not prevent columbine and it was a national piece of legislation, which is not permit newtown when it was a state piece of legislation, looking at the situation and saying, we must do something, this is something.

let's do it. that is not sufficient. in fact my would argue that when you look at chicago or washington d.c. that enacting the same laws again that have demonstrably failed and do not protect the exact people you claim to want to protect, you are edging from silliness into criminal negligence. your disarming people tell your taking people's freedoms away, and you're doing absolutely nothing to help the people you claim to want to help. don't tell me i don't care. you tell me what you're doing, taking my rights away to not fix a problem. [applause] so i think turning that around and doing it, and asserting that i do care about these people, the proof of that is that i would like to do something that works. i would like to examine, for

instance, a deeper social issues that work both in newtown with a single, isolated shooter or in a gang war in chicago. like to examine that and maybe put in some public policies that might actually work is set a something that takes my gun away while i'm sitting in virginia, which is that going to do anyone any good. so i think it is ben, although emotional at times, i think actually keeping our heads about us, asserting that we are normal people, just like you committed the nra, for instance, is not some extremist lobby but a group of millions of americans to have come together to assert a right. i think personalizing ourselves and not just letting the only human being on the other side of the equation. one area where i think the left can get into very dangerous territory is, as you guys have seen, with certain mr. salazar in colorado recently, when

talking about self-defense for women. this is a perfectly possible situation that many people can imagine. when you're going back to the constitution and explain the original rationale, maybe it does not reach everyone on the second amendment, but a lot of middle-class sort of upper middle-class women who have been in threatening situations, who have felt this way before will say, hey, that does make sense that i don't want to take that away from my fellow women. and hearing democrats downplayed the threat of rape is our job to make clear that something that want to do. they've done a good job of inviting in welcoming in. the percentage of women who own guns has gone from 13 to 23%

over just a you know, maybe the last decade or so. that is impressive, and it means that owning a gun is something of those people can relate to. you cannot make it so spooky and scary. and also, when they become part of the second amendment immunity in again, they understand the huge web of laws that already exist that often ensnares innocent and others trying to do the right thing in good faith, and i think one of the things that we can do is explain that giant web, point it out over and over again because these calls for common sense and control often survive based upon the fact that people who don't own guns don't know there gun laws. they just think it is a wild, wild west when in fact is highly regulated. i'm not trying to steal of rubenstein. in drafting a lot of this legislation there during, democrats are making huge

mistakes that we need to exploit on a national level. for instance, the publishing of the gun owners in new york made quite a splash. it is a very good teachable moment for why we don't think things like national registration of gun owners is a good thing. they will reveal themselves, as they did in washington state where the legislation in that state obliterated the fourth amendment for gun owners by saying the shares can damage your house once a year without a warrant to make sure your gun is locked up properly. that is not passed and all the liberals response to that are going, oh, we did know that was in there. we, of course, never meant to do this. but i think those kind of mistakes, when they get too emotional and they get so excited that the politics of change of this issue which, by the way, they have not, you can catch them in these moments command that thing that works well far side of the argument.

>> thank you, mary catherine. i am a native. when ted deasy to work at the cato institute beat i love coming back here because this is where my heart is. since i have been in d.c. their bid to hurricanes and earthquakes. we have some excellent points, and i am going to dovetail on those for the broader conversation. i've you a lot of these things and usually i don't have this large of an audience. usually everyone thinks i'm crazy when i open my mouth because i'm coming from libertarians and point. but talk to people who are gun-control advocates i try and get in their head. one of the things i have realized but gun-control advocates is that there not really in their heads. they're in their hearts. that is fine. we should be in our hearts to, but their is a psychologist from new york university who has talked about -- some in the --

people might be familiar with his work. there is one element of sacredness. something as being a putrefaction, a contaminant. and the symbol fact is, what they feel toward guns is discussed. they react to them like a cobra curl up. adelle want to go near a touch it, and this is not very constructive for the debate that we need to have in this country because when you say we're going to put guns in schools, for example, to stop other guns in schools, their immediate thought is contamination. that is fine. we're really is a contaminant is when someone goes into a gun-free zone, which by itself is the discussion of a contaminant free zone like the diversity zone. doesn't one of those victims zones, one of the silliest ideas that exists right now in terms of kids. there was another thing that guides gun-control advocates which is prohibition. i talked and asked people to

questions. he was disgusted by guns. a lot of hands. things that a civilized society would have no guns in private hands. deal of hands on that. and that is actually a culture war. we're really fighting here is a cultural war. they're fighting the trust in government, the left has been brewing in over the years, and a trust and the fact that people don't need the right to defend themselves and we can rely completely on the police and also can rely on obamacare, the public-school system and all these things of the government fails and in taking away our ability to actualize our own preferences. the prohibition talk is about super high as it used to be in the 60's. and i don't -- i think there are a lot of people on the left to say no shotguns and hunting rifles, but they want to live in the universe were no guns are needed. that will never happen. i have sympathy. i like star trek, too.

it will never happen. 300 million guns in this country. there is nobody to take away guns in this country. there is no magic button which is where you hear when you hear some astounding claims because we're winning this debate on data unquestionably. things are just off the table. the national -- the government's own data talks about how the assault weapons ban did nothing. they know that. i recently watched the west wing the fifth episode of the west wing, they introduce an assault weapons ban and sit around talking about having no will do nothing. and then what did they say? well, it's a start. [laughter] a start to what? the most response -- responsibly owned gun in this country, 342 people die of rifles. 500 people die a blunt objects. it has to be discussed animating this to make this rational, a notional. has to be discussed because it makes no sense otherwise.

if you imagine a national debate over swimming pools and a bunch of people who were completely disgusted by swimming pools which killed far more children, for example, and accidents that guns do you have your cultural war. on the other side u.s. is willing pools are good. and make people happy. there are a fun thing. and, well, that is worth the cost. here's the other thing about the culture war. we do not understand anyone who likes to use weapons for sporting reasons. it is if you like dogfighting or bearbaiting. that is what they think. there is no way whatsoever, a sport use of guns, hunting, going to a firing range, having a gun in your house, that -- and the balance rights, well, we've weighed says the value. there is no way on this side. that is why this is a cultural war and very difficult to decide the national level and one thing

we have to be aware of is there trying terror when it through surreptitious means. children expelled from school or send home for zero week for using their hands again, playing cops and robbers because they want to engender discussed and everyone about guns. there were shooting clubs in the schools until the late 60's. anyone a part of a shooting club here? yes. can you imagine nell the way they treat us in the public-school system? we used that responsible firearm ownership and we still do, but a culture that was widespread a responsible firearm ownership, and it worked across lose states and read states. bella is pretty much centered in red states and is very disturbing. so the way of winning this war -- we will win this on a national level, by the way, the nra's and that this -- national organization. voters to believe in the right to self-defense and believe that guns are not the problem but the people who shoot.

