the leahy law where units are well vetted, we should and we are work closely with them to enhance nigeria's capacity to address this horrific threat. thank you. >> thank you, doctor. i'm just going to clarify this point because this testimony was as late as last week by the defense department testifying in the senate and i'll quote because this gets back to the point at hand. the leahy law is a persistent and very troubling limitation on our ability to provide assistance particularly training assist wrans that the nigerians so badly need. with my opening line of questioning, i laid out the difficulty. the difficulty is finding a way for our forces to assist with the capabilities that we bring, which are unique, to help track

on the ground and rescue these girls, and so without that waiver to come down to the bottom line, without that waiver to allow them to do that and direction from the administration to have, you know, our navy seals with this special capability that they have and the ability to download information from satellite technology m field and from drones and the ability to track in the jungle, the ability to sort of stand up that nigerian unit and plan that operation right up to the point where boko haram is engaged and then allow the nigerians to carry it out. if we do that, then our likelihood of success is many multiples in the viewpoint of everyone who has looked at this. many multiples of what it would be, and since we've had the offer from the british and from the french to engage and assist, it would be very wise simply to

go back, get us that waiver because this is an extraordinary circumstance. i made the point before. i just want to reiterate it because i don't want us to get off the sunl. >> i didn't get a chance to respond before. may i respond? >> absolutely. >> there are two different issues. i'm not familiar with the d.o.d. comment, but i'm suggest that the concern about leahy to the consaint are -- which is some 50% of the nigerian military. i don't wish to suggest it's not a problem, but it's 50%, and so i just want to defer differentiate that from the question about the need to be cooperative and very operational sense with the effort to return the school girls, and there we are by virtue of an agreement that i carried with me to abua. we have now intelligence-sharing arrangements. sflo to get to the point and if

you'll recall my original testimony, you know what we do with the lords resistance army. we put our special ops in the field on the ground with ugandan units and other units in order to track, in order to try to suppress joseph cohen. okay? so in this particular case we -- we have a situation -- we're not doing this. what i'm suggest issing we're not doing it when the issue is raised. the response is, well, we would have to have a waiver to do that. if that's the case, get a waiver. not from you, but from -- we're not doing what we need to be doing on the ground in order to track and rescue these girls. this is what this whole debate is about.

not the rhetoric around it. we're not doing it. if you don't need a change to do it, if you don't need a waiver to do it, go back and report that -- in congress we feel it needs to be done now. the longer we wait and debate it, the farther removed these groups get with they are capital he haves and the harder it's going to be to apprehend and rescue these girls. it should have been done immediately. in the future if a situation like this comes up, i would just suggest you have the discretion. use it. immediately go into the field and assist in the rescue. without objection, we have a member who is not a member of this committee, but sheila jackson-lee wanted unanimous consent, if we could, for her to ask a question, so she might ask one question now.

>> let me thank the chairm and ranking me february for their enormous courtesies and thank you for your presence here today. i actually stayed in the home of a family. the father was an engineer, and i feel the consternation in this committee, but i will tell them that the emormty of people in nigeria are not corrupt and are looking for opportunities to do what is being said in this committee to build this country into you one of the best and most productive countries for their young people not only in africa, but in the world. i am very grateful for this committee that has focused on africa with its subcommittee, but more importantly by its members, and i encourage our colleagues to go as you have gone and many others. i hold in my hand the lis of kidnapped girls, and i do it and carry it with me all the time because these are names and

people. i would like to pose a question around your testimony about the rescue and more importantly as well about the regionalism of boko haram from chad to cameroon. ghana is not far from nigeria. the first question is members of congress, women, went to the nigerian embassy, and asked the country to establish a relief fund for the families. just announce and put in -- put dollars in for the pain, the displacement, many of them may be trying to follow where the girls are. i want they want to see whether the state department, beyond our moans that, we are giving, for them to establish a relief fund.

i am concerned that we would not endanger the girls. however, i do know that it's very, very concerning that there is not thatoncert using these particular battalion then special forces. my question on the relief fund and how can we collaborate with the african union on the regional aspect? is there any ground for u.n. peacekeepers? and know that ambassador powers is not here. and is there any way that you can encourage president jonathan that his voice now, even though it is painful, his voice continuing to speak of their concern to the world is crucial. he made one point, and i will tell you i take a little credit for that because we were calling in to nigeria the day before the world economic council to indicate that he needed to say something, of which he said a little bit in his opening remarks. now there is a dead silence, at least in coming this way.

ask, can you explain how important it is we know nigeria potential and what they have done. can we focus on this siege? because this terrorist groups is not going away unless we get our hands around it in an appropriate manner. >> thank you, congresswoman. i am not aware of any knew state department initiatives to create a victim fund. >> no, it is for nigeria to create a relief fund. >> i see. >> and for the state department to encourage them to do something for all families and announce it publicly and nationally. >> i think it is fair to say that i did not specifically emphasized that initiative in all of our engagements with nigerian officials from the president throughout the administration, we are communicating very cleanly that their vocal leader and expression of the the with the people of the northeast where the victims of the fight is

absolutely critical and that more can be done to convey both the attention and commitment and the empathy on that point. i think, as you point out, and terms of the regional ramifications, i believe this is an important moment for concerned nations, if not the international community as a whole to convince nigeria of the need to redouble its efforts, to rethink its tactics in this fight, to flush out its commitment to a softer approach and identify clearly what that means in terms of them on military elements of a strategy, to strengthen all regional platforms to both better understand the nature of the problem and facilitate actions to address the problem concretely. a think this is a very important moment.

and while the tragedy of the kidnapping is a hard break for gasol, i certainly hope that we can use this as a way to do, as you say, which is to improve collective efforts to address the underlying problem which is not likely to disappear in the next year. >> i think the chairman very much and want to conclude by saying, i heard my colleagues and truly believe the religious aspect lind's large because it started many years back. questions or at the direct it it has obviously spread. i will finish by saying that we have tracked, and i know you have, millions of dollars that have come from the al qaeda structure. it is an international issue and is an issue that will impact the united states at some point, and i think it is important that we are in it for that reason and that the reason for the love and

need for these children to be returned to their families and the respect we have for the continent and its french it does i hills back. >> we appreciate both of our witnesses being in this morning. we appreciate you finishing up the panel. this situation with these girls as critical. members of the committee want to do all that they can to assist state and department of defense with any additional authority we may need in order to help secure our rescue. what i was suggesting, the technical terminology for it is an upgrade to and advise and assist will. if that could be conveyed to my would very much appreciated. also, we very much appreciate to a broad picture for being with us, and thank you so much for your meeting with the members of the committee this morning, deborah. with that we stand adjourned.

>> coming up on c-span2, deborah jones, u.s. ambassador to libya discusses increasing violence in that country. senators rand paul and ron martin debate the nomination of david baron to the first circuit court of appeals. >> thursday, a house oversight and government reform subcommittee, the future operations of the u.s. postal service. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> thursday, assistant attorney general for national security talks about emerging national security threats. you can see his remarks at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> starting right here at this landing, all of this stairwell and banister that you see here were the original banisters and steps. so you are really walking exactly on the same as tears on my end, the same stairs that clara barton did for that 18 years when she lived in the building. first is the envelope for a stationary said. the military portfolio. she used these as a fund-raising project. you can see how nice and fancy the engraving or kiss. it also lists what was in the kit. she had died this together to hang on for when she was out trying to solve these.

she could hang this up and people could come by where she wasn't take a look at what she had there. >> the life and work of american red plot -- red cross founder clara barton starting saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. alive and 11:00 your calls and tweets, the national museum of civil war medicine which operates of the barge and museum part of our three day memorial day weekend of american history tv on c-span3. >> u.s. ambassador to libya deborah jones spoke wednesday among the growing violence in lybia and the political transition since the fall of moammar gaddafi. ambassador jones succeeded the late ambassador chris stevens who was killed in the 2012 benghazi attack along with three other american officials. this is about one hour.

>> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for please join me in welcoming ambassador deborah jones, our ambassador to libya. [applause] ambassador jones ticket special credit for coming to today's events. in addition to spending time with her daughters and college graduation and all of those things. extra credit. it is a particular pleasure to welcome a respected colleague and great friend, ambassador deborah jones. respected collea and a great friend, ambassador debra jones, who is our u.s. ambassador toibya sin she has previously served as the u.s. ambassador to kuwait. a true expert on middle east diplomacy in global affairs, having served not only in the middle east diplomacy and actua global affairs having served not only in the middle east, but in ethiopia, in argentina. she has searched in iraq,

tunisia, syria, and united arab emirates. she's held important positions in the department of state headquarters. she's been a role model and mentor to up and coming male and tee mail foreign service officers and a true leader. deb remarks thank you so much for coming. this is not a news program. this is a discussion with sort of a broader optic, but i can't ignore events of the last few days in libya, and so i'm going to start with that, and then we will try to get a sense of where how we move forward in libya, what we should understand in washington, what the path looks like to stabilize the country, what the american role can be. as you well know, there is a former general calf he'lla heftar who has started something called operation dignity to purge the country of islamists. there's been armed action against ansar al sharia.

the state department has already issued a statement, of course saying they've not had contact. they do not condone or support, and nor has the u.s. government assisted in these actions. we are continuing to call on all parties to refrain from violence and to seek resolution through peaceful means. my question to you, ambassador, would be what would be a scenario for all parties to seek resolution through peaceful means? >> that's an easy one. first, i think it's important to clarify some of what's happening and to make clear that this is different things are happening in different places in libya that reflect underlying issues that have been simmering for some time, and i would probably narrow down what you said about that he has -- he it's not necessarily islam per se. it's terrorism that he is actually declared that he is with ansar al shaara and groups

that, in fact, wenl were probably responsible for the attack on our own embassy or our mission facility in benghazi in 2012. anyone who said they're an expert, but between what i call e status and many of them, trouble groups , who actually had an accommodative relationship with gaddafi, but and but dissipated in the revolution and an expected following the revolution to go back to more or less the status quo or operating as the secular state as opposed to the islamist groups, revolutionary islamists, who

release of the revolution has a chance to better ads and agenda that was far more, not only is on -- but our range on that side that goes from kind of what i call the islamist or islamic politics which would be something like christian democrats in turkey all began. and then had the extreme and you do have in the east groups , those who want no part of any democratic process or government and are looking for the opportunity to establish an islamic state. how do we deal with that? recently, i am sure you have all seen the news about proliferation of on or is and to is him and who is out there. i think spain may have recently named someone.

spain is considering. and we have -- his secretary has asked david center field to play a personal capacity because he has a job at info to really focus on a political dialogue, a political reconciliation . what we have come to believe rightfully or wrongly, but i think accurately, one of the reasons the programs of the international community the three years we have engaged in following the revolution have failed to gain significant traction is because there are underlying this agreement and disputes within a very un unified command is unified command weak government which is in a continual battle with the general national congress which is largely seen to be dominated by islamist elements. our approach is to say we are going to try to reach out to all

influences on society, and that can include spoiler's as well as positive or negative. spoilers positive, you know, what everyone might say, positive or negative and, in fact, my activities in this regard have generated a of f suddenly, you know, the minute i met with him, the u.s. passed backbelhaaj it was that -- it's to send a tweet linking me to one of my congressmen and who is actually dealing with benghazi, and i would say the ambassadors have gone over to the muslim brotherhood. in any case the goal is to decide to look at some particular issues. it's pretty clear that already some broadly put, basic issues that have to be addressed in this dialogue and we work out the rules for competition within leba. those have to do with the political isolation law.

how do you modify that and look at carving out areas of inclusion for people who actually can contribute and have made clear by the previous actions that, in fact, they are pro with the revolution, et cetera. when i say that, i'm not using it in a dark meaning of killing them all. i'm saying neutralizing as a political force because right now they are playing an outsized role. i think that when we talk about demilitaryizing or disarming, that's obviously important, but wait that that happens has to be part of a before broader package. in any way it's done, but to remove them as that arm of the political beening so that things can progress without their interruptions, which we're seeing now, looking at the power structure, the fundamental flaws and the constitutional declaration that -- sorry, i'll get through this -- that confused mightily executive and

legislative power within libya so that a prime minister is basically a simple clerical employee trying to deal with a gnc that is dom naturing executive authority in a way that we would understand executive authorities. also powers that goes from the center out into the municipalities out into the country itself, and then obviously the sharing of resources of libya's natural resources, how that's managed, how that's managed equitably, transparently, and fairly in a broad nutshell. >> but clearly having rules clarifies things. >> right. >> and building consensus strengthens things. but the fact that libya has been pulled in different directions has something to do with the fact that both the oil ports and the militias, the islamist militias are armed and have been disruptive, and so my question just before we leave former general heftar, the former prime

minister and -- is it conceivable that he or some -- again, i think that's a mischaracterization, and i think it's an opportunistic endorsement. it's dangerous to assume that all militias or to lump all militias in the same category as well. the issue of the militias is a problem, but heftar's focus is on a very specific terrorist group. not necessarily militias. not all militias are terrorist groups. not all militias are islamist extremists. these happen to be residual elements that were never as suitably reintegrated into society just the same way that we had the challenge of regreg rating militias followingure own

revolution many some cases. the reason that they play an outside role and the reason we have the oil stoppage is back to this fundamental political dispute. people who don't want to see the oil flow to a government which they consider infiltrated or permeated by islamists so that it will squeeze that government and force it to either step aside or be pulled aside by the people versus people who believe that, you know, a different group who thinks that that oil is being misdistributed and there should be more of a federalist or a distribution or more federalist authorities. i mean, these are not unnatural debates in a we to have in a post revolutionary setting, and i think it's important to remember that, but i also think it's important from the beginning to kind of turn around the narrative that people -- i bought for a while this narrative that somehow gadhafi had, you know, taken over this brilliantly running functioning state with all of these good solid institutions and exploited

it and destroyed it and in 42 years dismantled the state. i have -- my own view has changed dramatically -- considerably. i believe now that there were never any kinds of institutional -- there was never ae functioning libyan state per se with credible enduring institutions beyond personalities or beyond, you know, what was being propped up elsewhere, and that is a result of that, that weakened state is what permitted gadhafi to basically come in and for 42 years exploit the state and make deals and keep everything off track. i can't think of anything else that would explain it otherwise. i mean, he was not -- he was very clever, and he used all the same kinds of divisions that we have right now in the state to manage to exploit it and use the oil wealth, abuse the oil wealth, and he was frankly like an abusive parent.

i still think that that political agreement, that power sharing agreement has to be worked out. it's interesting. he is not declared that he wants to be the ruler. he has not declared he wants to be in charge of the state, and anyone frankly would be kind of a fool because it's a tough job. he wants the gnc to step aside because the gnc has thus far failed to take any action to respond to the unhappiness of many libyans that it was -- it's outstayed its time, and there's no forcing mechanism to compel it to leave. to work on a constitutional draft, the constitutional

drafting committee. it's a caretaker government because another triggering event for this weekend's events was the naming of akhmed as prime minister from -- and largely seen by many as an islamist or at least supporting some sort of islamist agenda and, therefore, that would have been the final straw. the process would have completely gotten locked their hold on the government as well as the congress as well as institutions, and i think that's what this is really about. >> so you see some sort of blocking actions. the security council unanimously passed a chapter 7 resolution the other day. essentially authorizing if asked to keep i will lift oil exports from leaving the coast. you see these other actions you've mentioned. you're describing a political process that overcomes the legacy of want only gadhafi, but the monarchy beforehand.

