was red eye. i came in college but i had not been here working. so i had a ticket to this vip reception. it was like sardines like everything reception at c-pack. i see greg fields and andy lee booker walk into the door and i say i have to go talk to them. i am pushing people out of the way to get over there. and i hear them from a distance saying they will leave. greg is complaining because they are going to leave because the lines for beer are too long. i hear them and say don't worry, i will get you a beer, what do you want? so i went up to the front of the bar, i was tall like i am, i cut everyone and got them beers. and the next thing you know they invited me to come on the show. i took the bus up to new york and i slept in my brother's dorm room on the floor which was like a 400 square foot apartment with

three boys. it was so gross but i made it and that was probably a defining moment a good lesson in humility as well, too. all right. i think this is the last question. one more? if we don't, we can -- do you have a question? are you sure? you look like you do. okay. well, thank you guys and keep up the good work. you have a question? >> my name is sydney. i was going to ask had you find the balance between speaking up for yourself and understanding people will never agree with you? >> i don't know if i am very good at that. i tend to speak up even if i know someone's mind. when i am having a conversation or presenting a point it isn't necessarily to get them to agree with me it is just to present to people who are interested in both sides of the argument to

make a position. if i am on television debating a leftist i know i am not going to change their mind. they have us on tv to disagree. the goal is to present a better argument based on the facts and what you know and have people watching make their decision about what the two sides say. don't try to change their mind. just make the argument and see where it goes. keep up the good work, guys. see you later. [applause] >> with the political primary season over, our road to the white house takes you to the political convention. watch the republican national convention starting july 18th with live coverage from cleveland. >> we will go going into the convention no matter what happens and i think we will be so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting

july 25th with live coverage in philadelphia. >> let's go forward, return the nomination and in july return as a unified party. >> then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania! >> every minute of the republican and democratic party's national conventions on c-span, c-span radio and cspan.org. >> ahead of their national convention next month, the democratic party is holding hearings to decide on their platform. the first part of today's hearing wrapping up at this hour. we go book to phoenix for the second half live at 5:50 eastern on r-span. the second day aof hearings begins tomorrow at noon.

...

co-curators michael gray and keep sending talk about the relationship between 1960s folk music icon bob dylan and country music star johnny cash. the political clash between the two music genres and how with the help of nashville's talented musicians known as nashville, the music bridge political differences >> their friendship together had a lot to do with changing perceptions of nashville, bringing a lot of rock 'n roll people here. the establishment of nashville and social establishment in nashville didn't really accept country music. there were a lot of people that would have liked to pretend the grand old opry wasn't here, that what they saw as the hayseed room, you caimagine that the height of 60s counterculture when there's divisions between

long-haired it be culture if you will that was coming out at the time and more conservative elements ... >> what's this event cities to her at noon on c-span's book tv and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span three. former chief prosecutor for morris davis was fired from the library of congress is congressional research service for writing to opinion articles criticizing the obama administration's decision to resume use of he spoke at the national press club in washington today. his remarks are about an hour. >> good morning everyone. can you hear me okay? sure. it's a small room, i'm glad. thank you so much for joining us.

i'm molly mccluskey, a member of the board of governors at the national press club and freelance journalist and i'm so proud to welcome colonel marsh davis here this morning. during an election cycle that has seen an increasing crackdown on press freedoms, in an administration that has also become known for censoring its critics and journalists alike i can think of you more relevant guests than colonel davis to join us today. mister davis was the former chief prosecutor for the publicly against the treatment of the imprisoned there and recently settled a lawsuit against the library of congress which had fired him for writing newspaper op-ed criticizing the obama administration's decision to resume the use of the military commission system. colonel davis will be speaking for a few moments and then we will open the floor to questions and answers. we will open it up to the audience at which point i will ask that you identify

yourself and your organization before asking a question. lisa delman, colonel davis. >> thank you, and i'm grateful to molly and national press club for inviting me to speak today. i'll be perfectlyhonest, i think i envisioned a day where something like this would happen . what i didn't envision is it would take 6 and a half years to get here. it's been a long and interesting trip from getting, walking out of the library of congress turning everything i had in a copy paper box to standing here today so thank you for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to do this. i think when i look back on it over the last 6 and a half years that how did it feel? i remember when i was kid i was about six and one of my neighbors and i were playing and there was a big oak tree and another neighbor's yard and we climbed up in a tree. we were eight or 10 feet off the ground and my feet slipped and i landed on my back.

