with which that happens? your perception of the legality of it. your perception about whether or not there are ways moved filing the program to avoid or minimize a problem and -- modifying the program. whether critics are saying this is category mistake allows collection attaching to american citizens without the full panoply of fourth amendment warrant and independent judicial officer protection. that is a big question but it is kind of a open. >> the key operative word here is incidental and consider what happens to intelligence that's gathered incidental to a intelligence that is being sought about foreign persons. you gather intelligence about united states person. are you then to discard it? what if it tells you that the united states person is about to commit some sort of mayhem?

i think it is, it is ridiculous frankly to direct that a piece of valuable information be discarded simply because it was skopped up incidental to a perfectly proper investigation. that piece of information is something that ought to be used and is used the same way any other information is used but obviously you have protect again, expansion of investigations for purpose offing, quote, unquote, gathering incidental information. that depends on good faith of people who admin stir the program and diligence of people who oversee it. there is plenty of oversight pointed out in the last panel. you're talking about madisonian trifecta. you have oversight from within the executive. you have got oversight from legislative, multiple legislative committees and you have got oversight by a court.

>> i agree with those points. i mean justification, imagine what the alternative would be? what 702 allows is a mechanism under judicial oversight by the fisa court to obtain orders, broad orders that allows the u.s. intelligence community to then target specific individuals who are deemed to be not u.s. persons and outside the united states. those are two critical elements. you now have authority as the intelligence community with court oversight, congressional oversight and target, selectors, email addresses. someone overseas is not u.s. citizen. they will do that to collect foreign intelligence. you're doing that to see if that person is a terrorist, is seeking to carry out terrorist attacks. you're now collecting that information against that person. you're seeing the information that that person's creating, for example, via email address.

and now, what happens is that person that you're, that the analyst is following communicates with somebody inside of the united states, and communicates some sort of attack planning. and at that point in time, you now that, you have really achieved what exactly you want to achieve as an analyst, right? you now see the person say in yemen, is now communicating with somebody in new york city, and so you now have, they are talking about an attack. what would be the alternative to then focusing on that person in new york city? that would be madness, right, to ignore that. once that person in new york city become as focus of attention, rest of that statute kicks and fisa which protects u.s. citizens and requires intelligence community with the lawyers to go obtain a probable

cause, essentially an order, essentially a warrant from the fisa court and then target that person in new york city and collection focuses again to that person. that is how it works in practice. that is exactly in fact how it worked in the case i mentioned before of zazi, a person in denver communicating with a target in pakistan and they shared information about a bomb-making recipe. that allowed to focus on the person in the united states in aurora, colorado and understand that he was planning to travel, which he in fact did to new york city to carry out an attack, to blow up the new york subway. that is how it works. and beyond that the information incidentally collected about the u.s. person in that scenario is subject as judge mukasey said to minimization procedures, that protect u.s. person privacy. for example, you can not disseminate any information

about a u.s. person unless that information is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence and it is also subject to the extent of oversight that judge mukasey talked about. the last point i'll make, when 702 was pass ad number of folks in this room were part of that effort when i look around the room. there were a couple things a couple of compromises that were adopted to protect u.s. persons. one, for the first time a judicial order was required by the fisa court to target any u.s. person around the world outside of the united states. previously that had been something judge mukasey could do as attorney general. someone outside the flights needed fisa court in order to do that. the other was series of prohibitions this practice of reverse targeting you hear about. basically said the government can not target somebody overseas under the statute, under 02 who is not u.s. person in order to collect against a person in the

united states. that was end around that was prohibited by statute. to my my mind the statute does a good job balancing competing interests and compromise. >> you mentioned procedures, one of the other criticisms of people worried about the problem that the procedures themselves and the adherence to them are themselves not subject to judicial review but rather only to administrative and internal executive branch review on a case-by-case basis. the overall procedures themselves are approved but whether or not we have succeeded in applying them to rosenzweig is not something that can get in front after court for independent neutral observation. does that, does that criticism you think merit our concern? >> actually it is not entirely true i think.

the failures, if there are failures within the system have to be reported on a periodic basis to the fisa court. when there are failures they can be reviewed by the court one at a time or by gross. they are largely reviewed to determine if there was a problem with the procedures. toes are then adjusted one way or another. >> i think's exactly right. so the court would review and approve the minimization procedures at the outset in total and anytime there's -- then there is oversight within the executive branch of implementation of procedures, not just done about it intelligence agency, but also done by the department of justice and then if there are compliance issues those are reported to the court. the court can amend those procedures to account for those compliance issues if there are any. you know, strikes me that is, i guess other thing that happens, if there were instance where this information were ever to be used in criminal case, a defendant would then have

opportunity to challenge the application of the minimization procedures in that particular case. that would be another opportunity for there to be judicial review not unlike over all how it works with the criminal title three context. >> let's wrap up the 702 discussion with a final question. it is going to come up for review next year or renewal, i guess if it doesn't get renewed it lapses. your recommendation to congress, renew as is, let lapse or renew with modification, if modification, what if any? >> the only modification i would suggest is to eliminate the sunset provision. as far as i know al qaeda does no have, islamic state does not have a sunset provision in any of their campaigns or any of their orders.

the various fatwas issued authorizing the murder of americans do not as far as i know have sunset provisions. i don't think, i mean it is always open to congress to change a statute. but to require that we go through this every several years doesn't make for continuity in intelligence-intelligence- gather ing and for intelligence community to plan long term. we can do it this way, general hayden is probably most tolerant of this sort of thing of anybody i have ever seen. if that is the way we're going to do that's is the way we're going to do it. i think we'll do it with our eyes open and with awareness in a sense we're handicapping ourselves purposely and at times to no purpose by imposing requirements like that. >> before you answer, matt, if i may, general mukasey, you mentioned earlier the policy decision extending privacy rights to non-american citizens

that has applied. would you recommend that be considered and modified in the course of the legislative consideration? >> you mean to eliminate that presidential directive? >> you critiqued it. >> i did. yes. >> it could prohibit it. >> it could. it could. it's, it is something for which there is neither need nor sanction. as i said at the beginning the constitution is not a treaty with the entire world and if you want to go back, pick a really long view of this, folks who drafted the constitution did it in a summer. they did it under conditions of strict secrecy. they kept the windows closed, this is before air-conditioning. they're in a hot summer in philadelphia. all windows were closed. nobody was permitted to discuss it either at the time or afterwards. they did it in strict secrecy. included within the provisions within the constitution itself

was a directive, that, for example, congress publish a journal on a regular basis of its proceedings except for those parts that thought ought to remain secret. these were practical people. they were drafting a document for other practical people and we ought to be practical people in applying it. >> matt? >> on the question of 702 and the sunset and reauthorization next year when it sunsets i basically agree with judge mukasey. i would eliminate the sunset provision. it tend to mean that congress will wait until the last minute and final hour to renew it and just wreaks havoc operationally within the intelligence community prepares to either pull the plug or continue the problem. that is not a good way to run the intelligence community, but, the more fundamental question, does it need to be changed, i just feel the answer is no. you know, i mentioned before, this is, 702 reflected years and

years of effort to reconcile competing interests. reflected judicial decisions, executive branch experience, legislative efforts that came up with this compromise and you now have really authoritative, definitive report from the privacy and civil liberties oversight board that it was operationally indispensable it, was lawful, with the fisa, constitution and fourth amendment and importantly found no instances of misconduct. there is really no problem to solve anyone's identified. and, as far as i know there have been two district court decision, win in oregon in 2014 and eastern district of new york this year looked at incidenceincidental collection under 702, not fisa court judges, but criminal cases found it was constitutional and lawful. it works. it is legal. there aren't problems with it. don't change it.