and at another point i actually want -- on the panel, tell the story all the time as a way to explain away some of the benefits that we have. and i think everyone in this room needs to know his name. we will make trash household name in the way that adam lands is not or is. he will make your household name, all the people who defended people of the years a household name and not to glorify these killers for popping up. [applause] so we're going to win this. when abominates, well, maybe that nothing, possibly background checks. but he needs votes from alaska, janet, louisiana, arkansas, north carolina. they're not going to vote against the responsible gun owners of their districts. so i am pretty optimistic about that not pass in the national level. but do think we need to talk about is the fact that gun

violence is bigger than mass shootings in this country. it is created by is something that no one ever talks about, a failed drug war, of failed public school system that leads people to avenues where violence is success. and governor -- government policy has been destroyed communities in this country for years. all those things, the best solutions to interpersonal violence is the sense of sharing in the community and all those things are eradicated throughout the country. that is where the base to be had, the problem of gun violence in this country. we should realize, those can be stopped tomorrow. the problem is is actually not worth it because you take your gun violence to be a problem in this country and in cities. i will stop there. thank you. >> well, i have a little more of a pro-government you that,

perhaps, some folks because as an attorney at the u.s. supreme court and the federal circuit courts of appeal in the colorado supreme court i represent law enforcement organizations. represent the county sheriff's of colorado in the colorado supreme court, in the case involving the university of colorado's illegal attempt to ban lyses carry on campus. i have represented in many courts, including the u.s. supreme court that to -- and a large number of other law enforcement organizations such as the maryland paternal or a police, southern states police benevolent association and on and on. and sadly, clients have been on the losing side in colorado this week.

all 62 elected sheriffs in the state of colorado, which includes democrats and republicans unanimously asked our state legislature, don't pass something this year, don't do things in a rush. if you want to do anything, let's have some steady and bring people together and talk about things. and further, the particular proposals, the sheriff's said, are all bad ideas. the shares had ignored in the legislature. the legislature rushed things through. the bills were introduced toward the end of one week to have the hearings the next week and then were quickly moved as fast as possible onto the floor of the house for second and third reading because what is going on in colorado is not an indigenous gun-control movement. what is going on is colorado as the pawn of the obama biden and bloomberg plan. joe biden called democratic

legislators and the floor of the house while the bill was on second reading until then, don't worry. you can vote against your district. you can do whatever you want because next time you're up for election we have loads of campaign cash for you. maybe he's right because michael bloomberg personally has more money than the entire national rifle association and probably more than the entire firearms industry of this country, and he can literally drop unlimited sums into whenever race he wants to. the bills that passed in colorado are not colorado-only bills. they are drafted by michael bloomberg people. their lobby in colorado by michael blumberg's contract lobbyists. they are the national model for what president obama and mr. bloomberg are going to try

to push in congress. so let me -- and, yes, if they were actually interested saving lives, we know that none of these bills will work. how do we know that? because the attorney general's department of justice to the research arm of that is of the nationalists did injustice. and in early january the national institute of justice did a report on various gun-control proposals. that report was understandably kept secret from the american people, but it has been leaked and it is available. here is what the national institute of justice said. and, again, this is the research arm of the united states department of justice. first, the ban on so-called assault weapons, which many of you know are not -- are only different is superficial characteristics, such as whether grip is on a gun and whether the gun has up flat plastics stock that can be adjusted verses a solid woodstock, things like

that. the national institute of justice said, this does nothing. these guns are rarely used in crime. there is no point in doing this stuff. of course, this confirms the study that was done by researchers selected by janet reno, not one of the top pro-gun cabinet officers in american history to conduct a study in the 1994-2004 feinstein ban on so-called assault weapons and the magazines. and that report issued, the preliminary reports over the years and the final report in 2004 said that that ban accomplished nothing. no lives were saved that they can see in a statistically discernible way. did not change how many shots were fired. it did not do anything else. they could find after ten years no benefits from the loss. and yet president obama after

giving that very good speech at sandy hook about sandy hook in newtown, conn. on the sunday after the murders said, we have to change. it is undetectable to continue like this, and i certainly agree with him about that. yet, what we have? something says, well, if repeated may be sometime after ten years it will start to do some good. as a hypothetical. you cannot know. we can know is that it will not do any good for ten years. and that is not acceptable. that is the wrong approach. that is a political approach whose purpose is to divide suburban women from the republican party. that is the mega strategy of what is going on here, and it is not about saving the lives of anyone, especially not saving the lives of schoolchildren. i'm magazines, the national institute of justice said, well, this would do some good if you could confiscate all of the

existing supply of magazines. well, that is tens of millions. and that will -- among other things, that will endanger the lives of the law enforcement officers who would be in charge of having to carry out what could only work if it was done through house-to-house searches and confiscation. and then on what is called universal background checks, very popular idea when the save as a free world -- reword title, but not effective when you look into how it would operate. there is no way this can be enforced unless we have universal gun registration. we know how universe of the registration works because our neighbor, canada, tried it. they enacted it. it cost literally 100 times more than the promise that was made about the expenses of it. it was a complete fiasco. there was massive disobedience by the canadian seed tend to be

a lot more obedient to government and americans, and it was such a disaster that it was repealed, having been enacted in the mid-1990s. it was repealed last year by canada's parliament. how about the universe a background check so-called bill that passed colorado. the caught a statehouse -- the colorado state house on monday. people think they like it because they say, some guy need somebody else the craigslist and may sell again and it is a transaction between complete strangers. should there be a background check? a lot of people say yes, but this bill is far, far, far more and that. is an instrument for the destruction of the lawful ownership and use of firearms. let me give you some examples. the only ways -- there are very limited exceptions about when a person can give -- not sell, but

temporarily hanover for a few minutes a gun to another person. one is if you are at a target shooting range. that is fine. another is if you're actually on the field while hunting. you can do that. let me tell you sometimes and you cannot. i am a certified firearms instructor. and then coor's the personal protection and the home. to follow the in our curriculum, the nra is among the oldest civil-rights organization and also america's oldest gun safety organization founded in 1971. if i am going to follow that high level in our curriculum for how to teach people about safety and handling, one of the things that we do is in the classroom, not the target range, but in one of the early parts of the instruction, in the classroom i will bring in some guns, absolutely no ammunition allowed in the classroom, not even my own. bring in some firearms.