it just knocked the breath out of me. and that's kind of the way this felt getting fired by the library of congress for expressing my opinion and to have that government do that to me, it knocked the breath out of me but rather than going away in 6 and a half minutes, it took 6 and a half years to fight this battle. so i'm really happy that i can be here today and this chapter is finally coming to a close. i'm back working for the government again so let me get the obligatory disclaimer that what i'm about to say, because i don't want to be back here in 6 and a half years doing this again. make it clear that i'm expressing my personal views, not the use of any government agency andi'm on leave today , on my own personal time so this is strictly me speaking on behalf of me. so if you're here, you probably know generally the chronology of what led to this moment. let me briefly go back over it.

we can go through it life line by line that will do the 3,000 feet view and go over it briefly. as molly mentioned, i was in the air force for 25 years and i spent toward the end of my career two years as chief prosecutor for the military september 2,005 i was chief prosecutor for the military commissions of general martins who is the chief prosecutor now, the six chief prosecutor but during my tenure we had a policy or i had a policy that we would not use any evidence obtained by what i had to refer to as enhanced interrogation techniques. the pentagon was good at having terms that made things sound like something different than they were and enhanced interrogation techniques are what most people would call torture. back then, i couldn't use the word suicide, i had to use the word self-injurious behavior but my policy had

been we would use evidence that was in pain obtained by enhanced interrogation techniques because it was necessary. khalid shaikh mohammed, his trial is still a work in progress. it was hard to imagine and i recall in september 2006 after president bush made the decision to transfer the high-value detainees from the cia over to the military and the plane landed at one time 14 men got off that day, that was in september 2006.it was almost a decade later and that trial is still no firm date set for that trial to take place but khalid shaikh mohammed, there's ample evidence to establish his guilt without using the word he ever said in our custody with the make what we did to him right but at least in a court of law it would make it relevant in bringing charges against him so that had been policy for about two years during my tenure as chief prosecutor. toward the end, some of the people that were appointed

above me retired and moved on and they were replaced by political appointees. for example, general john oldenburg had been the convening authority, the person that ran the military commission and general oldenburg had been a military officer that the search for 30 years in the army and had a distinguished career, he was devoted to trying to do this in a credible way. general oldenburg was replaced by susan crawford who never wore a uniform a day in her lifebut she had been dictated inspector general when dick cheney was secretary of defense and in my view in hindsight that was the beginning of the end. the credibility of the military commission , they began to get involved and by the summer of 2007, i was being told that president clinton or president bush says we don't torture and president bush said we don't torture, who are you to say we do? and all that evidence you are not using, you need to dust off and get into court and get these guys convicted and that was for me kind of the

last straw that i had lost confidence in our ability to ensure we were going to have full, fair and open trials so in october 2007 i resigned as chief prosecutor at the military commission. which then leads into the next chapter of my life. i decided at that point i was approaching 25 years in the service . like many in the military, i joined planning to do for years, prove my country and get back to north carolina. next thing i knew, for years had become 25 because i enjoyed my time in the military. in my view, it's the most ethical practice of law you're going to find anywhere and a lot of the practitioners involved with the military commissions tell you they got into it with the jaundiced view of military justice and military attorneys and they changed their minds. they've been very impressed by the ethics of the people involved. i enjoyed my time i was young enough i go back and do it again but it was time to decide what i was going to do. it was time to leave for