>> adding something to a point that matt made, a vital point and that is that the criticisms of it have been hypothetical criticism, not criticisms based on ream instances abuse. in other words people sit and contemplate the possibility that somebody could abuse 702 if they had a mind to do it. apply that to the local police department. a police officer could abuse the right of the, power of arrest. could abuse the fact he is carrying a weapon. that is not a reason to withhold the arrest powers, not a reason to disarm police. and the hypothetical possibility that somebody who is of a mind to do it, who has the time to do it, who considers that their job of preventing attacks is kind of allows for recreational use of 702 to abuse it, i think is

really unrealistic. >> so speaking of the privacy and civil liberties overboard, for those who don't know is a five-person board currently staffed by three democratic appointees, two republican appointees, presidential appointees, senatorial confirmed, that board announced it conducting a review of executive order 122333. ben powell said on last panel the charter the role rolls and responsiblities, contains some substantive restrictions. for example the prohibition on assassination. that report too is likely to come out later this year. so let's talk about that from a legal perspective. in in your vie. eo-1233, serve as independent grant of surveillance authority

or is it a structure for implementing existing statutory grants? >> i don't think it's, i don't think it has any grant of authority within it or that it's intended to do that. it is really from the standpoint of the intelligence community i think it defines the lanes which each of the entities within the intelligence community function. it doesn't itself grant authority. the authority is granted by statute, it is granted by the constitution. it is granted elsewhere but the executive order itself doesn't have a grant of authority. it has a, has assignment of responsibility for exercising authorities under states already existing and it -- under statutes already existing. it succeeded, as you heard in the last panel largely because the components of the intelligence community get along and that's, there is no such

thing as a order that is going to enforce itself and so it depends to a large extent on the ability of the people within the agencies to communicate with one another and to be aware of one another's boundaries. >> let me press on that just a bit. some critics have suggested that eo-12333 actually expands beyond statutory grant some investigative authorities nominally or almost explicitly under article 2 authorities of the executive branch. do you think that is mischaracterization or is it fair to say? >> i think it's fair to say. it's, no, what i'm saying it is a mischaracterization that it expands, that it expands authorities. i think what it disit make authorities that are already existing in statutes apparent. now congress could always pare back authorities if it shows to

do so but paring them back by executive order i think is, would be a huge mistake. one of the gaps, obviously one of the gaps in 12-333 is cyber. that is something that we'll have to deal with in the future and something that will have to be dealt with statutorily. when i went out to nsa and talked to general alexander, he said he had the power and authority to do something about incoming penetrations of, of the defense department, incoming penetrations of the dot-gov but i can do something about dot mil and do something do about dot-gov, but something coming in on dot-com, all i have the

authority to do is say, it is going to be a bad one. >> matt. >> judge mukasey had it right. the last panel made the point but 12-333 is not source of any authority. it is a document, foundational document for the intelligence community that assigns responsibility to various agencies within the intelligence community. it displace important limitations we'll talk about on those authorities but, so it's, just operates against the book drop of constitutional, article 2 authority and statutory authority already granted. so there is no new authority in executive order 12-33. i say that but i have to add, we within the intelligence community we probably have muddied this up a bit ourselves because we will sometimes shorthand refer to 12-333 collection. suggesting there is a authority in 12-333 that is denoting. really what that means, essentially, that means it is

collection outside of fisa or outside of some other statute that regulates that type of activity. so it's, it is just not, 12-333 doesn't authorize that collection but we'll sometimes use that as shorthand, 12-333 collection, distinguish it from what we were talking about, for example, 702. >> give us an example of one of those. there is obviously a larger audience out there in c-span land. so give us couple examples of that. >> it is speaking generally. collection carried out, in terms of surveillance activities because 12-333 is much broader than surveillance activities. it is all intelligence collection activities and beyond that and analytic collection activities as well. think about surveillance side, conducting surveillance outside the united states, not against, not targeting a u.s. person and not really relying on, not relying on assist stance of a

u.s. service based provider. activities focused outside the -- >> u.s. safe house in a a be a a -- ababoadad looking at residence of usama bin laden. >> looking at foreign intelligence targets where you're not targeting u.s. persons and u.s. internet providers based in the united states. that is broad swath of activity. what i described is really large part what nsa does. when we talk about 12-333 surveilance or 12-333 collection that is broad set of activities not regulated by something more specific like fisa. >> i think it is 12-333 activity because largely 12-333 assigns to nsa the responsibility

gathering generically that kind of information based on the powers of the executive to defend this country and obviously they don't need particularly authorization to go someplace else in the world and learn something that could conceivably be of value to the u.s. government in defending itself. >> so then it's fair to say that you would characterize 12-333 exclusively as an organizing document, not as the ground or source of any authority that is exercised by any of the intelligence agencies? >> yeah, except that it is important to also state it is an organizing document but also a limitation document. so it includes restrictions and limitations on activities which i think is really, from the point of view of nsa operations other than as you said, judge mukasey, assignment of sigint responsibility in nsa, part of the daily discussion that takes

place at agencies like nsa whether a particular activity is consistent with the executive order. >> okay, let's put you both in the role of senior national security legal advisor to the next president of the united states, whoever he or she may be and they look at you and they say, i'm thinking about revising and reissuing executive order 12-33, what restrictions in there i should get rid of? i want to be more aggressive, we're in a heightened sense, post-belgium, post-france, post-lahore in pakistan, what restriction are there that can be removed, without trenching upon constitutional and statutory limitations. are there anything that are restrictions we should add for food and sufficient reasons.