under my supervision students practice of loading and unloading the guns boeing a trigger and those tens of things committing the basics a pop version of the gun before you ever go out to a target range with live ammunition. under the bill that passed the colorado legislature, under the bill written by michael bloomberg, that is a crime. every time that i do that, when i take one of my guns and hand it to a student, without having protested through background check, that is a crime punishable by 18 -- up to 18 months in jail in colorado, and then when the students want to hand it back to me we have to another background check on me to get it back, and both ways on that transaction it cost $20, and that applies to every single transaction, a temporary

transfer of a firearm during a sixth class. there are exceptions, supposedly to offer people -- and by the way, and colorado where the check is done by the color of bureau of investigation, it is not an instant check. at the law lets ledger enacted. the colorado bureau of investigation is flagrantly violating that with delays of hours standard for years, delays now approximately three days are more, and sometimes illegally up to nine days. under conditions like that you cannot possibly run again safety glass properly. there is another exception in the bill, so what if someone is again an emergency? in a borrowed from somebody? well, not really. the only conditions that you can -- the only conditions under which she contemporarily give someone else does the a firearm for self-defense is, first of all, it has to be within the home of the person who is

receiving it. so you cannot -- the victim, the potential victim cannot get to a neighbor's house and pick up the gun there. more importantly, the standard for when it can be transferred is the same standard as when it is legal to shoot someone in self-defense, when you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. so what does that mean? a woman has a guy who is stalking her. keeps calling around the phone and threatening her. she goes to a friend and says, can i borrow again for a few days until i can buy my own because it takes three days to buy one a colorado more, intel i -- but i don't know when this guy is going to come over. it is saturday night. maybe you'll come over tonight, maybe you won't. maybe will come over some morning. your nose. welcome under colorado law if she happened to see that person on the street somewhere she

could not to shoot him because even though he has made these threats he has not actually initiated tac, so because the threat has not risen to the level at which she would be justified in pulling the trigger , she is, by law was the color of the house of representative passed a michael bloomberg slobby rote, prohibited from obtaining a gun for protection. well, just go to a store and buy again. maybe there is no store open on saturday night and colorado. the warren christmas. illegal under this bill. the present to my gun as a present for christmas. it's illegal for you so your gun you can sell your gun to your sister, but you cannot learn a tour. and it's illegal for a guy on

his deathbed to have his friends come around and give his various guns to them. after he dies he can do it. the gun can pass by the execution of his estate, but no transfers are allowed when he is alive and he can actually see a friend while he is handing him a firearm. these are not bugs in the law. these are features. michael bloomberg is not someone -- there are many people, including me, who believe that you can have strong gun rights and a reasonable gun control. michael bloomberg is not in that category. he is a prohibitionist. he brags about how little gun ownership there is a new york city. he would not even at the national guard come into the city to restore order against polluters in south brooklyn after hurricane sandy because they would be carrying guns. he is a true antigun extremist.

another bill is this fee for background checks, which results in $20 per transfer, and maybe that is not a big deal for someone who is buying a $400 gun in the store, but when you expand when this is required so that when somebody is teaching people at boys' death camp how to use firearms and hands again to the boy scout or in my safety glasses or the woman who needs a gun in a hurry, it does become a serious burden. notably, we have so many things for which fees can be charged. filing an appeal in a civil case and many, many other things, but we also routinely pay exempt from those these people for whom there would be a genuine hardship, someone who is not buying a $700 gun, might be buying a 100, and underdog and the pawn shop with a background

check because that is all she can afford. the majority of the house voted down something to say, for people below the poverty line, however you want to define that, you aren't those stamps and medicaid eligible or never, to exempt those people from this poll tax on there fellow perhaps temporary acquisition of a firearm. and then, of course, there is the ban whether current house undoes with the colorado ousted in 2003, which is enact a strong law about the right of lices people to pass a 10-. fingerprint based background check, pay fees of over $100, and as a safety training class to carry firearms in public places and on public property throughout the state. the bill to outlaw lyses carry on all college campuses was promoted by people such as representative joseph lazar who made remarks saying, well, people talk about resisting

rape. well, howdy you know? maybe you might make a mistake in the guy you think is trying to rape you really isn't and then you go pop, pop, pop and shoot him. maybe when someone puts their hands around her neck as are strangling you, maybe they're just trying to deliver flowers from an anonymous admirer, but this is the view. this is the view of the majority of the democratic caucus in the colorado house, people are, including adult women and college campuses, too incompetent to be able to use firearms responsibly for self-defense. there is one notable amendment to this bill that was defeated, and that was to say, okay, you want to outlaw and affect self-defense and college campuses. let's u.s. study. let's just have the state government collect the data and report on whether or not victimization, rape, robbery, assault, homicide, increasing on college campuses in colorado after this enacted, and that, of

course, was defeated as well. a representative, the sponsor of the campus gun ban said, we should not do that because there might be an aberration which would distort the data it. we will tell you what the aberration is, virginia tech. and this bill makes colorado campus is a safe zone for mass murderers and for more ordinary violent criminal predators, and they don't want the sponsors of this don't want the public to see the data and to see the dangers that are going to result from outlying self-defense on campuses. thank you very much. [applause] >> you are up. >> it is a pleasure to be here, and i am grateful to have the invitation. they asked me today to share a little bit about what happened

five years ago on december 9th , 2007. and i have about ten minutes. i am going to a did write to the gist of the story. the gunmen in my case had already killed people at this facility. he had shot four young people, he killed two of them. and then he escaped to sleep in his own bed in ingelwood. and the next day was sunday, december 9th. endive was, you know, i was a very well trained police officer. i was on @booktv as a volunteer

on the security team at this church because it is such a big church. it's like 12,000 members. and, you know, i just thought it would be fun to be part of a team. so we just wore regular plain clothes. they asked me to be armed, of course, because of my training. and i was not going to go to church that day because i was -- i was a brand new believer, and i was actually on a 3-day fast. it was the third day of my fast. and i was trying to see if gun was tried to give me an answer for direction in my life. should the state and law enforcement or do something else. i was certain i was going to hear from god about my future. [laughter] and so i, you know, i absolutely said, okay, i'm not going to go to church. and just going to stay home.