the prime minister in march the constitutional monarchy, and i want to ask you the civil society question. is libya capable in the near term of erecting an edifice, a political structure that they can agree on and function under that gets past the cult of personality and the sort of culture of personality and egypt just had a little bit of trouble with civil society building. tunisia has done very admirably. where does libya come out on that? >> let me back up and say a few things. first of all, i think that mohammed abdulaziz endorsed the idea of a constitutional monarchy. i don't think he was speaking in his role as foreign minister because that's certainly not a policy position of the governm governments don't issue that. and he's been notably silent as far as i know on these recent events as well. but in terms of is libya capable of developing a civil society? well, of course, it is. although, again, in our business you have to look at geography

first and foremost, and i think there's some things that are fairly clear cut. predictable agriculture produce and hydrocarbons, et cetera, generally produce strong authoritarian governments whether it's iraq, france, egypt. countries that are divided geographically by mountains or deserts or what have you, whether it's afghanistan, whether it's switzerland, italy, which was not unified -- >> lebanon. >> keep going. they produce fragmented governments. as to what a country finds, and i do think this goes back and i think it's a great question because all the arab spring so-called countries, i love to go back to april 2011 analysis which i think was brilliant and succinct which is there are two driving issues. if you want to do an analysis of every country that's gone through this, it's about two

issues, it's about legitimacy and humiliation. you can do the calculus and say who feels both of those components? they wereli they were likely to have erupted in some kind of outburst. in libya it was clear for them what the humiliation piece was it and they could all unify against it just as the case wtu in egypt. i think what the foreign minister was suggesting was that you need a figure. this is commonly said, you need a father figure, and, oh, by the way, how many of us grew up with picture painted by gilbert stewart of george -- what's the name of the town we're in right now -- washington who at the time because the country needed a figure that unified us and, in fact, george washington's salary as president of the united states in 18th century was

$20,000 a year. in today's money, that is $4 million a year, folks. why was that? it was to give him an imperial stature and an ability to create a presence that americans would coalesce around and say this is our leader, this is our figure. so all i'm saying is that works for some people, too. you know, it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it helps to have a heroic leader as well. libyan society is a little different. it is not a society that by and large likes heroic leaders or picks or wants to go back to a dictatorship. what people have said to a person almost, is we like what he's doing because he's filling a gap that the government hasn't taken care of, but we don't want him as an individual to step in and play that role. so civil society. how does that work? what libyans do work at is at the local level, at the municipal level, things actually

work for them at smaller levels, consensual levels, so the question is how do you build basic tools of a sovereign state, army, the security piece, the regulatory piece for commerce, and the rule of law piece which is work that can be done on one level, but again we have to sort out these bumps and get some kind of consensus toward that and then they can work at their local levels with local councils with the tribes with whatever they're already doing and we do work with them on those programs to learn how do you create a budget, how do you decide what your municipality needs? one thing that most libyans i think consider a great success of the revolution apart from getting rid of gadhafi and apart from the embracing of democracy, which they do and they have and they continue to do, is the devolution of power from the center at the top down into society. >> it makes sense but let me

sort of -- you've given us a broad analysis based on the sort of geography and history and whatnot, but i wanted to look at the last few years of events and sort of, if you will, ask a tough question about are we -- can we -- what can be done now? it seemed in 2011 there was a very aspirational sense with the february 17 revolution, you had a national transitional council, a constitutional declaration that seemed very much like an abr arab spring democracy road map in many respects. there may have been flaws, but it was unusual in terms of what it departed from. all of these things pointing to a new day in libya. today you have the former prime minister who was kidnapped and driven from office last year. you had the interim prime minister was not granted the authorities he sought. i may be wrong on some of these but this is the press. the general national congress danmate mandate expired and th

granted themselves an extension. pirated oil being offloaded by a north korean tanker. you had militias, some of them arm and extremisextremist. the move against the islamist militias. armed federalists. so the question is now with all of these trends, and maybe i'm being unfair, but you tell me, what institutions or processes can the libyan people cling to? what can they turn to now that they do regard as legitimate and reflects popular sovereignty for everyone. >> the constitution drafting piece. i mean, look, the constitutional declaration of august 2011 that laid out a lot of these time lines, and, again, some of those artificial time lines. there's no mention of a date, february 7th, in the constitutional declaration. that's part of the problem, that it laid out a series of time lines for the accomplishing of certain objectives, none of which has been accomplished thus far, but if you looked at the document itself and said this shall be done in four months or this shall be done in six

months, what have you, it led people to say, okay, february 7th is the date, that's the end of this gnc business, they should step aside. now, unfortunately, no one challenged that date in court. i wish they had. i wish that someone had taken that to the constitutional court or some higher authority and said is this date a date but nobody did because, in fact, i'm not sure they would have won that case because it was not spelled out per se. but libyans do support the constitution drafting process. there was a lower turnout, but, in fact, in the head of the committee was elected from benghazi. he's a secularist. he's a technocrat, and he got something like 66% of the vote in his district. so i think that's indicative of something, and i haven't given up hope. and i think the young people -- look, 60% of libyans are under the age of 40, which is always hopeful i think. there's a wisdom in the fact that we get older, move on, and get out of the way. but i don't think that it's a

hopeless -- i think what we're doing is we're getting to know -- libya is getting to know itself as well as we're getting to know libya. i think in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, we went through what i call the endorphin phase of revolution. it's like the first six months of being in love. you know, everyone was so focused on the beloved in the form of the revolution, it's like those first six months you can be in the middle of the sahara desert and you don't see scorpio scorpions, snakes, or feel the heat. you see the beloved before you and know you want it without thinking of the consequences. one year into that relationship, you realize mortality is flawed. political processes are organic processes. i know of no baby that emerges walking and i know of two 2-year-old who doesn't. you know, all things being equal. so the fact is these things are just going to take time and i don't think the libyans themselves were even as aware of the fragmentation that existed and the other parties that came on board and, you know, have

perhaps in the words of some would say have hijacked or tried to hijack the revolution or others who may have had good theories but then were incapable of putting those theories into process. there are some people now, many people, in fact, two argue that the 2012 elections were premature, and, in fact, that it was wrong to expect that absent the other context of kind of a more rules of the road and consensus on what were the issues that were going to be agreed upon, that it may have been premature to have elections. elections are not the solution to everything. >> fair enough. you're speaking as though the libyan people have every possibility of pulling this together on their own time frame and that this can come together. i want to ask you about an externality, but is, at least one here, that the jihadists are going back and forth between eastern libya and syria. >> sure.

>> does the conflict in syria constitute sort of a tumor that's feeding a cancer inside of libya? and also i would note that the general took out the broadcast capability of at least ansar al-islam. could you talk a little bit about the information space in libya. >> it's battle space. the information warfare in libya is as exacting as any other battle space. that's with agreed rules of broadcasting which is a problem, and i see both sides have their stations -- all sides have their stations and the night before last i think the headquarters of the tv station of one leader was attacked. so it happens. but, yes, obviously why are we -- why does libya matter so much to us?

libya matters precisely because of its location and the potential it has for becoming a hot bed or a nest of -- for these other groups who are moving within the region because of the absence of border security, because of the absence really -- because of the permissive environment within generated by a lack of government capacity to extend its security measures. so, yes, obviously syria is problematic. what goes back and forth, there are a number of libyans who obviously have been in syria, who are coming back. egypt obviously -- you know, it's an important big neighbor for libya and what happens in egypt has an impact whether politically on libya or economically or otherwise. you have something like i think close to a million libyans who live in egypt and egyptians are coming across on the other side as well, and, again, what

happens -- you know, if elements within egypt feel compelled to leave and join kind of a lawless environment in libya, that's a toxic -- that's a potentially toxic mix as well. so that's why libya for us, it's not about the oil for the united states anyway. for us it's not about the immigration problems which, you know, predate this situation. gadhafi had immigration issue was europe and was fairly extortionist in his approach to it. send me $5 billi5 billion eurose or i will unleash on you. so none of that is new. what's a new piece is flows of terrorist and extremist organizations as using libya as a crossroads and it's so full of arms. that's the other big problem. the number of weapons, and i mean serious weapons, we're not talking about glocks or bb guns.