another assignment and ifnot, it was time to retire and i think many people think i chose to retire because of of the housing market. i moved here in 2005 at the peak of the housing market and by 2008 , we were so far underwater i couldn't afford to leave so i chose to retire. i'm still underwater and i don't know if i will ever live long enough to get back above water but i chose to retire and stay here and i began looking for jobs and one of the places i applied in the spring of 2008 was the congressional research service. i was invited in for an interview, met with the director of congressional research service, daniel holland and i was interviewed for a position there. i got a call from mister mulholland several weeks later around april or may 2008 saying there was someone else they thought was better qualified for the position so they been impressed by my

principal stand that i've military and he asked if i would be interested in other positions that he thought might be coming open in the future. i told him i would. fast-forward to july 30, 2008. remember the date specifically. i was coming up on retirement . i had to go to walter reed for testing so i checked in at walter reed, i was discharged the morning of the 30th, put my suit on, what went to capitol hill and testified before the armed services committee about process up so badly that we couldn't recover from it. and so when i came out from testifying at the house armed services committee, i turned my phone on and i had a message from mistermulholland , asking that he i give him a call. as i'm walking from having testified about once honorable before congress to the metro, i called and mister mulholland ed there's a job coming open as head of

the foreign affairs and trade division at crs, we'd like for you to apply. i told him i was interested and he asked if i was coming in a few days and meet with the deputy director to talk about the job which i did. the job was advertised for another month or two but when it was advertised, i called and said submit your application which i did and i was hired. again, i went for the interview and a lot of what was in the interview was my role as chief prosecutor, the testimony i get in before congress and those things. december 20, 2008 i began my tenure as congressional research service, head of the foreign defense and trade commission. i go back a step, in the military we don't get involved in partisan politics. so for 25 years, i anticipated as a voter and staying informed as a citizen that as far as being directly involved, i didn't do that so when i retired on october 1, 2008, for me it was the first

time in a quarter of a century i got to actively participate in the political process. so i put an obama sign up in my front yard and i live in a gated community and world virginia. one of my neighbors at some point in the night doused my obama sign in lighter fluid and set it on fire so i put up another one.i worked there were the obama campaign in prince william county, taking calls and going door-to-door. i don't think anyone was more excited than me when he was elected. so december, i start my new job.january, president obama takes office and what's the first thing he does? the first thing he does is signed the lilly ledbetter act. the second thing he does is sign in order to close there's anything in dc that was happier than me. with people i respected and it looked like it couldn't get much better.

things progressed and seemed to be going well until the fall of 2009 and that was when rumblings began to emerge that the president was not going to close and i was again having concerns that this whole hope and change was not going to take place . it appeared that it that it was at one point. there's an article, an op-ed in the washington post by former attorney general michael casey where he basically said if we bring end.tc that prompted me to write a letter to the editor rebutting what mister casey had said. that same weekend in november 2009, i also wrote an op-ed and submitted it to the wall street journal and i had written a lot of pieces and the majority of what i've written has never seen the light of day and often when i would write something i shop it around and edit it and

make a lot of changes and eventually someone would take an interest in publishing for the first time ever on a sunday afternoon i hit send twice and by tuesday i had two articles, one of the washington post and one in the wall street journal. next day was veterans day. we were off work and i had an email from mister mulholland, director of crs stressing his displeasure that i had expressed these positions and questioning my suitability to serve at the congressional research service and that's when the whole 6 and a half year odyssey began. and veterans day in 2009. ironically, i guess in a sense when i was the chief prosecutor the human rights organization, groups that are generally viewed on the left didn't particularly hold me in high regard. one of the organizations, i don't think was terribly fun of me was the american civil liberties union. they would send a and i would meet with the representatives and we would