and up. i happened to look on the internet. i saw that there had been this shooting. that did not know what the mission was. i just saw the words, the christian facility. the gunmen had not been apprehended, and i just, man, something told me. i get chills in the back of my neck. and something told me to get to church. and, you know, colorado springs is like 70 miles south of where arvada is, approximately. and so i had no way of knowing. i just really had this strong bad feeling. and three days without food. it was just a very strong feeling to get to the church. so i called the director of our security men said, did you hear about the shooting?

and he said, yes. i said to my coming in. so to me know, i -- i'm in the shower thinking, i might not be coming up today. i mean, that is our shorelines. i could be killed. and i was not afraid. i just, you know, there was something that i had contemplated. so i looked very close. when i arrived i had missed most of the first service, and there are two services. and we had a lot of extra people that day because we had a guest speaker. i, you know, i was out in the lobby area. the description of the suspect was very vague. white male in his 20's. there was no height or weight or anything. possible beard. and as a police officer, you

know, that's common. you just go with to get. and so to the first services done with. there were extra colorado springs police there because of this potential gunman. and comes and goes. the family villa lot of details because i've only got about eight minutes now. so the rest is in my book. [laughter] [applause] and kevin know, i am not trying to be a smart alec. i am being very serious here. so the second service, again, very crowded. very cold that day. we were supposed to get a snowstorm, but it did not hit. it was just very cold out. and second service in this.

people are mingling. usually they clear out pretty quickly, but today they hung around for some reason. and the off-duty colorado springs police were apparently done with their -- you know, they thought it was okay to leave. i remember one standing next to me. to a 45. i looked around. i'm like, i'm staying in the security team member said to my staying too. and that was not -- once i got to the church was not thinking, oh, the gunman will show up, the gunman was show up, but i was vigilant and just very aware of everything, aware of my surroundings, where of this strange feeling in the church. and i don't think -- i think

most of the people in the church did not really -- or not even aware of the shooting, so everyone was happy alecky. the police all left. there were in uniform. they left in response. that is what the gunman was waiting for. he had been waiting in his car in the parking lot for an hour because he can take a cellphone tower and beg your cell phone and find your location. so as soon as they left he made his move. and the -- he dropped a smoke grenade someplace. and people had made me aware, a, you know, there is like a smoker a.m. side. again, i was not thinking, though it was the gunman. was the gimmick to be anything. 12,000 members to lots of young people. but it was not. and fast forwarding a little bit

again, i was in the front lobby, by the front doors. and i heard a pop, pop, pop noise. and i immediately made my way to the east l.a., which was just a few feet away. in the east l.a. is approximately 100 yards, 100 meters long and about 30 feet wide. is very large. it houses all of the, you know, the day care and the adult special needs, preschoolers, it has -- all the classrooms and everything. in the hallway was just absolutely packed with people. the church was still packed with people. and then i hear these loud -- you know, i used my years. i immediately became a lawyer when i heard the noise, but then when i heard just allowed tendering cracks of the

high-powered rifle i took the gun out of the waistband of my jeans and i'm like, where is the? could not see. it was like the league even further than the back of this room, and there are so many people running and screaming. they're shouting, get down. he's got a gun. and one of the security team members behind me was really tall. he is like another he is, he's coming in the doors right now. so that the opposite end of where i stood, here is the gunman who had been shooting inside the church with his ar-15, which she had read calibrated and made even more powerful firm of 562a68. so the bullets were even more powerful. i just, without hesitation i sprinted down the hallway toward him. everyone is running past me. and just all of a sudden no one

was in that hallway, which was a miracle. everyone found a place to hide. and so he is opening up the last set of these two glass doors. he had his ar-15, he had it on a shoulder strap so that he can open up the door. and i stopped running. a mocking. and like, okay. at the now would be a good time to take cover. [laughter] and so i had gotten pretty far up the hallway running. there was a hallway that was perpendicular to the east hallway that he was coming down. and i was going to wait for him to come just even with me in that i was going to shoot him, but it just did not feel right. i was like, god, please just be with me. i just had seconds to come up with a good, solid game plan. i mean, this was seconds. and i took like about seven

steps out. it i shouted at him, police officer , drop your weapon. and he turns with his ar-15. i fired five times rapidly, just -- i knocked him down completely and is back. and i am walking toward him quickly with my gun pointed at him. you know, i am warning them. drop your weapon rao will kill you. i wanted him to drop. instead to me sets up and shoots a me so we are shooting at each other in the middle of all way which is another miracle that he did not hit me. i hit him again. he tried said then -- he could not stand up. he tried to get away, which would have been fine if you

would have given up, but he was on -- collapsed completely on his back. his head propped up. i had seen -- he had planted explosives around the parking lot and i don't know where else, but i had seen grenades on him. he had a weight bearing best, which is not a bulletproof vest, which just holds -- he had 30 round magazines for is there 15 in the and a backpack on him, so he had close -- he had like 17 underground's of them in another thousand rounds in the trunk and in ak-47. he was not stopping. he was going on, and he had maps to other locations. he had money. so when i saw that he was going to pull this pin of his grenade i was, you know, if he would have done that that only with everybody in the classrooms that had been hiding die, but so what

i. i shot him again in new without question that i had done just kill them. and it was interesting because somebody immediately runs up and he was not part of the timor a thing. he just was screaming. he was a screaming. he was like, that was the coolest thing i have ever seen. [laughter] and he's like, how did you do that. and there was just -- it was insane. i was coughing. gunpowder. another security team member runs of. i am like, get this guy away for me. i mean, this is just wild. this guy is screaming victory. and we had heard that there were possibly three gunmen instead of

one, and in my gut i knew there was just this one. and he was the same one from earlier. but the other security team member said, go check the lobby. so i run down, check the lobby, cleared. then i saw all of the colorado springs squads, you know, there screeching to a halt in front in going over by the east entrance where they had heard that he was coming in. so that is pretty much what happened. [laughter] [applause]