we're talking about, you know, rpgs and 14.5 caliber anti-aircraft artillery pieces. yeah. >> well, i want to ask you about u.s. government activity and capacity. let me start by saying going back to the nato operation where it was a joint endeavor, and you had consensus of the security council the other day. i note that the embassy often puts out statements in conjunction with the uk, france, germany, and italy, so five countries speaking as one. you just talked about mediators popping up in various capitals. is this a new model for cooperation? is it better for the u.s. to sort of align with several states and speak with one voice and how much can the u.s. lead in terms of helping this mediation process, advancing civil society, bringing in technical assistance. i'm going to ask you in a moment about what the embassy can and

is doing but just in general -- >> sure. first of all, i think, you know, the model adapts for every circumstance. in the case of libya, the u.n. was given a special coordinating role after the revolution in -- and the head of it is a former minister from lebanon who is very capable. if you read tariq's assessments at the u.n., they're quite spot on and thoughtful and he's been engaged very heavily in a lot of the political discussion with libyans, but we -- one of the reasons we do coordinate so much more and it is, in fact, what we call it the p-3 plus 4 which is actually three permanent members, the united states, the united kingdom, france plus the eu plus the u.n. and now plus germany because they wanted to join in the mix, and that's fine, but we saw it as a way of, first of all, efficiency because

it's really a task for the government. you know, one thing, with a weak government like libya has and with a nascent structure, really to have multiple ambassadors coming and essentially pummeling them with the same questions or asking the same things doesn't make a lot of sense. we coordinate amongst ourselves anyway and we have a close-knit group and we do coordinate statements on issues at hand. we do coordinate -- in fact, the secretary probably will see something emerge -- i suspect from the next couple days on the situation in libya. but we also coordinate on the programs because in the three years following the revolution, contrary to a lot of popular perception, people did not abandon libya. if anything, sometimes libya was overwhelmed with proposals for border security missions, ubam is doing that right now, but also for civil society, for governance, for rule of law projects, and all kinds of things. a lot of things on the security side, police training, military

training. the u.s., as you know, as well as the uk and italy and turkey are engaged in training a general purpose force for libya. but it can be overwhelming. i mean, as i said, we provided all of this institutional scaffolding this high to a building that was this big. you know, and that tends to crush the building. we've been trying to moderate that and adjust that and to focus on what it is the libyans can also receive. the u.s. -- getting a hug from the u.s. is not always a comfortable hug, but in that sense we can do things, too, that others cannot necessarily do. we can sometimes be a little more of a stick or a little more of a -- you no, i think probably every former ambassador here and there are several in the room, i see you, too, ron back there, that has been in a situation where governments almost welcome, and i don't say this with hubris, i say it as a practical reality, where given

their nature in a consensus driven society, it is sometimes helpful for them to be able to say, you know what, the u.s. made me do this or i really came under a lot of pressure from the united states, and i don't think that's always a bad thing. >> well, let me expand on that. here you are in washington. i'm sure you've been to the hill already or are headed there soon -- >> i have been there twice. >> we'll keep you here as long as you care to stay. you have refuge here at stimson. what would you like at washington that you don't have already in hand? what can washington do to strengthen the american role in libya? >> i'm going to get fired. maybe that's a good thing, too. shall i get fired? you know, we've had a lot of attention from washington, and i think sometimes there is a sense of urgency that plays out domestically that, you know -- look, our job as ambassadors at the end of the pointy end of the

spear is to make sure that the interagency operating -- it's almost like a dentist drill. you know, at one end you have this big machine or the emergency that's all pumping in but it really has to come to a fine point that is hnled with skill and precision on a very delicate situation with the right time, and that's -- can i compare washington to a dentist drill or maybe we're the dentist drill, but i think it's kind of like that sometimes. you know, our job is like -- it's almost like -- i used to say we were like, you know, airport flight controllers, flight path controllers to make sure that all of the incoming flights, planes are coordinated and they're not going to crash with all the agencies, but, again, we're a whole lot of love on this side of the atlantic, and if all that love comes crashing down at the same time it can be too much too soon in the wrong places, not intentionally, just because people see the size of the problem and see the size of the challenges and everyone wants to

help. and there's a lot of help that comes out. but let me put it to you in a very graphic position. there are probably more people in this room today than there are empowered, capable people in the libyan government able to absorb the support we're giving them. shall i repeat that? you know, and that's the reality. so we really have to be careful, and we really need to look in different ways, too, in private sector and elsewhere, here and in other places, to find different pieces of that scaffolding that is going to support, you know, the fundamental -- getting governance on its feet, but before we can go anywhere, libyans themselves have to agree on what their road map is going to be, who they want to be, how they want to do it. you know, and we can help in many ways, but we can't write that story for them. and our experience is different. and, of course, you're always

going to get -- and god bless them, i adore them, the libyans who are educated in the united states or have worked for years with oil companies, and they are very frustrated. they're more frustrated than anyone else. they go back to libya and they say people don't want to work this way or i have to have consensus with 10,000 other people. one of the reasons -- i think ali tried to brick bring a kind of western executive approach to his job, and there was no implementing institution under it, institutional scaffolding under it. so, you know, you can go and like the king tell the waves be still or move all you want and it's not going to change the tide. so what we're really focused on is finding something that resonates and works, and as part of this dialogue. as i said, i have gone around meeting a lot of people, generating a lot of feedback.

bill bushrns came and met with number of people. we had a rather historic meeting with a number of people amongst the various groups for the first time sitting on the same side of the table together in the same room since the revolution. they were i think even astonished themselves and afterwards they continued the conversation for at least another half an hour, but, of course, there are differences that are there. and it's going to take hard work. it's going to take people sitting down and saying does the libyan state matter to me more than my personal interest? sovereignty is about individual engagement with the state and responsibility toward the state, and this is a whole change of -- i mean, people need to understand how radical a change that is for libyans. some of whom joke and say, you know, we used to sit in front of the television and wait for the banner headline that was going to come on saying the dictator has been overthrown. he said now we're waiting for the next banner headline that's not coming. well, you're the banner headline. you've got to write the news.

tough do the story. >> so let me -- before i open it up for your questions, let me ask you about the mission itself. >> uh-huh. >> i take it that it's a fairly -- it's a tailored mission. you probably don't have lots and lots of personnel under the current circumstance. what is the u.s. embassy team able to execute on now and are they getting outside of tripoli, are you able to move around the country? >> yeah. well, in limited places. first of all, we are a small -- we're lean and mean. we have very few -- we are a tiny embassy. we have a large security component, as you might -- we're somewhat similar to a medieval for tre fortress in some ways. we're well protected. benghazi will not happen again but something else will, it always does. we travel on the seams. i want to dispel the mirth we don't ever emerge from the compound grounds.

i get out and about. if you don't follow me already, follow me on twitter to the shores of tripoli, b. i get out -- in fact, you know, if i go to misrata, they say you have been to misrata twice and you've only seen us once. we do plan things. we go out -- libya has some fabulous sights. five world heritage sights. i have to put in a pitch. it has amazing weather. it has fantastic fish. you know, it's got so much to offer, and we do get out, but it's limbed to the west. we do not get out to benghazi. i hope eventually will be able to. we can't travel on a dime. >> if i may, so the americans who are very interested in tourism in libya -- >> wouldn't do it right now.