what is your recommendation? >> the only restriction i think i might remove is the authority of nsa, at least to pass on information about potential damage to the private sector from hostile cyber activity. nsa is a, gathers signals intelligence but gathers it in an outward-looking fashion and the restriction on even doing things like warning people what's about to happen to them i think is something that ought to be challenged. >> yes, i agree with that. cyber is the area that 12-333 does not address in a way that helps sufficiently guide the roles and responsibilities of the agencies within the intelligence community. that would be something to try to tackle but you know, i do think that my first advice would

be, you know, step cautiously. >> first, do no harm. >> first do no harm and remember these rules have evolved over several decades now going back to 1981 and talk to ben powell and general hayden and others who were involved in the last effort and bear the scars of that but you know i think that largely it works you know, in terms of those, the general body of restrictions including the buysic one's prohibitions on assassination but also more importantly i think and more relevantly saying that, for example the cia is generally prohibited in engaging electronic surveillance within the united states. the fbi is only intelligence element at that can conduct physical searches within the united states. these are civil liberties oriented restrictions that assign responsibility to particular agencies given what they're good at. cia not in the united states. fbi searches in the united

states. and there is a lot of sense behind these. i would sigh step cautiously trying to remove any of these other restrictions other than perhaps tackling the cyber issue. >> okay. let's pivot once more to another kind of area. this is speculative and looking more forward a bit but we're looking to a host of new and novel collection platforms i would say. anybody who has seen eye in the sky, which by the way, it's a good movie any liked it. i can't recommend it because i'm not an endorser. one of the things in there was a drone the size of a beetle that was deployed as part of the, part of the activity which i understand is not quite yet operational but is not very

short. so we're going to look at drones. we're going to be able to deploy large-scale facial-recognition technology. we're going to have large data collections that are capable of big analysis. broadly speaking, how should law approach a? are current laws sufficient, or do you think novel collection technologies will require us to update collection rules and, well, let's start with that as a general rule, as a general question. are our laws in need moved certainization to accommodate new technology? >> i think generally i would wait until the new technology impinges or seen to impinge actually, not potentially, not by somebody fantasizing what is possible but actually on somebody's, on somebody's privacy before deciding to limit.

also i think we have to keep in mind that there are other, there are other entities of government that have been a interest in this wholly apart from the federal government. that is state and local governments. things like drones. there is talk of having the federal government be the sole regulator of drones. i, that i think is i think is a mistake. that is not to say that federal agencies should not be permitted to use them when otherwise appropriate under statute but to have one regulation governing what goes on in the backyards in every state in this country i think is a big mistake. >> i agree. sort of that we ought to take this iteratively. no question technology making

great advances in processing powers of computers, technology like you described with drones, the ability to amass and store large amounts of data about us, that we give a ton of that data to private companies and, so, the question is the how should law respond? i go back to earlier conversation about 702, it took a while for us to update fisa, respond to communications and ways we communicate. that is outdated, it is really standard for the law to lag behind technology. it is just going to be the case we're going to be catching up to legal rules to make them well-adapted to pace of technological change. fourth amendment has been around a long time and served us quite well and proved sufficiently adaptive and agile to continue

to be more or less the right way to balance competing interests between national security and domestic security and protection of privacy and civil liberties. so, i would caution trying to anticipate which direction the technology is going to go and try to make legal changes in response to that. so, i have another comment but i'll stop at that point. >> you mentioned for example, facial-recognition technology. that obviously is going to allow for great advances in intelligence gathering and in solving of crimes. on other hand, you know, do i want the government to have a, to have cameras on every corner and a bank of information about me and where i have gone every moment of my life and be able to consult it? no, i don't. on the other hand we are dong distance from that and long distance from the possibility that anybody could consider doing that. that is not a reason to forego the use of that technology where

it can be used effectively to deal with problems that are in the here and now without worrying about anticipating, science fix problems. >> let's look at that though because you're a good lawyer, great lawyer indeed. so now you're in the next administration and you're, the cia director comes to you and says, we can deploy this, we can start capturing pictures out of cctvs that are in london without the brits 'knowledge, make it france. i take it that expression would be in terms of foreign intelligence no problem at all because we foreigners no protection from the forth amendment. >> yeah the question would be to what end? you can capture it for

intelligence gathering purposes. can't capture it for recreational purposes. >> for the foreign intelligence -- paris i could make the argument pretty easily, paris has now been target of three attacks in the last five years and is likely to be target of more. we have a great database of pictures from iraq of, afghanistan of known terrorists. we can create a good early warning system. we're also by the way going to have to incidentally collect the facial, facial pictures of every american who visits paris along the way and minimize and discard. what principles, if any should guide a program like that which is not necessarily too speculative? >> well, you named two principles, min mize and discard, for opens. if somebody doesn't match up to a list, to a group of known terrorists, then you're not going to be banking those image

images. you're going to use it to compare to people you already know about, not to simply gather it to keep in a trove in case it should come up with somebody you might want to trace. >> yeah. i mean the rules under 12-333, what we were talking about before, the executive order which require every agency that conducts foreign intelligence in the cia have specific rules designed to protect u.s. persons, this is what the executive order requires, that are approved by the attorney general. every agency, nsa, has a set of rules, u.s. person set of rules. so in your scenario, the rules that would apply be one, that you can't search that data for a u.s. person. so for a known u.s. person unless you have probable cause finding from the attorney general to search for that u.s.

person. so that is quite protective of the u.s. person. you can't use that data and search it without approval from the attorney general. you can't keep information about a u.s. person for more than five years. you can't disseminate information about a u.s. person unless there is foreign intelligence basically. these rules that are approved by the attorney general, including all of the type of activity you described. >> do either you think the lawfulness of a collection methodology is depended on the efficacy or inefficacy of the analytic methodologies? which is to say, increasingly at the back end we're able to get more information out of the same data that has previously been collected. some have called this the principle of obsecurity. that the data used to be too difficult to analyze so we weren't as concerned about

overcollection or alleged overcollection because of underanalytic capability. today analytic capability is going through the roof in terms of its possibilities. facial recognition a good example. metadata analysis another good example. does improvement in analytic capabilities counsel changes in collection methodology? >> i think what it counsels is governing the analytic capabilities. you mentioned metadata analysis. we had, before, you know, 215 got yanked a metadata collection program that allowed us a keep a trove of telefonic metadata to be consulted only when we had to run a number that we knew was terrorist-related. if in fact you limited use of a

data base in that way, then you can take advantage of the analytic capability and yet, prevent, for example, simply data mining all telephone metadata for purpose of drawing a profile of a person or for other purposes as well. but it is how you limit your analytic capability, not, not how you limit data collection. >> yeah. i think that is exactly right. look at, look at, analyzing the fourth amendment reasonableness of a collection program depends in part on how the information is handled, how it is reprocessed, how it is analyzed, how it is retained. answer to your question is yes, it is relevant to consider how information is handled and analyzed in determining whether or not it is law full at least as a matter of looking at it under fourth amendment guise. i don't have to look very far for another example of this