>> okay. we have been absolutely out expert panel. this is not a debate panel, as you can see. pretty synonymous and viewpoints on the second amendment policy issues, but we do have time, 12 minutes, to be exact enough are above questions. if you have them, go ahead. go ahead and start. it is not necessary that we hear from all four on all the answers. i will try to moderate and so that we can take a look at all of these people. keep in mind, we now have 11 minutes. we will get these questions. go ahead. >> it is nice to see you again. everybody, please buy his book. great spirit lives in denver. estimate talk to her she was looking for a job. maybe that will help. i am kelcey alexander. i am a capitalist. i have been involved in the centennial gun club and learned to shoot, and if you'd like to come as my guest, talk to me

afterwards. mary kathryn, you had great ideas on what we say, but we said all of those things last week in the house testimony, every single one of them. those arguments did not work for the legislatures. the couple -- your exactly right. the agenda is coming from somewhere else, and that you not know how we will be did in colorado. i would like to suggest that elections matter, and so this money. elections were not mentioned in this panel. what do you think of that? >> welcome and let me say that i agree and sympathize and was speaking more on the national level or at think it is less likely anything will paths which is why i think they're going to states. as for his election smattering, the fact that we have a great number of republican governors in a huge number of republican house and senate in the states actually is to our benefit right now, even though it is not too good at the moment in colorado. but on the state level i do

think we have ourselves some defense against this kind of thing. yes, i think ultimately what matters is when guns become normalized for many people and you get for a half million people as part of a second amendment organization. that is ultimately what changes people's minds and keeps every single one of these red state democrats from voting on something like an assault weapons ban. and so my arguments that talk about, maybe they don't stop every piece of legislation that they're able to change some hearts and minds which is part of a we have to do. >> what mary catherine said. >> there is no way that people believe in the constitution can outspend michael bloomberg. ..

>> and the legislators who believe in tolerance and the constitution. [applause] >> i am from douglas county. my rights to defend myself and bear arms is the creator granted right.

up with like to address this comment to dave but welcome any other comments. my rights are from my creator not by the constitution. i am one of those who represents at least one-third of the men in the country who believe in a principal of come and take them. i believe the attack, of the war launched against the people, the citizens, our country, i believe they don't have to take our guns and all they have to do is criminalize us to make the freedom movement and the tint and i would like to hear daves opinion on that. >> we have talked about the purpose of this culture war is hostility to the ability

of independent self protection which the right to keep and bear arms represent so people who want to be managed cradle to grave by their superiors beside the particular details that the gun ownership is an affront to that view. the american revolution changed from a very heated political debate between the colony is in great britain on issues such as taxation without representation and the power of the royal governors and on and on when the british decided to crack down on american gun ownership, the fall of 1774 embargoed the import of guns and gun powder into the united states. the royal governors from

virginia and massachusetts did predawn seizures where the republic stores of arms and ammunition and what turned this whole thing from an intense political debate into a war was house-to-house gun confiscation on the morning of april 191775 at lexington concord when the shooting started and it never stopped until the war was resolved. i would hope the more prudent and responsible supporters of some gun laws recognize when you crossed the red line into confiscation, you open the pandora's box. >> my name is robert gale. thank you for coming.

especially mary catherine, thanks for an eloquent speech on lobby day a few years back but i have a question for dave. is it possible to pass liability to our legislators for the potential injury of people on colleges if they have removed the right to self protection? >> the answer is no. the only liability or remedy is that the ballot box. >> we will gravity at the ballot box. >> i have one quick comment. the the level of sophistication of gun opponents when i heard the congresswoman from denver said no hunter could arrive ever possibly needed 30 round magazine because if you shot the deer with 30 rounds you did not use the meat. this is crazy anecdotally we have seen the mass shootings

at every level of school and church and movie theaters and a gun free zone and is there any data whether those zones attract criminals or shooters? >> unquestionably i believe only two times has it been in the nine countries' own reid to know there were shootings here and there were many closer feeders from aurora but he chose as a gun free zone. they are crazy but not irrational which is a different thing one thing worth highlighting when talking about this is when the shooters who practice lawful self-defense stop a shooting we don't have a national debate or a peer's morgan special the biases in

the sampling help people talk about it so the same week as newtown connecticut there two-time miss as people stopped a shooting but one in san antonio at a movie theater that was not a gun free zone because that was texas that was just a few days after also at a mall in oregon that said it was a gun free zone but he walked right past it it is a deadly fiction that illustrates how much this is about sanctity and purity by keeping these out of thin area of the heat free zone it is dangerous to those who are there. >> i want to echo the utter ignorance of gun opponents of actual guns or the gun laws. i was on with one with bill o'reilly at the beginning of this debate.

one was suggested a federal law that had already passed post virginia tech massacre with 98 percent of the senate behind it so he had no idea what laws were already there. and i had to say you know, that all are basically semi-automatic, right? they said why would you ban those? i said okay. explaining that and pointing that out if you want to make new laws you should learn what the ones are that are in place. also to echo civilians who stop these incidents to become a household name to make our job to make that happen. it is disrespectful. he is not looking to be obeyed hero i am sure and not wanting a ticker-tape parade but these are the people who do protect us.

their stories are ignored. plainly, willfully. on purpose. bringing those to light using that data right after newtown that no civilian had never stopped a man shooting but they classified it it had to be four or more people died but they stop them before they kill four or more people. [laughter] [applause] this is a good thing. that is an important part to make those folks, jean is the archetype of a hero of every crime drama on tv but the liberals want one in real life? [applause] >> this is the last question >> good afternoon. it is not a question that more of a thank you.

gene, just a you know, i was in the ambulance that went in on that scene on sunday. and my personal thing was i decided not to go to church but to go on the ship that was open and i remember when the calls went out, they said possibly a shooting then escalating with more people injured. i just want you to know a keep this in your mind was truly divine intervention that day that put you in that place and we thank god for you and those were willing to stand up to take out those who would hurt the rest of us. god bless you. [applause] >> once again take you to our great panel, a great ideas, intellectual ammunition to win our war for freedom that we are a gin and mary catherine said it right that gene does not

expect hero status but the leadership program of the rockies we do regard capitalism as the business of hero's. it is divine intervention that propels you to buy her book, you should. [laughter] thank you again to our panel [applause] >> but the age of chivalry is gone. dishy further not look back with pride and satisfaction on all those years serving his country in the world's statesmen. >> i think mr. speaker the

age of chivalry will not be gone as long as my honorable friend is a member. and in response to the question i do look back with some pride and satisfaction of the achievements of our country over the last 11 years