>> infrastructure. >> it's a precarious situation. how much does a big mac cost? i have the 911 standard which is if you go as a tourist to any country in the world and something happens to you, if you call 911, what do you get for it? you know, if you're in iceland, germany, uk, u.s., a lot of places, you're going to get quite a bit. if you're in libya, you're going to keep dialing and, you know, if you know people, they will come to your rescue. libyans help each other out. one of the things i'm always very moved by and touched by is how often libyans stop and help other libyans. and i tell people one of the stories about libya that's fantastic actually is if any other society in the world that is that heavily saturated with weapons, you would have a lethality rate that's off the charts. it doesn't happen.

why? why doesn't it happen? now it's happening in a very specific way against a very specific group of terrorists who have been assassinating methodically and systematically former government officials. it went from former colonels to police to judicial authorities and then heinously went to civilians, and i mean the killing of these young cadet that is were graduating from this military academy in benghazi by a car bomb that was deliberately timed to go off at precisely the moment when you had the largest congregation of these young men, it was beyond the pale. and this is the thing that led to the declaration of the government about terrorism. this is when the patience and tolerance level was reached. should americans go around? things happen and unless you really know libyans, i would say if you know libyans, you know the place, you have good sources, you could probably go and go in certain places. right now there are areas i would avoid because americans

are targeted and abductions have always been part and parcel of certain areas and especially when you have no rule of law. you choose a high value object because in a transactional society, you need something that's of value for your transaction, and human beings work pretty well, and this is age old practice. i'm not persuaded even -- you mentioned the abduction in october which was ostensibly in reaction for the u.s. capture of a target. i am convinced personally, you may be wrong, but considering who helped him out in that process, that there was probably a deal made to ultimately get the release of someone else or bring them back in the country. who knows. i hate to speculate but i can't help but speculate in my business. you know, the abduction -- the terrible precedent set with the abduction of five egyptian diplomats in response to the egyptian arrest of the head of

the libyan revolutionary operations when he was in alexandr alexandria, followed by the abduction of tunisian diplomats and followed by the outrageous abduction of the jordanian ambassador, you know, who was thankfully released, but, unfortunately, released in exchange for a convicted al qaeda affiliate who had tried to bomb the airport who some reports indicate has been killed in the fighting in benghazi. i don't know. unfortunately, that hasn't been confirmed. >> well, fascinating and now i'm going to open it up to your questions. we have many experts in the room. please wait for the microphone. identify yours and elf and if y have an affiliation. >> we'll start with the lady in the second row, barbara. >> barbara slavin. all my admiration to you ambassador for taking this post.

you will get a reward i hope of special quality. my question is about other outside forces that are supporting various groups. the general, is he getting support from egypt, from the uae? is this sort of a chance to expunge the muslim brotherhood and its elements from libya? >> barbara, that's a good question, and, indeed, you know, certainly there are libyans who have said we need assisi and then i say but you don't have the egyptian army behind him. however, certainly there's been a lot of talk, and one of the narratives that has -- that is commonly heard in libya is that this is not about our own problems. this is about being the victims of a kind of a proxy war that is being launched by, you know, external forces and i mean everybody knows who those countries are. it's uae or qatar.

it's not a secret that the uae and qatar both were supportive of the revolution in different ways and provided very generous support, by the way, in terms of medical care and the offer of free education, et cetera, to various groups. subsequently though, the narrative that many libyans believe and which, frankly, is very difficult to prove concretely, is that each side is funding either training of military or arms or weapons or has an agenda that goes on and on and on. our position has been to call on our friends and our allies to not complicate or confuse the situation within libya because i do believe that it's complicated enough and that enough of these issues are, in fact, indige jno problems that are exploited by others. you know, and i think libyans have to confront them and deal with those problems because, again, other hands can exploit a

situation only when it's so weak that it can be exploited. there's two sides to that thing. but certainly there are those on the -- i would say it's certainly libyans who are based outside of libya have interests that are at play, and some of them, you know, are frankly quite open about it because they believe that this is necessary, these actions are necessary to address issues that the government is not addressing. particularly on the terrorism side of the house right now. now, that doesn't necessarily mean a political endorsement. again, i think the role is not very clear yet in terms of what he seeks at the end of this exercise and also how shall we know when the exercise is over. now, i have my own thoughts on it because i think that this gets into gaining ground for tactical purposes and, for example, a lot of debate over the control of the airports in tripoli. one airport is widely said and

in fact believed to be controlled by the zintan, tripoli international airport. and another airport is believed to be largely controlled by salafis and receiving arms and weapons and things like this from outside the country. now, the question is whether these groups get into a knock down drag out, and we don't assess that one group is particularly capable of dominating the other group. so that's when the situation becomes kind of dicey, but whether they -- i think one group has said they're not going to negotiate, still they're going to use force. i think he's gotten what he wanted which is the gnc suddenly announced a date for elections, june 25th. when before it was a maybe, and maybe in august.

i mean, it's still very fluid, and we have to watch and see what that is, but he's already obviously produced one thing that a lot of libyans wanted, which was a date certain for elections from the gnc. question now though, can the state or can who provide the security for those elections to take place? fairly and honestly. next issue is going to be i'm sure a big issue is ahmed going to continue to pursue becoming prime minister now that you have a june 25th election named in addition to presenting his cabinet, et cetera, or are people going to say, look, let's leave abdullah as a caretaker government until you have a new parliament which is in effect and is going to name a new government anyway and a parliament which they're going to be called the house of representatives which -- i was going to say that's ominous. >> i can't have that on my

conscience. >> okay. does that, barbara, answer your question. >> you didn't answer whether egypt -- >> oh, egypt are supporting. i said that's -- i'm not aware that they are. i said -- i know that libyaeian who reside in egypt and the uae have expressed support. i have nothing for you on that. >> very good. >> how is that answer? >> let's take a question over here. on this side. any question. all right. so sir, in the very far back, please wait for the microphone. >> miss ambassador, i'm christopher blanchard the congressional research service. i wanted to give you two opportunities, one to respond to some remarks that were made in an interview which seemed to implicate a broader group than ansar al sharia that do

implicate muslim brotherhood -- >> but he's not tried to kill muslim brotherhood. >> his remarks were a bit more ambiguous i think and have obviously generated debate inside libya and are affecting how people respond. and then the other to give you an opportunity to sort of respond to questions about the continuation of not just u.s. security assistance but the sort of general plan to work with the libyan military given the questions about chain of command that are obviously being raised here. can you talk about why the u.s. government may believe that it's still important to proceed along that path or not? thank you. >> are you going to give me the wrote? because i haven't read -- >> sure. i can if you'd like. >> what's the specific quote? >> sure. let's see. he's talking about how the muslim brother had organized groups of radicalists and gave them passports. >> those are two different

issues. there's a political issue and there's this now very specific tactical issue against terrorists elements, camps, all of these in the east. the broader competition and that issue is again that, in fact, again, the secularist status quo side has not been as engaged politically and intentionally withdrew from politics because of disgust over what happened after the elections when they felt it was 65% of the vote, they should have been able to choose a prime minister, and they were, in fact, blocked by that tactically by the islamists in the parliament. so, in fact, this is a whole different dynamic that is not about necessarily killing but it's about dislodging people who they believe are exploiting or -- it's a lot of -- this is a political issue, and again i think there are different elements that are concerned about that one as well. now, the airport thing is a very

specific and a little different and that will be a force issue. there's the other political half of that. that's why i say it's complicated, it's complex, and there are various players in it and whether this surges and goes away or what, i don't know. i think the question and the danger right now is that normally for two sides to sit at a table or for multiple sides, for however many sides, they have to be either -- you know, three conditions. they are either -- one of three. they are either, you know, exhausted, injured, or impoverished by the existing situation to the point that they choose its time to sit down at the table, and we're not yet seeing that either of the groups feel that they are either exhausted by the current situation, impoverished by the current situation, or injured, wounded enough by that situation. and that's why we've got to -- you know, there's got to be a little more work done now to calm that situation and bring it

back away from violence into an operational political dialogue. the building of the army, you have raised a great question, it's one we go over all the time, is what will the employment of these forces be? and at the time, of course, that the programs were set up and established, the situation was very different and being presented in a very different way. so even as we speak, you know, we are certainly rethinking the program, but it doesn't negate the need for a national army, and, in fact, you know, ahmed already pre-emptively had said he met once with -- we all met with him once as a group of ambassadors after the initial election before it became very clear that this was going to go into a long debated process and then we've not met with him again, but in that meeting with the first point he made was he supported the building of a national army, and, in fact, whe when we were in rome in march, may, i can't remember what month

it is, march i guess, both the gnc and the government attended and agreed to the building of the general purpose force in the joint agreed communique that was issued which was the whole point was to get both sides to agree on certain steps and then witnessed by the international community as saying you have bought into this so now we are going to hold you to it. so, again, how that is implemented ultimately is still obviously a work in progress. because there's no question they need a national security architecture. it's hard to have one when you don't have an agreed policy or a national security concept. >> i think we have time for one more question. sir? wait for the microphone, please. >> former colleague. hi. >> daniel seward from johns hopkins and the middle east institute. deb, let me add my voice to the encouragement you've gotten and the gratitude we all feel for