issue and this is where the rubber hits the road a bit on this question of the ability of the government, not just the government but of technology to analyze massive amounts of data more, and store massive amounts of data. because there is a case that the supreme court ruled on in 2012 called jones involving a gps tracker. here in washington, d.c. this is metropolitan police department, fbi here in washington and, while the case wasn't decided on these ground it, this was a case where the gps tracker stayed on a car for multiple weeks, i don't remember, 28, 30 days. >> 28. >> 28 days and some members of the supreme court were very concerned about the fact that this was a lot of data to be able to collect on an individual even show that person was, you know, exposing themselves by driving around. so they were exposing where they were publicly. if they maybe, had happened for a day or two days might not have

been such a concern under the fourth amendment but the fact that that amount of data was being captured on this person for 28 days, then the ability to store that, analyze it, look for patterns and really learn so much about a person's life, and implicate the privacy to that extent that was a real concern for the court. so i think that we're at sort of the vanguard of potentially relooking at some dock trips that underlie the -- doctrines that underlie the fourth amendment, particularly third party rule. once you turn information over expose it to a third party you have no longer reasonable expectation of privacy. that would be a significant change if we take a look at the third party rule along those lines. >> that was my next or close to last question. you will have a chance to ask questions for five minutes. i will save a little bit, so think of questions you might have but a large fraction of the intelligence community collects

it does not necessarily collect directly. it collects from third parties, whether telephone operators or police departments or google or -- you name it. there is just a host of new collection platforms that are privately operated that the government can tap into,often without, without much if any judicial intervention because as you say the third party rule that has been around since the 1970s says that if you have exposed this information to your bank or your telephone company, you don't have any fourth amendment privacy right in it and the statutory rules often have pretty broad national security and law enforcement exception that allow ready access. so the last question i would ask you to talk about is your prediction about whether or not the that's going to change and your assessment whether or not

it needs to change or are you comfortable with a rule, a legal rule at least at a constitutional level that does not involve courts in the collection of information from third party providers? >> yeah, i'm generally comfortable with the existing set of rules. i can anticipate the challenges that we will see sort of based on the cases, jones and subsequent case called riley involving a cell phone. so i think there are, the trend is one that we're going to have to watch carefully. look, i was a prosecutor here in d.c. for 10 years. i can't imagine a regime as a prosecutor i couldn't go get a cell phone records for a suspect or bank records with a subpoena. but you know, a subpoena is a relatively low standard of relevance to a criminal investigation. that is sort of the grist of a criminal investigation. so changing that basic rule,

once you turn that information over you have lost your expectation of privacy seems to be fundamental how we think about how we conduct, at least criminal investigations. again though, it is important to note, this is subject to subpoena. there is court oversight to the extent that chief judge overseas the grand jury investigation. so there an opportunity for people to challenge that, you know, subpoena. but i think, i think i do think it's a good question to ask, paul, because i think we'll see some efforts to change that rule going forward. >> i would put my faith more in legislative oversight and solution to the kinds of problems that you have anticipated than i would in a court solution to it. i used to be a judge and i hung out with judges and i can't think of a group of people, you know, most of them, polly sci majors, history major, what not, less suited to making this kind of decision by training, by

their ability to gather evidence. they have no ability to gather evident. they can consider what people put before them, period and, they are not better suited. people may have more confidence in them but that confidence may very well be misplaced. i think it's better, it is the responsibility, better exercised by a legislature that has ability to gather facts, in private when necessary, in executive session when necessary and consider putting restrictions how information is handled, rather than having courts cut with a meat axe to determine what is or isn't reasonable. >> that's an interesting perspective. i'm just reflecting on that fact to what general hayden said on the last panel about growing lack of confidence he perceives the american public has in their

institutions making these decisions. but judges are less representative but you just premised the entire, bulk of your response on somehow reviving that confidence in congress as a, i guess i agree with you, but that sort of troubles me in some way. >> troubles me too but to say that people don't have confidence in representative government is not to say we ought then to turn it over to somebody else because, because people have lost confidence. i think the answer to that is, pull your socks up get yourself a government worthy of confidence. >> we have, last thought on that, we have experience with exactly what judge mukasey is talking about going back number of decades to the penn register statute. smith versus maryland, supreme court rule you don't have any expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial, numbers dialed into your phone under the fourth amendment.

so congress acted and adopted, enacted a statute that regulated the government's ability to obtain access to that exact type of information and established a regime of court approvals based on a standard that even though it wasn't required by the fourth amendment, it does, it does further the privacy and civil liberties interests of americans. so it is actually a good paradigm for addressing the kind of examples you're describing. >> great. i've to the plenty more questions but we've got about 10, 12 minutes left, i thought i would invite the audience to participate. i see one, and then two. gentleman in the tan. the gentleman in the front row. anybody over here want to get my attention? >> thank you. jim wilson, american citizen, british veteran involved in counterterrorism. seems to me we're not only country that has problems like this. britain too has been through a

fair amount. back in the late '70s and '80s, provisional ira was bombing in the main land. one solutions came up city of london considered it was incredibly vulnerable at the time. it was most expensive real estate in the world. it was private enterprise installed the first huge network of cameras with facial recognition software, all bought privately initially by various companies around there for the metropolitan police, actually the city of london police. britain still seems a pretty free country. i'm delighted to see this debate going on but seems to me there may be element of reinventing wheel. perhaps we look at other nations. we're not alone in this. your thoughts, please. >> london has the most comprehensive network of cameras anywhere in the world. i had not known until just now

that this was provided by private enterprise originally. we're now of course having a bit of a tangle between the government and private enterprise in another setting. but, sure, i think we can learn from it. and we can learn from the fact that people go around, go about their business in london perfectly relaxed about the fact that cameras are focused on them because they know that although the camera may pick up their image, there isn't some, some public official sitting in an office someplace monitoring their particular activity. and that's the distinction. it is how, not the gathering of the information but rather how it's processed, who processes it and for what purpose. and so long as it's being processed only in a rare number of instances and for a perfectly proper purpose, people are perfectly relaxed about it in

the front here sir. >> my name is a -- japanese security consultant. my question for mr. olsen, my question is the how will the national counterterrorism center incorporate -- with japan to -- terrorist. >> the question was when i was at national counterterrorism center when i was conducting information sharing with japan or make it broadly with other countries i mean we're, when i was at national counterterrorism center we weren't the main way terrorism gets shared on counterterrorism. done by collection agencies themselves, cia and nsa and fbi

with their counterparts. they were initial collectors of information. understood who to share it with, rules would apply to sharing of information. we had strong relationships with japan and particularly countries in europe and elsewhere in asia on the counterterrorism effort. so what we were often sharing was analytic products. we would analyze information collected and we had rigorous way of sharing that information with other countries including japan. >> but how will the counterterrorism center with terrorist information to -- [inaudible] information to the japanese cabinet secretary office but --