>> good morning. i and the chair of the program here and this morning we have a dutch treat. one of the things we have

been thinking about at csis is how do we do the pivot and at the same time works for the question particularly on the military side. one of the programs that could be most vulnerable in that situation is the imet program or the international military education and training program that was created in 1961 with of foreign assistance act and we have provided imet funds that we will look at asia and southeast asia although the speakers are welcome to refer to a broader region and that if they like. but the imet funds have been primarily targeted to the

allies in the philippines and thailand between 2000 and 2009 they use between one point* 5 million and 2.5 million dollars each also going to other asian countries cambodia, malaysia, laos and vietnam and we don't have imet programs with singapore , per month or myanmar. the way we organize our discussion was to have input from to fantastic experts and people with perspective on this question and it would result in a good discussion, i don't know about a debate with points of view to look at the policy prescriptions first will introduce both speakers then i will start with

lieutenant-general craigs and. chip is the secretary of defense for asian pacific affairs and chief operating officer for the united states olympic committee. chip know something about imet in terms of hands-on experience with commanding general of the marine corps forces with the asia-pacific at the central command marine corps where he led in managed over 70,000 marines and sailors in afghanistan afghanistan, africa, asia, e ast africa and asia and 2001 through 2003 he was commanding general of all the reinforces in japan. prior to that he was the director of asia pacific policy at the secretary of defense 98 through 2000, a graduate of the u.s. naval academy and held a couple

master's degrees. john is the asia advocacy director of the human rights watch in his portfolio includes southeast asia that he knows then -- and a quite a bit about after joining that human-rights watch he was part of the public interest investigation firm and started the human rights watch as a researcher in the asian division focusing on pakistan and he has a lot of experience in south asia with afghanistan and pakistan and holds a law degree from new york university and a bachelor's degree from st. john's college in annapolis. i guess you shared some experience with annapolis and afghanistan. let's see if you share

anything else. [laughter] so to kick off, a chip but i will give you a shot then i will moderate a discussion. >> thank you. i am happy to be here. the southeast asia program has taken off under your guidance and i think it is very valuable and even about time we started paying attention to its. let me try to set a perspective or a framework by talking about the overall purpose of the forces overseas with the defense engagement with the national engagement programs with the defense establishment of other countries. is more constructive than simply waiting for military action. our active presence

including imet and others of the foreign military assistance helps to promote security, a dampened sources of instability, a teacher conflict and give substance to u.s. security guarantees and commitments to ensure u.s. access. it multiplies the diplomatic impact and demonstrates professional military ethics and a democratic society. imet like other forms of engagement can be used to reward countries and u.s. bidding but also but could be used as punishment against countries that have irritated the united states at one point* or another. it could become a large issue with tactical agencies override our objections to abuses in one country or another. we lost the military e. --

aided pakistan but restricted be a non and is pakistan and caused exxon and turkmenistan and our other countries that we would other rise refuse of not involved in afghanistan and central asia. imet is to strengthen through skill training and values supporting a civilian control a political and professional military. also an instrument of influence estimate building with the yearly career stage is the benefits cross-cultural the of the imet and a strong argument could be made that americans benefit as much or more from this as our foreign gas. as a betty has no doubt noticed we have an attitude

it is all about us and when you have to learn to get along with people who speak a different language the have a different tradition of history and america as a captain it is an instructive experience you may not have otherwise. and enhance mutual understanding of the perspective of others and in part to address the perceived difficulties of the imet program as it was begun in the beginning we created e-imet that opened it up to civilian officials of other governments and specifically an attempt to decrease the abuses. the training designed and under e-imet was flying, observation,

on-the- job training, professional military education meaning exchanges between students at command colleges and technical training and military justice training, a civil military relations, defense resource management not what one would refer to as training with post combat and hand to hand the process begins at the and the sees the ambassador in each country has oversight. some programs are funded by the defense department or the department of state so they have oversight in progress so the exercise is frequently to provide oversight. senator leahy with his efforts in indonesia. as a concluding remark with the overall context with

this institution it is not simply helpful to set the environment with their responses on contingencies in is indispensable for minimizing the likelihood of larger conflicts. with that i will conclude. >> thank you. john? what is your perspective? >> i will try to keep this brief i gave the context of questions is good to talk but i will start with indonesia. i think it is important to begin a discussion of imet in asia that there is a debate about the utilities and consecration -- consequences with indonesia not in the sharp focus. their military has committed

some pretty major human rights abuses with the problematic record with a lack of justice for those past abuses and even kennedy's for current abuses, but july 2010 the last remaining restrictions that was really put on the military with the efforts of senator leahy was removed and secretary gate stood in jakarta with the defense minister of indonesia with the last restrictions with that unit that was engaged in the worst abuses were removed but at that moment i think human rights watch disagreed with that going without saying that that moment represents for the

united states and the imet program the crystallization of what is perceived is the purpose of imet to improve the military and with the desires of the u.s. government. it was decided, the pentagon and white house level this was the right thing to do. the arguments go back and forth that by standing at the upside and yelling at the military we will accomplish nothing it is better to talk and to engage that will improve the situation to make them more rights respecting military. to be perfectly blunt, the human rights watch position there are some units and governments, not countries, governments, that are not redeemable and this is a challenge to the imet program.

i don't think that is not the norm or worldwide but it is all too common in asia with the institutions and governments that are not redeemable. i want to be clear am not talking about people that may or may not be redeemable that is the logical i suppose but if the institution is redeemable and what circumstances the big policy question moving in the background. it is funny as a human rights group we are considered to be progressive like criminal defense attorneys to explain things the way you are a bad person because of your background and up bringing but in reality human rights groups are more conservative than consider people to be unredeemable and the pentagon says things like understand the context, we need to engage with them and understand where they come from.