talk and we had a cordial relationship but i don't think they were particularly fond of the positions i was taking advocating for getting fired for having express my opinions on romero at the aclu who said what can we do to help? and for 6 and a half years, they stood by my side and represented me throughout this process. we went to court in january 2010 seeking a temporary restraining order to stop crs from firing me. ending the litigation of the lawsuit on whether the first amendment protected my right to express my opinion. mister mulholland called me and before he gave me the letter of termination and wanted me to admit that what i had done was wrong. he wanted me to apologize and he said that it appeared that i put the constitution ahead of the good of the organization.and i said,

that's true. i do. i can sit here and tell you that you're right, i was wrong, the constitution doesn't apply to me. i served in uniform for 25 years to defend the constitution and if i told you it didn't apply to me, i'd be making up false statement and i'm not going to do that so i got the letter of termination say that i was fired. which again, was ironic because i was fired for exercising my right of free speech in the james madison building. the author of the first amendment. so i stayed on until january 20, we went to court trying to get a temporary restraining order. the department of justice argued against granting the restrainingorder . there were several elements you have to prove in order to get a restraining order and judge ready walden was the judge in my case for the entire 6+ years. judge walton found that we met all the elements. it was likely i would prevail on the merits that was in the public interest but on elements that he found i did not establish based on the

government's argument was that i was unable to establish irreparable harm. the department of justice argued in that hearing that if i prevailed on my first amendment lawsuit that they could write me a check for backpay which would make me whole if my claim was validated. judge walton agree. so i was not granted the restraining order and that afternoon the lp, the deputy director walked me out to the parking lot to get my cardboard box with myself and i left. a few months later, the same attorney for the justice department argued that it had been a mistake, that the backpay act doesn't apply to the legislative branch and that there was no possibility of getting backpay. at that point we began fighting to get me reinstated to my position. we also filed suit against

mister mulholland in a personal capacity. we litigated that in the spring of 2010 and the government argued that mister mulholland is a government official and had qualified immunity and could be sued for action he took in his official capacity. judge walton denied the motion and the facts that allege were true then number no government official good have believed it was appropriate to fire someone for exercising their constitutional right. at that point the government appealed and we went off on a detour to the dc circuit which added another year anda half to the case. the dc circuit , my case was assigned to a panel with chief judge sentelle, judge henderson and judge rogers. if you look back will see that is the same panel if you recall the case, that valerie claim broughtafter she was outed as a cia agent . the case was dismissed by a two to one vote at the dc circuit with judge sentelle

and judge henderson finally she had no cause of action. not surprisingly, i got the exact same panel and i got the exact same result. the dc circuit ruled that i could not bring suit against mister mulholland in his personal capacity. they did that because they said congress had enacted the circuit civil service reform act which provided a comprehensive remedy for government employees and the fact that they exempted the legislative branch, they exempted themselves from the coverage that showed they considered the legislative branch of voice and had chosen not to include them in the coverage even though i had no remedy, the dc circuit said i couldn't proceed on that ground so we went back into court and spent the rest of the time for reinstatement of my former position at the congressional research service. again, i think it's one of the things i've learned from this was i was extraordinarily fortunate that anthony romero called me when this all happened and

i've been just anyone else, an average guy on the street, under similar circumstances i would have had to throw in the towel along time ago because the government tactic, the justice department seem to use was the same bankrupt, to try to litigate this case. so over than 6 and a half years, the american civil liberties union spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting for my life of free speech in an effort to get me reinstated to the congressional research service position that i was fired from. i thought it was interesting also that eventually the arguments that i had made in the op-ed that i wrote, if you go back and look at the testimony i providedcongress in july 2008, it was essentially the same thing i said , this notion that somehow congress would be surprised that i had a strong ever hired at the tc

congressional research service. the obama administration's position eventually became the position i advocated. attorney general holder later said that in hindsight, it had been a mistake to give up on federal court and to revert back to the military commissions because as he said, khalid sheikh mohammad, had he been tried in federal court would have long since been convicted and sitting on death row. i mentioned the 14 men that got off the plane and that has beentried , convicted and sentenced and his case has entered the appellate process at the supreme court who denied that the case is over and done. i commented to lonnie. united states and prosecuted in federal court where he was convicted and got a life sentence. the other 13 men got off the plane with him in september 2006 are still waiting for their opportunity to have their day in court.