what you're doing. i wanted you to try to be a little bit more specific about what you expect heftar to do next. what i'm hearing is, and you can correct me if i'm hearing the wrong thing, is that you're not too unhappy with what he's done so far. but what signals is the united states going to send him about what the next steps ought to be? >> no, daniel, let me be clear. let me clarify something. obviously the government -- and i think we made a statement about that yesterday. you know, we were not aware of this in advance. we have not provided support, and we are not happy with the need to resort to violence or to disruption to advance an agenda. and obviously are going to work to limit that, to look at that. however, my point is, you know, it's very difficult to step up

and condemn, you know -- i mean, we should, but i personally, i have to be honest with this, frankly it's not necessarily for me to condemn his actions in going against very specific groups, which as far as i have seen has been extremely specific, warning civilians to move out of the way and really attacking groups that, frankly, are on our list of terrorists. i mean, i'm not saying that's the best way to deal with them at all and i'm not supporting it from that perspective. what i'm saying is i personally am not going to come out and condemn blanketly what he did in that specific instance. i don't think he has huge personal support. i'm trying to describe what i see as a situation within libya which is i hear a lot of support for his actions against these specific groups, less support for him as an individual given his background and what many see as an opportunistic strike that

is using this as a pretext to gain authority, but i'm just saying the jury is still out because it's not clear what is the political agenda behind it entirely yet. again, we want this to be a legitimate process, and he needs -- frankly, my earlier advice to the government was reach out to him and try to reign him in and talk to him and make sure you're taprotecting t civilians in the area. we're going to continue to work with the government and libyans and political influencers and he's obviously become one of those influencers in that equation that we're going to at some point have to deal with and the elements who are supporting heftar. they say he's voted in two elections so i'm assuming he's an american citizen. he's democratic, small d"d."

juke check the warden list. >> i don't think he's registered with us on the warden list. >> we will now pay a lot more attention to libya, hopefully with a much sharper lens thanks to the last hour of your insights, ambassador jones. we're out of time. i want to thank our audience for coming, thank our broadcast audience, our sponsors. the next forum is june 9th

>> thursday, house oversight and government reform subcommittee discusses the future operations of the u.s. postal service live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> c-span newest book sundays at 8:00, a collection of interviews from 25 years of our book notes and q&a conversations. >> at that point was what you might have called a henry jackson deliver crack.

i was a believer in the tough approach to the soviet union, which means i had pretty much, and the democratic party at the time. you have pat moynihan, henry jackson, the great senator from washington state. and later on that element of the democratic party shrunk to nothingness. and as it did, i was without a home. i remains generally without a political home. you could obviously fairly call me a new conservative. >> one of the nation's top story tellers on c-span sundays at 8:00 published by public affairs books and now available in your favorite bookseller. >> the u.s. senate voted thursday to against the nomination of david baron to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit. he has written legal memos justifying the use of unmanned

aerial drums to kill american terrorists overseas. next, senator rand paul expresses his opposition. this is 45 minutes.ds mr. barron. this is 45 minutes. see i se tay i >> i rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the president has the power to kill an american citizen not involved in combat and without a trial. i rise today to see that there is no legal precedent for killing american citizens not involved in combat, and that any nominee who rubber-stamp and grants such power to the president is not worthy of being placed one step away from the supreme court. it is not about just seeing the animals. some seem to be placated by the fact that they can read these

mammals. .. fact that oh they can read these memos. i believe it's about what the memos themselves say. i believe the barron memos at their very core disrespect the bill of rights. the bill of rights isn't so much for the "american idol" winner. the bill of rights isn't so much much for the prom queen or the high school football quarterback. the bill of rights is especially for the least popular among us. the bill of rights is especially for minorities. whether you are a minority by the virtue of the color of your skin or the shade of your ideology. the bill of rights is especially for unpopular people and unpopular ideas and unpopular religions. it is easy to argue for trials for prom queens. it is easy to argue for trials for the high school quarterback or the "american idol" winner.

it is hard to argue for trials for traders and people who wish to harm our fellow americans but a mature freedom defends the defenseless, allows trials for the guilty, protects even speech of the most despicable nature. after 9/11 we all recoiled in horror at the massacre of thousands of innocent americans. we fought a war to tell other countries that we would not put up with this, that we would not allow this to happen again. as our soldiers began to return from afghanistan i asked them to explain in their own words what they have fought for and to a soldier they would tell me that they fought for the american way. they fought to defend the constitution and they fought for our bill of rights. i think it's a disservice to their sacrifice not to have an open in full-throated public

debate about whether an american citizen should get a trial before they are killed. let me be perfectly clear. i'm not referring to anybody involved in the battlefield. anybody shooting against our soldiers, anybody involved in combat get snowed due process. what we are talking about is the extraordinary concept of killing american citizens who are overseas but not involved in combat. it doesn't mean that they are not potentially them probably are bad people. that we are talking about doing it with no accusation, no trial, no charge, no jury. the nomination before us is about killing americans not involved in combat. the nominee david barron has written a defense of executions of american citizens not involved in combat. make no mistake, these memos do not limit drone executions to

one man. these memos become historic precedence for killing americans abroad. some have argued that releasing these memos is sufficient for his nomination. this is not a debate about transparency. this is a debate about whether or not american citizens not involved in combat are guaranteed due process. realize that during the bush years most of president obama's party including the president himself argued against the detention, not the killing. they argued against the detention of american citizens without a trial yet now the president and the vast majority of his party will vote for a nominee that advocates the killing of american citizens without trial. how far have we gone? how far have we gone? we were once talking about detaining american citizens in objecting that they would get no accusation no trial.

now we are condoning killing american citizens without a trial. during president obama's first election he told the "boston globe", no, i reject the bush of administrations claim that the president has plenary authority under the constitution to detain american citizens without charges as unlawful combatants. but now as president not only has he signed legislation to detain american citizens without trial but he is now approving of killing american citizens without a trial. where oh where has candidate obama gone? president obama puts forward david barron his memos justify killing americans without a trial. i can't tell you what he wrote in the memos. the president forbids it. i can tell you what barron did not write. he did not not write or cite any legal case to justify killing an

american without a trial because no such legal precedent exists. it has never been adjudicated. no court has ever looked at this there has been no public debate because it has been held sacred from the american people. it creates out of whole cloth a defense for executing american citizens without trial. the cases he cites which i am forbidden from talking about which i am forbidden today are unrelated to the issue of killing american citizens because no such cases have ever occurred. we never debated this in public. we are going to allow this to be decided by one branch of government in secret. and yet the argument against what barron proposes should be no secret and should be obvious to anyone who looks at this issue. no court has ever decided such a case.

so barron's secret defensive drone executions rise in cases which upon critical analysis have no pertinent to the case at hand. and mi the only one that thinks that something so unprecedented as an assassination of an american citizen, that this should not be discussed? that we should discuss this in light of day? it might be only one that thinks that the question of such magnitude should be decided in the open by the supreme court? barron's arguments for the extra-judicial killing of american citizens challenges over a thousand years of jurisprudence. trials based on the perception of innocents are an ancient rite the romans wrote that the burden of proof is on he who declares, he who asserts that you are guilty not on he who denies. the burden is on the government.