is very [inaudible]. -- then cia or fbi, each cooperate with the japanese national police or as kind of a -- >> right. thank you. i mean it is a good perception that sometimes coordination is not as well-directed as it might be. this woman here. wait for the microphone please. here. no, no. this woman here. thanks. >> new. doris -- typical housewife. the question -- >> great. >> i have as i'm listening to this, i don't think the american

people have no more faith in the law but the question we have is, when the law more or less remains consistently the same but policy changes as it is about to, executive policy, big-time, how does that policy change affect people at your level in terms of where you draw the chalk line? interpretation of the lou and what can and can not be done, are you personally affected by new policy on the executive level? i think that is what frightens people. that we don't know if we are protected, protected by the law but reinterpretation of that law, i would assume you guys would continue your integrity no matter what the executive pressures are but i hope that the case, both of you, either of you. >> the, policy determinations are made by the political

branches and people who are selected to staff them and people they appoint. the law remains is supposed to remain constant and either you get a policy request from either within, within the department or from entity outside of the department, usually goes to the office of legal council and they answer questions every day, can we do this, can we not do this? the policy is supposed to be what our democracy is about. supposed to be the basis we choose leaders. they will apply this policy or that policy but apply it in a setting where the law is supposed to remain the same. >> i would just add, i do think your question is, you know reflects this view, i think, that many people hold that what we've learned about in the last

few years is that, that the intelligence agencies were abusing the authorities that they had. and i think that is really unfortunate because i served as a lawyer at the justice department with judge mukasey and at the nsa and that's not the right perception. there was not an abuse. in fact, reports like i identified from the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, citizen watch, independent reviews but this, so, what my experience has been that as these agencies are wking very hard to stay within the bounds of the law. that if anything, lawyers play a greater role than ever before in channeling, controlling, directing, guiding intelligence activities. and that's generally been a positive thing but and that perception that nsa, for example, has run amok last five years is just, it is a false perception.

>> my favorite is, famous shakespeare line, first thing we do let's kill all the lures but it is said by somebody who wants to disrupt and create chaos in society and he thinks killing lawyers will eliminate the glue that kind of keeps and binds the society together. so that's matt's job. he's the glue and the general's. this lady here, that gentleman there. and i think that will probably take us to the end. >> yeah. claudia rose set, i'm a journalist -- >> that is an understatement, folks. she is a superb journalist. >> thank you. i have question about the broad theme, details of fine points out to insure justice follow the law, what should be done, and yet you get following on, following the housewife question, these sweeping policies where we see the rise of isis in syria. we see iran having act vest to

enormous amount of markets and ability and so on and which affects terrorist threat in it country in major ways. i would like to ask you, in one sense that may be good employment program for the intelligence community so then the job is then try to further counter it, but is there a rising frustration that makes it at one point to get good work done? in other words, meticulous things to craft and try to track down these threats and broad brush policy that engenders massive amounts more inside of the intelligence, how does that play out? >> i think your question suggests, i think a reality which is the threats we face are some ways expanding. they are becoming more complex, looking at terrorism side of national security issue, the number, the spread of jihadist groups has grown.

and so the threat in some ways is going up and, at the same time our capabilities are going down. so the trendlines are going in the wrong direction. that is certainly a source of frustration for people who are responsible, who are charged with protecting the country. let me say a little bit more why. one of the reasons our capabilities are going down because we explained so much, we have given away so much -- not so much explained, let loose so much information how we conduct surveillance. that is critical way i saw the intelligence community lose capability to conduct surveillance of terrorism targets. so we lost capability at a time when we needed that capability more than ever. . .

>> how and where should they cooperate with the private sector? we can think about apple and the fbi if you want to do that what you speak more generally. >> matt? >> among the negative repercussions of the snowden leagues in some way so my vantage point most damaging has been the impact on the cooperation between the private sector and the government when it comes to protecting the country. we seen this play out in a number of ways. you identified one but it's across the board. it's been a critical intelligence community to take advantage of the innovation and ingenuity in the technology community in the united states, and if that's not available to

nsa and cia and fbi that will make us significantly less capable. we've made some back some ground, regained some ground working relationship with our allies were think we start long way to go is with the technology community and i think it's cause for serious concern. >> i think actually i'll use the moderators privilege to say i think it's an interesting development when people sound like they are more likely to trust a large private company to defend their freedom than they are their own representative government. that's a description not a critique. maybe that's where we are right now because of some of the snowden revelations but it certainly isn't consistent with the madisonian try partner model that we were talking about earlier.

so with that it is 11:55. we're going to take a five minute break and come back for our keynote luncheon address by the honorable michael rogers. please join in thanking general mukasey and battles and for their wonderful -- matt olsen. [applause] >> you get a heritage tie. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a former israeli ambassador to the u.s. will talk about some

of the challenges facing israel and the middle east, including the palestinian conflict. cable b at the wilson center this morning and we will have live coverage at 10 a.m. on c-span2. later, new privacy rules proposed by the fcc to cover broadband service providers and what those rules might mean for consumers and businesses. that's live at noon eastern. >> tonight on c-span from the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the c-span series landmark cases. our 12 bursaries explored real life stories and constitutional dramas behind some of significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall said this is different. it sets up the political

structures. but it's also a lot and if it is a lot we have the courts to tell what it means and that's binding on the other branches. >> what set dred scott or is affected as of the ultimate anti-presidential cases, exactly what you don't want to do. do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? lochner versus to the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debates. >> tonight we'll look at the case that helped define the limits of free speech especially during wartime creating a clear and present danger standard. tonight at 10 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton held a campaign rally at the apollo theater in harlem. new york holds its state primary on april 19. she is introduced by new york senator chuck schumer.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage senator schumer and hillary clinton chairma.[cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [cheers and applause] well, good morning, harlem.

[cheers and applause] good morning, new york. [cheers and applause] it is so great to be here, and i'm so privileged to be able to have the honor of introducing my friend and colleague, hillary clinton, who frankly -- [applause] who frankly needs no introduction, especially here in harlem. [cheers and applause] as new york senator for eight years, the people of harlem know her well, and they know her family. remember when president clinton had the whole world to choose from to locate his presidential offices, where did he choose? harlem, u.s.a. [applause] so, hillary is no stranger here. and she's no stranger to the people of new york. we know her.

we love her. and we can't wait for her to be president. [cheers and applause] [chanting] [chanting] >> well, you know, let me share something with you. senator is the only job we have that is occupied by two people at the same time. hillary and i served together for eight years as senators from new york. [applause] and so i got to know her well. when you work with someone that closely, you get to see a person's real soul.

uk to see what makes them tick -- you get -- and hillary understands and both an intellectual and a heartfelt way, the biggest problems affecting our country your the stagnation of wages and incomes that has middle-class people, families struggling to make ends meet. and it's keeping down the millions more who are fighting to get into the middle class. she knows about. she lives about. it is deep in her. but more than any candidate in this race, hillary has proven time and time again that not only does she know this and feel this, but she and internalize his the concerns of fears and problems of everyday americans, and then effectively moved to action getting something done to help.