so i think it's interesting, i was reading on the way over how congress and the house as fast a measure that would further restrict president obama's ability to transport been convicted and sentenced in a case through the appellate process successfully has been on an lonnie who was convicted in federal court. so eventually, after i was terminated, judge walton during the discussion about irreparable harm said my qualifications, and i have a bs, a jv and 25 years of military service, there will be no problem, i need a job area i'd already activated the republican side when i quit over torture and now i aggravated the democratic side when i criticize president obama for his policy on this. when you manage to alienate them, it's not a rather than

having a problem for finding a job, i'd like to thank the citizens of thedistrict of columbia for the unemployment checks i got. as i applied for over 200 jobs with government agencies, with private organizations, with nongovernmental organization, academic institutions, you name it, i applied . and places that had offered me jobs a few months before suddenly i was no longer a good fit with their organization. there's one human rights organization said and we totally agreewith everything you said but we just your too toxic . the administration is going tohold it against us so for six years i collected unemployment . i couldn't find a job. i'm very grateful because up until recently for four years i was a assistant professor at holloman howell university. former mayor of baltimore, keener dark was the vice dean and the two of them were willing to take me in when no one else would read so i'll

huge debt of gratitude to howard university for getting me a home where they made me feel welcome, gave me the opportunity to go out and do things i couldn't have done otherwise. you may have seen i did a petition on change.org, close petition. i couldn't have done that had i been in my government job that i was in. it gave me the opportunity to speak and write and do things, there were pictures where i was participating in several protests outside the white house. i did draw the line at putting on an orange jumpsuit and getting stuck with a coat and tie the gave me the opportunity to go out and do some things i probably couldn't have done otherwise. and then a little over a year ago, i went back into the federal government, the organization where i feel welcome and i worked with people i respect and i

consider myself very fortunate. but just a couple things, i'd like to mention that i learned over the last 6 and a half years that i want to begin by saying the library of congressional research service are incredible institutions. with some remarkable people that do great work. what they lack is leadership. doctor carla hayden is apparently going to be the next librarian of congress and i wish her the best area and i hope she brings the leadership that the organization has long needed. the library of congress, if you go back and look at the case, i think there's three published opinions in my case , two of the district court level, one at the court of appeals level and a couple other decisions that were published . the title of the case is davis versus billington. billington was doctor billington, a librarian of congress recently retired.

i believe in the wake of his retirement congress has changed the rule where the library of congress can only serve for 15 years. doctor billington worked in excess of 30. mister mulholland has also served, the person that fired me. both of them i have no doubt love the organization. i think they love the organization the way j edgar hoover love the fbi where there was no divide between their personal view and the official written regulation. the library had a regulation that said employees are encouraged to speak and write about areas outside their area of official responsibility. that was the official public policy, unofficial policy was no one should say anything outside the walls of the office. so again, i think it's an incredible institution, particularly in this environment were in, crs played a vital role. for better or worse, there's

proliferation of think tanks and organization that didn't exist a half century ago and depending on your persuasion, you can find an organization to provide what looks like research to support whatever position you want to take. but one organization in this town that will give you the unvarnished tory is the congressional research service. where one of the dispute we had during the course of my lawsuit is this notion that crs provides nonpartisan advice. that's not what the statute said. it says crs will provide a price on a nonpartisan basis. so it's not the advice that's nonpartisan, it's the provision of service so if someone call my office and this happened often, we are usually an aid would call and say my member has a hearing this afternoon and give me three points in favor of this bill.and we would do that. we make another call in 15 minutes from another member's office saying my members opposed the bill, give me three points in opposition to its and we did that on a