[laughter] so it is said juxtaposition in a funny way. so the real question is if the institutions are redeemable at the u.s. governing is under the opinion they are and human rights groups think that they are not. indonesia provides a snapshot how the u.s. looks at the question of redemption. it believes indonesia's military has reformed adequately, we disagree. there is still abuses going on but again, how do we get to this moment? asia is a fertile ground for redemption i suppose. you see if several other governments with rights of using military is, one that has engaged in various abuses, in thailand for instance the military in the south is engaged in the abuses in the context of

free insurgency, the philippines has a long record of the implications of the military and paramilitary groups with executions' but the country that probably crystallizes the biggest problem for imet, a human rights in southeast asia is cambodia. it is $1 million military assistance for the country of 14 million people and you have a military which is dominated or which dominates the political scene. the cambodian armed services the army commander, they're in the permanent committee of the ruling party. the minister of defense, the commanders, a region number

one, number two, number four come on and on they are all on the central committee for the cambodian people's party. not a political by any stretch. so ask yourself why are we working with military? that may consider the fact they are the commander in chief and deputy commander in chief another issue from the '70s that hangs over them. and finally the of feting issue can use rain the cambodian military when there is such a large record of abuse spanning back to the '70s even the young officers are we up to the task? might experience at human rights watch problems with transliteration, poured data collection, you see again

and again and again officers being considered nominated who are implicated with serious abuses now, land grabbing, the military is implicated to be sponsored by a corporate entities that grab land but even beyond that you see a large share of young officers they are not vetting with gross human-rights abuses but the sons of the senior cronies of the prime minister. so you say not involving gross human rights abuses, but he is a 24 year-old colonel or 27 year-old brigadier general general, 29 year-old three-star general of the highest level official what is going on? is it in the best interest

of the human rights of the cambodian people? i could go on and on but i want. when i would like to you do this panel is well timed because on friday the white house released a new policy called the u.s. security sector assistance policy and it intends to deal with some of the underlying problems that i am getting too hard you reconcile these aims to engage and improve the government's that are considered? number three in that policy is to help partner nations build sustainable capacity and partner support and the number three is promote universal values with

transparent oversight rule of law, transparency, accountab ility of justice and respect for human rights. i guess human rights watch would submit it is possible with some militaries but literally it is not possible you could not give assistance. they may pass vetting but you should not do it if you are attempting to do those things. i can explain more but i will not go on and on. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the opening positions. just to clarify, a chip, you say there is value and good return on investment for imet? >> yes along with other security assistance activities.

>> john your position is imet, what is your position? [laughter] in some countries and not in others? >> the issue decidedly is not imet a good thing or not to there are some militaries that appeared not to have serious rights abuse records. the problem is you have certain countries where you cannot simultaneously promote rule of law and good governance and democracy and find officers who are suitable for training because either the military is so politicized like cambodia or so hard for vetting or third, the whole unit distinction there individuals whose hands have blood on them and not is so difficult to untangle because the entire military

has such a poor record you are better off not doing it for you could limit with a rule of law training trying to train a military to have a better accountability mechanism and justice system and train them to have the accountability mechanism and inspector general's, you could dudack and that to be the limit may be viewed have fewer objections but looking through their reports there is stuff like that but it is counterterrorism training with warfare security but you don't see a huge amount of that. we would submit don't do that pulled the plug. >> i have a comment and a question.

i want to comment speeeleven >> with the main justice program to allow leaders with the residential leaders from the war college with it was operational or technical training if we have the differentiation and the stuff like that. >> what i am trying to get back is there are certain

context i don't think this is the norm or it is true of eurasia where you cannot find people that that type of training would benefit. how do you -- what's springs

in. >> a nutshell what i would submit to osd and state is that the focus, if there must be engagement with a country that bad solely on accountability, say we're going help you create inspector general/civilian complaint review board/the military component of your commission. whatever it is in the country which has the oversight of the security forces, help you train that entity and try to make your military more accountable and transparent. you just do that. or you can threaten them as certain countries have just threaten them with a full withdrawal of military assistance and lay down the exact road map for how to get it back. those are essentially two

options. this is a point i want to raise in our discussion. we -- strategy in southeast asia and doing their own version of imf that doesn't look a lot like american imf. they are pulling larger numbers than we are from regional military. i wondered if chip and john you would comment on that. are we leaving states open to assistance that might not have, you know, the value based approach that the u.s. has? >> that question gets to one of the core data i did limb ma on the other stations but the other fourteen programs we have to aid other people's military. better to engage or not engage?

and evidence and pardon the ante-dote they substitute data, ronald reagan once said. in indonesia in the early 2000s and the days of the full leahy restrictions on training. we were allowed to travel to indonesia to do training on non-lethal weapons, and we used that to go there frequently. one of the mandatory things we had to go on a training was to start with a class on military in a democratic society and a military justice system. and of course, the pentagon, god bless the pentagon, created the class for us. and it was twenty eight mind numbing slides to be given with a lighted detail on everything. but nevertheless, the session especially with the indonesia

junior officers turned out to be exciting. these were captains that were fluent in i english or at least confident most fluent and they had done their homework. we couldn't get through the class in the a lotted time without all of these captains bringing up incidents from the american past we would prefer not think about or thought or talk about. it shows that they were thinking and people that are past a certain age lieutenant colonel probably not going to reach them. they are vested in the current system. they have a senior officer tendency say we have done this way and want to continue to do that. to be able to get in the country and work at the captain level with the junior officers and start shaping out or at least raising questions is far better than just cutting everything off

and saying that you guys only have one choice and it's us or we're never going talk to you again. i don't think that's quite the best way. the other ante-dote the university riot in 1998 indonesia military with one exception got a black eye out of it because of the way they treated students. the one exemption was indonesia marines. and quite by accident i happened to be in indonesia and not more than a few weeks after the riots, and i was out there with the marines and was talking about the rioteds and things and i asked the a group of senior officers how is it you came off with reputation enhanced, and the army did so badly? and one colonel smiled and said it's simple we didn't consider the students the enemy. we went in there civilian clothes ahead of time and negotiated rule of engagement

when it time came to do what we needed to. the students understand what was going on. they understood that we had their best interest at heart and didn't disagree with them doing this. i said okay, eleven worth or quantity koa. so that's where he went to school. yes, there are problems with imf problem with various government or certain section of the military but the point comes down to is it better to try or is it better to withdrawal kind of like you did with your kids. sit in corner until i feel better. john? >> i guess certainly not saying every time the military is complicated in abuse just withdrawal don't do any business whatsoever. this issue of finding redeemable, and again, people are redeemable. and even in -- [inaudible]

is very difficult and i guess what i'm saying i'm not confident the u.s. government can figure it out. the leahy problem making wise decisions about what deserves to be brought for course training and what kind of trainingna when some good decisions get mad but bad ones do as well. and interestingly the age thing doesn't always work out the way you expect. the young officers are promising and the old guard is old guard. and after all, the person driving in burma is not a young officer, you know. it's an old one. with the tni it's very interesting with a is going on. maybe the pentagon is right. maybe things have gotten better recently the eight indonesia

soldiers were killed by the local insurgency there. which is very small and innocuous in many respect but still has some lethal capacity. and we expected them to go nuts. that's what they have done in the past. they didn't. but as i said some folks at osd a few weeks ago that one can say a they have reform, there's evidence -- we have evidence that a lot of impunity if things get bloody enough there could be more abuses. neither of us has the evidence to say we are right and the other is wrong. we are both sort of arguing with each other with ante-dote and we don't have a lot to go with.

there are places like cambodia where i know we're right. the pentagon has a big problem. there's -- you find a couple of navy unit. a couple of young officers who aren't involved in any political activity. we can train them maritime security or something. navy although there's no maritime security in afghanistan. but for the most part, you have a whole entity of messed up to the core. and there's really little to do. the question what to do you do with them? cut them off or be tough with them. that's what we're suggesting cambodia. be tough. give theme road map like burma already, which is willing to reform. as congress has done with the philippines. give them a road map.