we describe this principle as the principle being considered innocent until guilty. this is a profound concept. this is not something we should quietly acquiesce to having it run roughshod on or deluded and eventually destroyed. in many nations the presumption of innocence is a legal right to the accused even in the trial. in america we go one step further to protect the accused. we place the burden of proof on the prosecution. we require the government to collect and present enough compelling evidence to a jury, not to one person who works for the president, not to bunch of people in secret but to a public jury the evidence must be presented. but then we go even further to protect the possibility of innocence. we require that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. if reasonable doubt remains the accused is to be acquitted. we set a very high bar for

conviction and an extremely high bar for execution and even during all of the most appropriate things we still sometimes have gotten it wrong and executed people after jury trials mistakenly, erroneously. but now we are talking about not even have in the protection of a trial. we are talking about only accusations. are we comfortable killing american citizens no matter how awful her heinous the crime they are accused of? are we comfortable killing them based on accusations that no jury has reviewed? innocent until proven guilty the concept is tested. we aren't being tested. it is cut contested that the accused is likely guilty in this case. the traitor is all likelihood guilty. the evidence appears to be overwhelming and yet why can't we do the american thing and have a public trial and accuse

them and convict them in a quart? it is more difficult to believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty when the accused is unpopular or hated. the concept of innocent until proven guilty is more difficult when the accused is charged with treason. the bill of rights is easy. it's easy to defend what we like in a speech or sympathize with a defendant. defending the right for people we fear or dislike is more difficult. it's extremely hard but we have to defend the bill of rights or it will slip away from us. it's easy to support a trial for someone who looks like you. for someone who has the same color skin or someone who has the same religion. it's easy. presumption of innocence is however much harder when the citizen practices a minority religion, when the citizen

resides in a foreign land or sympathizes with the enemy. yet our history is replete with examples of heroes who defended the defenseless, who defended the unpopular who sometimes defended the guilty. we remember john adams when he defended the british soldiers, the once over guilty of the boston massacre. we remember fondly people who defend the unpopular even when the end of being declared guilty because that's something we take pride in our system. we remember his son john quincy adams when he defended the slaves that took over the amistad. we remember fondly henry seldon who defended the unpopular when he represented susan b. anthony who voted illegally as a woman. we remember fondly eugene debs who defended himself when he was accused of being against the draft and against world war i and was given 10 years in prison.

we defend the unpopular. that's what the bill of rights is especially important for. we remember fondly clarence darrow who defended the unpopular in the scopes monkey trial. we remember thurgood marshall who defended the unpopular when he struck down segregation. where would we be without these champions? where would we be without applying the bill of rights to those we don't like and those we don't associate with and those we believe are guilty? where would the unpopular be without the protection of the bill of rights? one can almost argue that the right to trial is more precious than more unpopular the defended. we cannot and we should not abandon this cherished principle. critics will argue that these are people who plot to kill americans. i don't dispute that. my first instinct is like most

americans to recoil in horror and want immediate punishment for. herz. i can't stand the thought of americans who consort with an advocate violence against americans. i want to punish those americans who are. herz but i'm also conscious of what these traitors have betrayed. these traders are betraying it country that holds dear the precept of innocents until guilty. .. ech you agree with. it is harder to protect speech you abhor. the first amendment is not so much about protecting speech that is easily agreed to. it is about tolerating speech that is an abomination.

likewise, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth amendments are not so much about protecting majorities of thought, religion or ethnicity. due process is about protecting everyone, especially minorities. unpopular opinions change from generation to generation. while >> >> and. >> and he did with the jury just this is not always easily discovered.

only to watch the jurors deliberate to understand friday justice even with a jury is not always straightforward. today virtually everyone synthesizes with tom robinson to was unfairly accused in the book "to kill a mockingbird" because they know he is innocent because the accusation was based on race. it is a slam down call for everybody to belief. is easy to object to vigilante justice when you know, the accused is innocent and of mob at attempts in judicial execution beastie and but what about american citizens is guilty? what about the american citizen who is a trader in deserves punishment? horary strong enough to

believe still that this person should get a trial? do we have the courage to denounce execution as nothing more than sophisticated vigilanteism? how could it be anything but? checks and balances cannot exist in one branch of government. whether upon it advice of one player or 10,000 if they all work for one man, the president, how can it be anything better verdict outside the of law that could conceivably be subject to the emotion and fear? this president above all other presidents, should not allow power to gravitate to one man. it is hard to defend the right to a trial for an

american citizen who becomes a trader who appears to be aiding and abetting the enemy. but if we cannot give a trial for the most heinous crimes then where will the slippery slope lead as? jurisprudence is that everyone gets his or her day in court to the matter how despicable the crime accused. how to retry these americans overseas? they will not come home the constitution holds the answer they should be tried for alleged treason if they refuse to come home they should be tried in absentia and given the right to a legal defense. the independent legal event that does not work for the government. if the method of punishment is not the issue of italy's has been the right to to a trial the presumption of innocence and a guarantee of due process. for these reasons i cannot support the nomination even

if they release a dozen memos i cannot support him because the debate is not about partisan politics i have supported not any of his nominees it is not about transparency but the substance of the memos. i cannot and will not support an appointment of someone who believes it is okay to kill an american citizen not involved in combat without a trial. some will argue to state the president now has changed his mind and will release the memos to the public then let's wait widely havel full throated debates let's see what the public thinks when he think something that over a thousand years deserves debate?

with the degree we take the time to realize this is not the position of the administration but now that is relenting to a the verdict to the second circuit court they released this memo under giraffes and my guess is because they need a few more votes than they will by releasing these to the public or promising to they will not be released and they will not be released before the vote takes place. so the question is is it really transparency good enough for you do cast aside the presumption of innocence? that the accusations is better than the conviction? there has spent much discussion of what to process is. as we have looked at this debate there are valid questions.

having written extensively on this to writes about of lawyer that had extra edition killing of an american should it be entrusted to a man it will be entrusted to him and his six americans can be killed without due process? they say it is very clear no person shall answer for infamous crime unless of the indictment of a grand jury does not say with the accusation of the executive branch without a trial says nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. the question is what is to process?

you would think this would be pretty clear without much dispute. but when you listen to some of these descriptions we now have the administration that writing this about both the bush in the obama administration that court is the orwellian practice to equate government accusation of terrorism with proof of guilt to realize of the talk about there is a big difference between the accusation and a conviction. if you want to realize how important senators on the other side of the aisle call them terrorists on multiple occasions. who are we going after with these directives? either senior operatives of the al qaeda there is no membership card so that is

debatable but those associated with terrorism of. that definition it could be somewhat loose the bureau of justice put out a memo to discuss the characteristics of those that might be a terrorist people missing thinkers, stains on clothing , changed the color of their hair, multiple weapons in the house more than seven days' worth of food in the house these are people you should be suspicious of who might be terrorists and you should talk to to inform the government about these people. of this is the definition of someone who might be a terrorist wouldn't we want a lawyer before that accusation becomes a conviction?

>> when we talk about convictions we talk about the bar being beyond a reasonable doubt. as you can pretty much sync in a jury pool someone killed someone the you are supposed to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that in these memos there is a different standard realize what that is that now we have the of lifetime appointment that the assassination is justified when he informed high-level officials has determined the targeted individual poses the imminent threat of a violent attack against the united states. so no longer beyond a reasonable doubt we talk about an informed unnamed high-level officials deciding the attack is going to over.

the interesting thing about the imminent attack we don't go the played wording of limited to any more the memo expressly states inventing a broader concept of the minutes typically not use. the president's assassination power does not require the u.s. has clear evidence that is specific attack will take place in the immediate future so you were about eminence that no longer includes the word immediate. the aclu explains sen memo redefines the word imminent in the way that deprives the word of the ordinary meeting. -- meaning. to talk about to process it is important to understand where it can occur it has to

occur in the open in the adversarial process if you don't have a lawyer on your side who is your advocate you cannot have to process it cannot occur in secret but also not in one branch of government it is a fundamental misconception. the president believes with regard to privacy that if he has some lawyers review the process it is to process it is appalling it has nothing to do was due process and can no way be seen that way. some have said this is a judicial oath begin to a3 has justified the president sash's people also said this with regard to this spying case of 15 judges approve

the majority of them were secrets of the fisa court that is not due process as well but also the memo written in by a david barron is not a judicial opinion it was not written by anybody independent of the president. on multiple occasions they have justified in the memo argues that to process can be decided by internal deliberations of the executive branch. the comedienne steven colbert mach to this and wrote trial by jury. trial by fire brought papers scissors. who cares is just means there is a process. right? first president meets his advisers to decide to he will kill then kills them it is actually called terror tuesday with flash cards and power point presentation is.