nonpartisan basis but to have people that have spent their lives, phd's and a lifetime of work and expect them to not have an opinion on the issues that they cover i think is totally unrealistic. also, this notion that taxpayers and over $100 million a year on crs and you could go online and often you could find a copy of the report for pre-or other cases you got to pay him one who has taken that report that the government generated and now they're going to sell it back to you. there's no reason that prs reports are made available to the public.those reports do not take a partisan position. we did that and number one, a memo that looked at a particular angle, crs would do that but the reports themselves, we used to refer to crs as the place of 1000 hands because if you have already crs report, they

would say on the one hand this and on the other hand that. it never states out the right or wrong answer on an issue but there are great reports . that provide a lot of useful information that the public i believe has a right to see because they are paying a lot of money to produce it. i certainly wouldn't argue that the memorandums and the internal work that's done on behalf of the committee or the particular members should ever be made public. if a member of the committee chooses to do that themselves but the reports in general ought to be made available. i guess another lesson i learned from this is the government will stand up firmly or your constitutional rights as long as you don't use them. it's kind of like integrity and a lot of other terms that people are fond of throwing around and they're all for it in theory . not an application. that's what i found here that i think out in the public, people like to think of the constitution is being carved in granite. in fact, it seems to be carved in sandstone but those rights aren't as strong and i

spent 25 years and the military and in the military we take an oath to defend the constitution, we don't view it as this unbreakable document. but then you get here and you see the governments says that in public and then when the lights are off to take an entirely different view. the law i think it's important that people stand up for those rights. particularly the aclu. again, i couldn't have got off the sound without the incredible assistance that they provided. so it wasn't the government. 25 years in the military, it wasn't the government that stood up for my constitutional rights, it was the aclu ending up against the government to make those rights means something. and i really am eternally grateful to them for doing that. again, i'm really disappointed by the department of justice, the

attitude that the attorneys from the department of justice took. one of the things that i tried to stress to people that work for me when i was senior attorney of the milk military and i have young prosecutors that were zealous is even if you are prosecuting somebody, treat them with respect and i felt that throughout this process it was a very disrespectful order. it was delay, spend to try to make this painful and difficult as possible. one of the issues that sidetracked us for another year was after i left crs i did the same thing i did after every military assignment. my last day i copied the files off my computer and i left you it took two years before they actually looked at the butyrate used and they discovered i'd taken all the documents often suddenly i'm being accused of theft of government property. it's interesting on this whole email debate on the presidential election that the oj didn't have have a attitude about me taking my

emails off the government computer. they said it was government property. they insinuated i could face criminal charges . and so i had to get out and get a criminal defense attorney to represent me when suddenly i'm being accused, the dod uses terms like misconduct, lack of integrity, and that to someone who served in the military me a lot so i was disappointed at the way the department of justice pursued this. again, i was fortunate to have the aclu standing behind me. if i bend just a regular guy off the street, i would have been crushed by the governments efforts and i would have had to given up a long time ago. the other thing i learned is, this notion of free speech. there's nothing free about it. it's very costly. as i said, i applied for an excess of 200 jobs and

couldn't find one for a very long time. we went to court at one point, crs had an opening for a position that was comparable, the same level position i've been in and we tried to get them to have the court reinstate me into that position pending resolution of the lawsuit because i was earning about $100,000 a year less that i was making at crs and judge walton said that losing $100,000 a year was not a substantial harm. i'm not sure that we are in the same financial circle but i found losing $100,000 a year was the substantial harm and the back pay act, congress exempted themselves from the back pay act wasn't eligible for back pay so even though we eventually settled, i got $100,000, i lost about $100,000 a year for the five years that i was out. out of the government so free speech cost me about $400,000.