[applause] she instinctively turns her concern and her anger at the plight of the middle class to action. and that is what we need. [applause] and that's what the people of new york know about hillary clinton. that's what i know about hillary clinton. she delivers. [applause] now, she may not always talk like we brooklynites talk -- [laughter] but when she speaks out, she changes minds, she changes hearts, she moved to action and she changes outcomes. [cheers and applause] charlie rangel remember, i

remember, when she came first to new york as candidate. she started out with a listening tour all across the state. it opened her heart, and she took when she learned and move effectively to create change for her constituents. that's the magic of hillary clinton your translating heartfelt concerns into actions, and that's how she delivered for new york state. [applause] because of that, her record of a hard-working, effective, tenacious, progressive champion speaks for it's self. [applause] i remember these things. as first lady, i remember, there were families, families with children caught in the toughest of circumstances. they were not eligible for medicaid, but the parents couldn't afford health care for

their children. i saw the passion on her face when she heard about these things and talked about these things. and then what did she do? she translated her passion into action, and we got the chip program that has helped millions of american children. i saw her sit down with first responders and union workers who worked on the pile after 9/11, when no one else was listening. no one was listening to them when they said i'm feeling sick from the poison that was in the air that they breathe in as they rushed to the towers to try and help. they told her stories of sarcoidosis, lung diseases, cancers, their friends were developing after breathing those toxic fumes at ground zero. she didn't just listen, she made

their fight her fight. she became the champion of the nine 9/11 insurance health act that it would not have happened without hillary clinton, and now we provide health care and dignity for those who rushed to the towers because of this person. [applause] she listened to residents and nationals who were to buy the pollution choking our rivers and oceans. she became an ardent champion of clean up long island sound, year in year out she delivered quietly without fanfare but effectively resources to protect and clean up the pollution in long island sound. and man, when she a fighter. when george bush in 2005 wanted to privatize social security -- [booing]

she worked so hard to prevent the senior citizens hard earned benefits from being risked in the stock market. [applause] she knew that social security was one of the most successful antipoverty programs we ever created, and fought to shut that down. and she did this one came on after that me tell you one story. hillary knew, hillary knew the devastation in our communities. communities like this one, wrong people getting their hands on guns and killing our children she knew the power of the nra inches undoubted -- i'm daunted. many people, many people in that administration were afraid. they called me to a meeting at the office late one night. they said, chuck schumer, you

are going to hurt us if you push for this brady law. we shouldn't do it, even though it might be the right thing to do. it was the whole group, all the big shots. only two people stood up and said we have to do this, it's the right thing. one was leon panetta and the otherwise, the loudest, strongest voice that we had to do the brady bill was hillary rodham clinton, then first lady. [cheers and applause] [chanting] >> because of hillary clinton, tens of thousands of people are walking the streets alive today

because the brady law prevented them from getting guns. [cheers and applause] she listened, she spoke out, and she changed the lives of millions in her career. so we know that hillary delivers. and we also know she's not finished delivering yet. [applause] she knows that unions have been the most effective vehicle in american history for raising folks into the middle class. she knows the hard right wing wants to get rid of unions, and so she is fighting to help. she's fighting for increase in the minimum wage. she's taking on those who are attacking those against the family leave. you better believe that if mr. cruise or mr. trump --

[booing] -- got to pick the next court justice, they would get rid of unions. they would undo the voting rights act. they would allow poisonous money to cascade into our system and ruin it. it's a reminder of the stakes in this election. this isn't just fun and games, folks. this is the future of america. the supreme court hangs in the balance. we have to ensure that hillary is presidents we have a good, strong supreme court. [applause] we cannot have the vision of the other party [chanting]

>> now i want to conclude by just comparing. those of us in new york and hillary to the other side. the other side is peddling a divisive, nasty strategy. real americans are being hurt by other americans, the others, people from other shores, other religions, other colors, our creed, income levels. they think that by dividin americans getting one against the other, their party will poker. but hillary knows that america is the only america when we celebrate our diversity rather than center it. that is when we are americans. [applause] do you know why she knows of this? it's not only deeper in our bones, it's new york.

[applause] new york as a microcosm of people from all over. [applause] every country, every creed, every walk of life. you don't even have to leave harlem to see it. we see it everywhere in every corner of new york. hillary knows you can walk from one side of 125th street to the other and meet people from every continent on the face of this earth. [applause] you can start your day with waffles and chicken from sylvia's, and finished it with -- straight out of san juan come and eat a bagel with the sheer in the middle for lunch. [applause] hillary knows, hillary knows that america is at its best when we all walk together, that we are stronger precisely because of our diversity, not weaker.

she's infused with this bedrock new york value, and american value. e. pluribus unum, out of many, one. one new york, want america. [applause] so with hillary clinton in the white house, every american, black, white, latino, asian, christian, not come muslim come immigrants or nativeborn, every american will have a progressive champion in the oval office listening to them and fighting for them and delivering for them. [cheers and applause] [chanting] hillary! hillary! >> she did it as new york senator, and she will and can do it again. at the next -- pass of the next

president of the united states of america. i give you hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause] [chanting] hillary! hillary! >> wow. thank you. thank you. my goodness, wow. i'll tell you what. it is a thrill to be live at the apollo with all of you. [cheers and applause] it is wonderful to be back home in new york. [applause] it is just extraordinary to stand here and look out of this crowd. please be seated. you can jump up again from time to time, but -- but i'm sitting

here, standing you're actually looking out in seeing so many friends, so many people i've worked with. i've had the privilege of knowing. it's a special treat to have my former colleague and partner, someone who i hope and expect will not only be the leader of the democrats in the senate, but -- [applause] if we do our part, he will be the majority leader of the senate. [cheers and applause] i am so grateful to chuck. we did have eight years working side-by-side dealing with problems and opportunities, and that experience was one of the great honors of my life. i also want to acknowledge my longtime friend, the person that

actually give credit to for starting me on this journey. that is congressman charlie rangel. [cheers and applause] i also see the manhattan borough president, gale brewer. [applause] and to all the other elected officials, friends, supporters, i love coming to harlem. this community has made me and my family feel like a part of your family. and i'm so grateful for your support and friendship. with your help we are going to win the primary here on apri april 19. [cheers and applause] and then we're going to win the democratic nomination and the election in november.