-- [inaudible] tactical and political -- we have something called a northern distribution that goes through central asia that is vital and become even more vital if that's possible. if we lose the lines of communication through pakistan

for the retrograde out of afghanistan. we have been on and off the basic relationship with pakistan because of our concerns with pakistan human rights record. we have a base in curd stand that is problematic from a human rights record. we can't operate in afghanistan with support from -- it's not a base it's a transit center. specifically designed with those words. sorry, take base out of the record. >> subtracting that. >> i'm not allowed in the pentagon now. i'll probably be shot if i cross the parking lot. but to be serious, it's ban problem because of the very, very of the compelling contingency of being able to operate in afghanistan versus what we would like to see happen

in central asia with the human rights. it's not a clean thing. and i would add it's not just i met. it's a number of programs we have going on too. and, for example, global peace operations initiative who are mine action or disaster response or they drug interdiction or the 12:06 program which recently out of central asia. key to complaining up a terrorist transit route among indonesia, malaysia, and the philippines. the thing l where they bound -- the the bad guys were fleeing from one to the other. now we have the right

surveillance surface search radar established with u.s. money that serves all three countries. so they can cooperate to clean this up. does that institute showing favoritism to a country where we with have human rights concern. it seems to serve a purpose. i used the example of the military aid we lavish on pakistan. we deny the same aid to vietnam. vietnam doesn't have the same impact on us. -- pakistan has got other things that concern us as well. and, for example, the weapons program. so it's not all a clean decision. all the other aid programs on the dod and state side are mixed in with this reality and one

makes decisions and what one hopes is for the greater good. overall as john said sometimes they work out. sometimes they you end up. >> john, central asia? >> yeah. it sort of goes without saying. most of the central asian republican have human right problem. it's a well known fact. the pentagon knows that the white house has. they made decision to go forward because of the necessity. what is baffling about some of the countries in southeast asia that the necessity is not there. can you think of a country in southeast asia that is less strategically important than cambodia. just sitting there it has a little coastline. no offense to cambodia. but seriously geostrategicly why is it an important country? it doesn't border china. it has a short coastline. yet we lavish a lot of tax.

when you look at the per capita it's probably the leader in the region. because it's so it's going to be a huge program the pentagon and the state department and the white house don't realize how bad the human right situation is. i guess that's our fault. >> the gentleman in the back here. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] georgetown university. for every good there's a bad that's probably part of the problem. [inaudible] i think that's the big issue with imf. for example in indonesia the president is four-time imf

graduate spent two years in the united states, and -- [inaudible] increase the transparency. civilian control. that's an antidote. i recently completed a study of georgetown look at long-term benefit of imf in burma. we had the program from 80 to '80. we trained 175 people. and currently thirteen of the individuals in the government at this time. to include the vice president several members of parliament. i think the issue we need to focus on is gathering the data in every country good stories and bad stories. the imf graduate i double checked cross records that with the special -- [inaudible] ngo sources to see if there was

any evidence of the graduates convicted or associated with human abuses or have any activities any behaviors that would be deemed illegal or immoral according to u.s. policy. in my research -- [inaudible] maybe that's not enough. shouldn't we be tracking officers across the board and see if they take positions as instructors or and look for

[inaudible] let me say that the fact you didn't find anything doesn't mean anything. i don't want to be insulting. burma is a black box and the office to agree with it. the intelligence file in the country and the leadership and the military leadership is thinned. it's upstairs. and sparse not because there's isn't information it's because it is not written down in the --

that's the problem you see again and again. less so in indonesia and thailand and pakistan but definitely more so in burma and come bode ya and places wheren't there a lot of hard written down evidence and what the history is. you add on top of that the problems with data that exists. and you have a recipe for a lot of misplaced assumption. you just don't know what you're doing. donald rumsfeld call a lot of unknown unknowns. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] special operation one of my favorite quote is -- [inaudible] i think it was a litmus test --

[inaudible] are not only did we shut down everything -- [inaudible] getting their student out the military schools. there's a huge void of relationships developed for with that pakistan officers who are now senior pakistan officers with the -- [inaudible] they are distrustful. [inaudible] >> in pakistan's a number of ways while i was in office, we knocked ourselves out to be of aid to pakistan in the floods. we set forces there right away

to help the pakistan to recover from the floods. we pushed helicopters to them. all of these tips of things are senior military representative in pakistan at the time said don't think it's going to change public. polls a pit. we went to the relief effort of 15% poll rating and we came up with an 11% public opinion poll rating. the they go from ally to and bring them back instantly. and so there are is a suspicious that we're changeable. that we use them -- i don't

believe it. but from their perspective, it's well ingrained and thoroughly believed. that's one case. drawing a straight line or a linear projection from the pakistan case to other countries may provide some elimination. i would be careful of applying everything that we think we observed or the lessons we think we learned out of pakistan directly to other countries. you train them. it doesn't happen. maybe. it's difficult to tell.

we have lavished a lot of assistance malaysia. but a lot of them say horrible things about the united states. lavish military assistance on cambodia and it's -- so the causialty. i don't think human rights we have the answers to all the causal information. we have enough data to spoke a lot of holes in the pentagon makes. it's not really we're like. it's like neither of us know a lot about the callty issue. what effects what gets what outcome. i think it would be good if there's an acknowledgment. i think there is.

don't really know what is going on. profession of ignorance is a step in the right direction. i think one of the issues we have to address at some point is if we don't know do we engage or not engage? that's a question. right near in the center. [inaudible] hi my name is rebecca from chevron. i was wondering from the private sector component to this -- [inaudible]