the government in my view, i think the aclu and i have a different opinion. i believe the government does have a legitimate right to regulate its conduct in the speech of government employees if there's a significant interest that justifies it. when i was in the military for 25 years, i understood that i could go out and for instance campaign for someone runningfor office . it was in black and white, it was in the rules. i think the government has the right to regulate speech and conduct if there is that junk government interest and debate make this clear to their employees. as i mentioned, the library of congress at a regulation that said employees are encouraged. that's what it said in black and white and when i did it i got fired for doing it so if there is a compelling reason why there should be a limitation on the government employees exercise of their rights, i think that's okay but there needs to be clear guidance. that needs to be clearly

communicated what the lines are and what the employee can do. they finally, let me see a couple of things because i could stand here for an hour and name all the people that participated but again, particularly the aclu. when he called on day one i don't think that he knew what he was buying into it was going to be sick and a half years of fighting the government over my job. but we roland was the last attorney from the aclu who represented me over the last couple of years. part of the deal when we negotiated the settlement, i have a sub rosa agreement because after talking to an attorney from the aclu every week for the last 6 and a half years, i couldn't go cold turkey so part of the is she has to call me at least once a month to we meet off of dealing with the aclu but we did a remarkable job. in the beginning it was eight and five, and the beginning

albert hello, also at times jamil jack low stood up for me and for my first amendment rights. from aclu national capital region, the one attorney on my side from day one to the bitter end was part spencer. he been with the aclu in washington for a long time and stood by me for 6 and a half years. the law firm of goodwin procter right here in dc, over the last couple of years they offered their services pro bono. to assist as we moved toward court so john dukakis and matt rippy at goodwin procter , they did a ton of work as well and fought hard for me. there are a number of former colleagues at crs that stood up for me. lou fisher, moore rosenberg, dick granite are all career cms employees that in various points in time testified or did declarations on my

behalf. i was disappointed in congress and particularly in the last couple of days have been a lot of debate in congress, they're concerned about protecting the second amendment rights of people suspected of terrorism. their right to buy a gun. i only had one member of congress that had a concern about me and my first amendment rights to speak and that was senator lindsey graham. i'm not one of his constituents. my congressman from my district did not get involved. senator graham did. he wrote a letter to the library of congress when we went to court and i'll be eternally grateful for senator graham. we don't agree about saying that what i had to say about it and my perspective having been the chief prosecutor was an important voice to be heard so the one member of congress that stood out for me and thought was editor lindsey graham area finally, this is relevant to

this group but it's the media. again, two articles, one was in the wall street journal and one was in the washington post. neither one of them have set a word but the two organizations that did, the new york times in los angeles, times, their editorial board did editorials on my behalf and again, when you are taking on the governments, those kind of things mean a lot. so again, that's just a 30,000 foot view of the last 6 and a half years of my life. i'm really pleased that it's behind me and we can move forward and i hope other government agencies look at this and think twice before they ignore the constitution. government employees particularly in this time when we have an important election coming up, there's this notion of the credentialing the media and stifling people that have contrary opinions. that's not what we're about. there are a lot of people in government like they have valuable opinions and the

public ought to have the benefit of hearing them so hopefully they will take some comfort that sometimes it's worth fighting for. [applause] >> don't go too far, you're going to need to be back up here in a second. that you for sharing your story and perspective on this and we spoke a little bit about the costs. the financial costs, i'm sure the emotional and psychological whole that it took over the years. we have plenty of op-ed writers in the room with us today so on their behalf i have to ask, would you do that again? >> i have thought about that quite a bit. i would. i think i would. even knowing the consequences. i wrote the op-ed 6 and a half years ago. it's still as important a topic now as it was then. i wish i could say that what

i invested led to bringing this issue to closure. it hasn't. hopefully it contributed to the conversation but i think this is still an important, as early on, i think it was john mccain, early on in 2001 2002 he said this is a war about us than it is about then. it continues to be and i'm disappointed. i saw where congress is trying to make it more difficult to close about wonton amo. we are wasting money. millions of dollars a year to detain individuals and 30 of those, we are spending a couple million dollars a year on each of those detainees that don't need to be there. super? swear ahmed donnie is serving his sentence, $35,000 year so senator proxmire was a lot i would hope he would present a golden fleece award to the