[cheers and applause] now, let me just eat a short summary of where we are. i have competed across our country -- nearly 9 million votes. [applause] that is more than 1 million that donald trump has received come and two-and-a-half million more than senator sanders. so we are on the right track. [cheers and applause] bought, but i don't have to tell you, this is a wild election year. i'm not taking anything or anyone for granted. we are going to work for every vote in every part of this state, just like i did when i ran for the senate. because new yorkers took a

chance on me, and i will never forget that. [applause] you have always had my back, and i've always tried to have yours. [applause] when i think back to those eight eventful years that i served you, there were some hard times, but we pulled together. none of us who lived through 9/11 and its aftermath will ever forget the lives lost. lower manhattan in ruins. toxic dust and debris raining down. and the many examples of heroism we saw. the firefighters and police officers who risk their lives to help save others. the construction workers and emergency personnel and

volunteers who spent long hours on the smoldering piles searching for survivors, and then once more clearing the site. all of the new yorkers who lined up to donate blood, who reached out to families in a million quiet, decent ways. they projected a sense of strength and unity that comforted the whole country. and as a dust settled, new yorkers rolled up our sleeves and got to work. like former fire commissioner who we lost just last week, she was a great leader during that difficult time. always a champion for his firefighters, for children and for the city. new york wanted to rebuild, so chuck and i fought for the federal funding to get it done. and --

[applause] we can see the results now, as lower manhattan has risen even higher and more magnificently. and when first responders and others started suffering adverse health effects from 9/11, a lot of people in washington didn't want to pay any attention. i kept raising the alarm. i held a hearing that tried to get the attention of the epa and the bush administration. and they just brushed us off, acting as though it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. that i got to work with our congressional delegation, to get our first responders and others health care they need. it was really important to me and i am so grateful that the zadroga act is now ensuring that people who did so much for us will be taken care of for their

entire lives. [applause] but while all this was going on, republicans, led by george bush, started squandering the surplus they had inherited from my husbands to terms on massive tax cuts to the wealthy. they set a reckless fiscal and regulatory course that eventually tank our entire economy. trickle-down economics made life harder for working people here in our states. [applause] so we had to get creative, didn't we? we worked with small businesses to help them use technology to reach new customers, with upstate cities to attract new high-tech research projects to create more good paying jobs. i even connected chefs and restaurant owners of new york

city with farmers and winemakers in the hudson valley and the finger lakes. we were looking for anything that would create more jobs, more markets, more opportunities. and we fought for new investment for poor communities. and support for teachers and schools for all our kids could get a good education, no matter what zip code they lived in. [applause] children in every borough of the city deserve the same chance to succeed as children in westchester or on long island, or anywhere else in america. [applause] because for me it's really simple. when we invest in our children's education, we invest in our country's future and and a stronger economy for all of us. one of the things i love about new york is new yorkers have

always believed that if you work hard and you do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. that is, that is how i saw my job as your senator. my job was to help make that possible for as many people as i could. and boy, did i learn a lot serving the people of this state. now i am once again asking for your confidence and your vote. [cheers and applause] >> [chanting] hillary! hillary! >> you know -- [chanting] hillary! >> i think the easiest way to describe what my campaign is

about, it's about breaking down the barriers are holding people back from sharing in the promise of america. and here's what i believe. anyone running for president this year faces three big tests. first, can you deliver results that improve people's lives? [applause] second, can you keep us safe wax. [applause] third, can you bring our country together again? [cheers and applause] >> every candidate, every candidate should be judged on these tests. because making a real difference for people and families comes first. americans everywhere are hungry for solutions. we can create more good jobs with rising incomes by investing in manufacring and small

business and infrastructure and clean energy. enough clean energy to power every home in america in 10 years. [applause] and here's how i see it. we will make companies that ship jobs overseas get back the tax breaks they got here at home. [cheers and applause] and if they tried to move their headquarters to a foreign country to skip out on their tax bills, we will slap a new exit tax on them. [cheers and applause] and then commenting will put that money to work in the communities and people left behind. we can break down barriers, holding back parents and families in this economy. isn't it time for quality, affordable childcare, early childhood education, and paid family leave? [applause]

isn't it time for raising the minimum wage nationwide? [cheers and applause] and isn't it time finally to guarantee equal pay for the work women do? [cheers and applause] [chanting] hillary! [chanting] spitting now, you see, i think we are lucky in new york because of these articles that governor cuomo and mayor de blasio are fighting for and achieving here, and i will fight for them as president. [applause] you know, republicans always say, when i talk like this, that i'm playing the gender card.

and my response is pretty simple. if fighting for equal pay and paid leave is playing the gender card, then deal me in. [cheers and applause] [chanting] >> now, you know, i also think we can break down the barriers holding back our young people, especially the burden of student debt that makes it so hard for them. [applause] under my plan you will not have to borrow a dime for tuition at any public college or university. [applause] and you'll be able to refinance the debt you already have, just like the mortgage or a car loan.

.com that, my friends, will save millions of people thousands of dollars. [applause] we can also break down the barriers of systemic racism and discrimination. [applause] we can invest in communities of color, reform our broken in the justice system, and replace the school to prison pipeline with a cradle to college pipeline. [cheers and applause] we can reject discrimination against lgbt people like the shameful law passed in north carolina. [cheers and applause] we can defend all our rights come our civil rights and voting rights, workers rights and women's rights, gay rights come

rights of people with disabilities. we are not going to let the republicans turn us back and rip away the progress we have made. [cheers and applause] and that starts by standing with president obama and demanded that republican senators do their job and vote on his nominee to the supreme court. [cheers and applause] [chanting] >> so i believe, i believe we can break down all the barriers and more if we stand together, if we worked together. and for me it's all about getting results. when i joined with parents and doctors and committee leaders to take on the epidemic of children's asthma right here in

harlem, it wasn't about making a point or two is about making a difference. and as your senator and every job i've ever held, i've worked my heart out to even the odds that have often been stacked against too many people. now, some folks have a luxury to hold out for the perfect, but a lot of americans are hurting right now and they can't wait for that. they need the good and they needed today. [cheers and applause] when we get knocked down like you do in life and politics, you have to get right back up and keep on working to make people's lives better. when the insurance industry block our push for universal health care or every american, as chuck said, i partner with republicans and democrats to create the jobs health insurance program. that helped a lot of kids and families here in new york, and