a colleague of david barron writes there is no precedent for the idea that due process could be satisfied by a secret internal process within the executive branch. said to those of my colleagues to come down here today to stamp of approval on someone who i believe disrespects the bill of rights realize other professors are colleagues disagree. and you cannot have to process by a secret internal process within the executive branch. if they say they're now not a secret will we be promised from now on it is a public debate and some form of due process? no. i suspect the next time it is done in secret by the executive branch because that is said to normal. you vote for someone who made a historic president how to kill americans overseas in secret by one

branch of the administration without representation based on an accusation. we have gone from proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to accusations and to be enough for the execution. i am horrified this is where we are. to my colleagues i would say that to make an honest judge letitia the get the nomination as if it came from the office of party provided promise you this would absolutely be my opinion it is not the most popular opinion to take but i would oppose this nomination is coming for a republican president but look deep within their soul to say how little i felt if it were a bush nominee? that had written legal

opinions justifying torture in 20 -- 2007, 2006, 2005, how would 90 percent would7s vote now against the nominee it has become partisan and the body has become too partisan there was a time when there were great believers in behalf to generate into a body of partisanship there was a time when the filibuster could have stopped this nomination there was a time in which there would have to be compromise there was a time we get people more to the mainstream of legal thought because they would be excluded from holding office the people live argued so forcefully for a majority vote to not have the filibuster are the ones are responsible for lolling denomination to go forward it would not if not for the elimination of the filibuster some say that was

obstructionism it was also about trying to prevent extremists from getting on the bench. we will now allow some iu has the extreme pointed you questioning whether or not guilt must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt and that an accusation is enough for the death penalty. some consolation if you are a traveler if his only overseas. we need to think long and hard to examine this nomination of chuck to play as if this were nomination from president of the opposite party to ask ourselves how precious is the concept of the assumption of innocence? how precious are the bill of rights? also, it is hard. the new knows someone is guilty if you have seen the evidence and feel this

person deserves punishment. i sympathize in think they did but i also sympathize so greatly with the concept of having a jury trial, so greatly the accusation is different than a conviction i cannot allow this to go forward without some objection. i hope this body will consider this and will reconsider the nomination and at the appropriate time i will offer a unanimous consent disagreement the request will be to delay the david barron memo -- nomination and tell the public -- the public has a chance to do but look at the nomination. thank you mr. president. >> madam president it was not very long ago plan thus senator from kentucky and fiber here on the floor talking about drones previously.

i just want to make sure that it is understood that senator paul's passion his intellectual rigor, and devotion to liberty and security which he and i have worked on together for a number of years is much appreciated. i want to come for a few minutes especially talk what senator paul and i have discussed in the past how vigorous oversight over the intelligence field needs to get more attention. not something you can minimize vicos rate to the heart of the values the senator from kentucky and

others talk about liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. the senator from kentucky and i often joke how the senate would benefit from of ben franklin caucus. of course, he famously said anyone who gives up their liberty does not deserve either. so the senator from kentucky and i certainly have some disagreements from time to time on that judicial nominee by thing can for the time this morning and for the opportunity we have had over the years to make the case how important these issues are that the american people ought to insist, ought to insist their elected official put in place policies that ensure we have both liberty

and security. i thank him for that and i just as summer brief remarks this morning. of course, if the senate will vote today on the nomination of david barron to serve as a judge for the first judicial circuit. the nomination endorsed by a wide variety of americans including jurist from across the political spectrum. he has received a vocal endorsements from some of the country's most prominent civil rights groups. of course, the aspect of his record that perhaps has received the closest scrutiny is the authorship of a legal opinion regarding the president's authority to use military force against individual who was both a u.s. citizen and a senior leader of the al qaeda. madam president, i am quite familiar with this particular memo.

the executive branch first acknowledged this three years ago in response to a question i asked added open hearing of the senate select committee on intelligence. working with my colleagues it provides the memo to the intelligence committee the administration made this memo available to all members of the senate and the executive branch officials have said they will provide this memo to the american people as well. madam president, in my view clearly this is a constructive step and i will vote yes on mr. barron nomination. but this whole matter is much more than a single memo.

it drives home how incredibly important congressional oversight is that is the mission of the intelligence committee and all of us with the classic work of democratic government, wilson wrote conducting oversight was one of the most important functions of congress. that may be more important to pass legislation. with a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government in to talk much about what is sees. but to examine the assets and disposition of the executive branch choose scrutinize with every form of discussion. woodrow wilson said of congress if they feel the --

fail in this to the then the american people will remain ignorant'' of the very affairs it is most important that they understand. woodrow wilson might not have been able to anticipate sizes and a scale of the modern national security apparatus but i wanted to say his words are just as true today as they were one century ago. as the elected representatives of 4 million americans i have spent years working from the theory that all of us have an obligation to affect the executive branch is interpreting the president's authority to use military -- military force against our nation and i have long believed it is my obligation to make sure those i am honored to

represent all across oregon realize that as well. every american has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. with the case in question, as i said before the president's decision to authorize the military strike in this circumstance was legitimate and lawful i had detailed my views on this case to a letter to the attorney-general posted on my website i a agree it is now famous memo. to be clear, while i agree with the conclusion this is not a memo i would have written it claims some analytical leaps i would not

endorse it jumps to several conclusions and leaves a number of important questions unanswered. and i am hopeful that making this memo public will help to generate public pressure that is needed to get those additional questions answered. i am talking about fundamental questions like how much evidence does the president need to determine if a particular american is of legitimate target? what does it mean to say that captured must be feasible? mr. barron was not asked but in my view it is vitally important to american people get answers to those

questions but to understand how the constitutional rights are protected and saying i will stay at it and tell the american people get answers to the questions. in addition to getting detailed public answers another important step is for congress to review the other memos to use military force outside of an active war zone. those that the congress denounces regarding the use of legal force but it will be important to review the memo of other aspects of this authority as well. and to see how the

government interprets the of law in terms of ensuring there are additional protections for privacy and civil liberties to in danger at a dangerous time. to take the baron -- barron nomination to make the memo public but i will say here it has been frustrating over the past few years to see the justice department resistance with memos that outlined the executive branch the official understanding lot. i believe congressional request want to see classified memos and legal opinions were appropriately granted. and as mr. barron moved on congressional request and opinions has frequently been

stonewalled. i use that word specifically stonewalled. the executive branch makes the argument to make confidential legal advice to the president. here is a problem with that argument. and before he makes the decision but one said has been made from the justice department has been sent to the agencies that will carry out the president's decision, that memo is no longer pre-decision will advice that the government's official diego basis for an actual award and as such it might you entirely unacceptable to withhold it from the congress. it has the power to declare

war and whether to continue funding a war that is vital to understand what the executive branch believes what the war powers are. and that that i just discussed from woodrow wilson who said'' it is even more important to know how the house is being built to the and to know the plans of the architect were conceived. as a former basketball player i say the rulebook that the united states follows is always available to the american people. the military intelligence agency often needs to conduct secret operations but should never be placed in the position to rely on a

secret loss. such a know him the executive br!tn/oz7=%u provide this memo to the american people and i believe this step must lead to additional steps of her equally important. this episode is a lesson in how the united states congress can use the lever that it has for one of the most important functions of government. as my colleagues and i engage with the perennial discussion how to make congress more functional, i hope this is an experience we will remember. madam president, i yield the floor.

to say that government could no longer store information on its own aunt with the query for the investigation as long as the approval by the fisa intelligence course. >>host: the headline says alarms privacy advocates what are the specifics there? >> this bill is marked up in open hearings by the house to judiciary committee and house intelligence committee. the version that showed up with the house rules committee has significant changes. one had to do with these specific selection terms when the government goes to the court to say this is the piece to get information

from people related to this term. the original bill gave examples of what they voted me. my phone number, my address but the bill has more broad language sam privacy groups say it could allow for more mass collection instead of and privacy groups said could be an entire area. >> the viewers got the of markups. and whose seeds of paul sides of the i/o? >> with said judiciary committee chairman with steve peters of the intelligence committee it started off as sensenbrenner will speak. is