8 million children across america. so when -- [applause] when any candidate comes before you, that candidate owes it to you, to be clear about how we are actually went to deliver. now, my opponent and i share many of the same goals, but some of his ideas for how to get their will not pass. others just will not work because the numbers don't add up. and that means people are not going to get the help that they need and deserve. and that's what this is supposed to be about. now, my opponent says well, we aren't just thinkin not thinking enough. well, this is new york. nobody drinks bigger than we do, but then -- -- dreams bigger but this is a city that likes to get things done, and that's what we want from our president, too. we need a president who will

help break down all of the barriers holding back americans. not just some. i take a backseat to no one in taking on income inequality. [applause] i know how important it is to close that gap, to rebuild the middle class. but i'll tell you this but it's also important to take on racial inequality and discrimination in all of its form. [cheers and applause] [chanting] hillary! >> it's important stand up to the gun lobby and fight for common sense gun safety reform. [cheers and applause] you know, i remember, i remember that meeting. i remember the meeting that

chuck was talking about. people were getting cold feet. you know, folks talk about all the powerful lobbies in washington. and look, there are a bunch of them. nothing, no one is more powerful than the gun lobby. so i understood why some members of congress were saying, my gosh, we can do this. some folks in the white house and the administration were getting nervous jerk but i thought then and i believe now, whatever we can do to save lives we must do. and i remember how hard it was to get the brady bill passed. my opponent voted against it five times as i recall. [booing] he has sided with the nra on the important votes of the last 20 years. if this isn't a single issue country, so we need a president that can do all parts of the job. [cheers and applause] because the second test is

keeping us safe. and at a time when terrorists are plotting attacks in countries like russia, china and iran are making aggressive moves, protecting america's national security cannot be an afterthought. our next president has to be just as passionate about defending our people and our country. asked about fixing our economy. i will do both. because when you vote on april 19 here in new york, you are voting for a president and a commander-in-chief. [cheers and applause] [chanting] >> and let's face it, let's face it, on the republican side what we are hearing is truly scary. wing donald trump talks casual about using torture and allowing more countries to get nuclear

weapons, or when ted cruz calls for treating american muslims like criminals and racially profiling predominately muslim neighborhoods -- [booing] that doesn't make them sound stronger it makes them sound in over their heads. [applause] you know, loose cannons into misfire. and in a dangerous world, that's not a gamble we can afford. but the test of the republican candidates fails most spectacularly when we get to the third test. because instead of bringing us together, they seem determined to divide us even further. their entire campaigns are based on getting us versus them. one of my personal heroines,

maya angelou, said, she said a lot that is worth remembering but she said this. when someone shows you who they are, believe them. [applause] these republican candidates are showing us exactly who they are and what they would do as president. and we should believe them. just listen to donald trump. he plays coy with white supremacist. he says demeaning and degrading things about women. he wants to round up millions of latino immigrants and take them out of the united states, i nation built by immigrants who he wants to ban muslims. it's cynical, it's wrong and it goes against everything new york and america stand for.

[applause] one of the great joys of my time as senator was traveling across the city and state. new york is home to 20 million people. we don't all look the same. we don't all sound the same or worship the same either. but we pulled together. and when a candidate for president says we can solve america's problems by building walls, discriminating against people based on their religion, and turning against each other, well, new yorkers know better. >> that's right. that's right. [applause] >> our diversity is a strength not a weakness. new york represents the best of america and together we can face down the worst. look around you.

you will see a rising generation of young people, more diverse, tolerant and connected than any we have ever seen. [cheers and applause] we should build on that spirit, not squash it. and i believe with all my heart that if we reach for more love and kindness instead of bluster and bigotry, there's nothing we can do if we put our minds to it. [cheers and applause] let me leave you with one story that says it all. mohammed solman was born in pakistan and move to america with his parents when he was 13 months old. they were like any other new york family. mama was a middle school teacher, dad owned a store. mohammed grew up, studied

biochemistry at queens college, got trained as a paramedic and became a cadet with the nypd. he wasn't sure what he wanted to do with his life, but he knew he wanted to help people. he was just 23 when terrorists flew planes into the world trade center. when he heard the news, mohammed didn't hesitate. he grabbed his medical bag and headed straight to the site, like so many others that day, he died trying to save total strangers. but because his body was buried deep under the rubble, neither his family nor the police department knew what had happened to him. for months, he was considered missing. some wondered if this young man with a muslim name and a background in science could affect anything to do with the attacks. that tabloids piled on. but once his body was found,

everyone realized how wrong they had gotten it your he wasn't a suspect. he wasn't a terrorist. he was a hero. so new york gave mohammed a hero's funeral with full police honors because, as his mother said -- [applause] as his mother said, this cadet and paramedic ran toward the burning towers when everyone was running away. mohammed was an immigrant. he was a new yorker. he was an american, and he died trying to help others live. it's up to us to make sure that his and so many others sacrifice still counts for something. we do that by standing up against bigotry in all its forms. by celebrating heroism wherever we find it, and by doing our

part to serve others and make our communities better and stronger. that's what countless new yorkers do every day in a million quiet ways. so we are going to stand up for the values that make new york great and make america great. and don't forget -- [applause] don't ever forget, this is the greatest country on earth, and we are going to fight for it, fight for our future. please join me in this campaign. [cheers and applause] go to hillaryclinton.com and join. let's have a job as a box. lift each other up and break up all the barriers holding us back from the full potential that we should realize in our country. thank you all so much. [cheers and applause] thank you, new york. god bless you.

[cheers and applause] [chanting] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ..

♪ [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] on c-span to hear at the wilson center in washington to hear remarks from a former israeli ambassador to the u.s. on current middle east regional issues including the israeli-palestinian conflict and the ongoing conflict in syria getting underway on c-span2 under coverage.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

welcome, everybody to the wilson center to a conversation with the ambassador itamar rabinovich. i'm the head of the middle east program at the wilson center. it is a great pleasure to have itamar rabinovich here. he was most importantly an important fellow at the wilson center and i will show you in a minute. but we at the wilson center are proud of the fact that he was here. here. he is the founding president of the institute and distinguished global professor at the university and also a senior fellow at working at tel aviv

university set up the head of the middle eastern program at tel aviv university and most importantly as the ambassador to washington and also the chief negotiator on the peace talks. he's here because he's spending a few months a few weeks i should say in new york at new york university so we took advantage of his presence and he just finished a biography that's going to come out at the university press and we also managed a book presentation here at the center. thank you and welcome.

we will do this as a form of a conversation. so i will ask you your questions and the then we'll open it up te public. let me show you the picture from 30,000 feet. the middle east is in mayhem. some say that it's nothing new to this may have been different than all others and so given all the details in the rise of the islamic state how do you see the strategic opportunities in this conflict? >> i think it is unprecedented the middle east has been proverbial since the end of

world war ii and the british and the french were forced out with the system the state emerged into the jewish conflict in palestine the cold war occurred and there are many in the 1950s in powering the united states and so forth and so forth. but from 30,000 feet most of the period in the cold war would pose a certain order and stability and it was a regional politics in the relations at the center of it and there was a system of states with the changes that there was a system of states. if you look at the middle