government for wasting the taxpayers money needlessly on operations.2000 of our troops tied up to guard a people, 30 that we've said don't need to be there. we've squandered our credibility around the world, we hold ourselves up as this shining city on a hill. but still, it's not just our as well.that throw guantc the expressed skepticism about us so i think we have long since gotten past a day that there's any way to redeem wonton though. i think it would be worth saying it again in those circumstances. >> and you mentioned earlier the terms the pentagon required you to use, you could use torture. if the government and the military told things as they

really are, we are firm believer in the power of language here as communicators and journalists as clearly your lawsuits have shown you are as well, if we actually used the language that was appropriate for the things that were happening, you think the opinion have turned or turned earlier or would it not have made a difference? >> i think it would've made a difference. again, it's easy to look back in hindsight and the different places where we could have done something differently. one of the things where i think the obama administration made a huge mistake was not using the bully pulpit to educate the public. the public by and large has went outside on the street and stop 10 people, nine out of 10 believe that worst of the worst are in there and all these guys who would chew through the hall drama hydraulic lines on the plane to kill americans on the way and we got to havethis facility for people. we capture the enemy on the

battlefield . all that's true but it doesn't apply. if you look at the notion we've got to have this facility and the sport process for people who are jihadists captured on the battlefield, you could count on your fingers the number of detainees captured by the us military on anything that looked like a battlefield. almost all, omar connor who was apprehended after a firefight with the us armed forces, that one fits but if you look at the high-value detainees, all 14, not a single one was captured by the us g.i. on the battlefield. there like khalid sheikh mohammad. your member the picture of him where he's all roughed up and rousted out of bed and turned over to the us so this whole false narrative that's been provision presented was a huge disservice and i think the administration, when president obama signed the order in january 2009 he just said that's it. he didn't anticipate the backlash but the other side ,

we immediately said our goal is to make a long-term president so i think the best way for president obama to keep it open forever so the other side would say the hell you are, where closing and i think that's what happened. he didn't anticipate the pushback. john mccain when he was running that he's going to george bush said he wanted to close it the other side said you're not and i don't think he anticipated that. you have to look at the times, the economy was in a death spiral. healthcare reform was his top priority and i don't think they were willing to extend the political capital to make it happen and so the public, you had people like dick cheney and others telling these horror stories that just work true that the public work getting the other side of the story. i think if the public knew closed by dark today.c but they don't.

>> i like to open up the floor to questions now please. please state your name and your outlet before asking your question. >> we are among the op-ed writers you were talking about. you've written in the cleveland plain dealer on this subject and i wonder whether you would say are the .essons of guantc general jeffrey miller who was director of the people said he did mobilize the questioning at otto garay. now we hear brennan on television saying that you won't quite answer if we're still sending people to foreign countries for torture . united states, we stand on our values he danced around the question.

you can track four of those statements he's made that simply don't answer that question. we learn the lessons from countries? you're an expert on this. is it still going on today? do other countries work through cia contracts? >> to be honest, i retired from the military in 2008. i don't have the access that i did back in the day. i haven't seen any conclusive evidence that we are continuing those practices and i certainly wouldn't be shocked if we are. and i think the answer is no, i don't think we have learned lesson we should and i hope that's something the media can do that would be extraordinarily valuable to the country. not let this die. keep telling the story and letting the public hear the truth. when i go out and speak quite often, people still make the argument about torture. that it worked and it saved the lives and what would you do if the guy was at times

square setting off a bomb. number one, that's never been the case. there's never actually been a guy who's going to go up times square. that's never been the scenario. to me, the best argument that shows that torture doesn't work is the iraq war.as you remember, when colin powell went to the un and the final straw was we had this horse that said the connection between bin laden and al qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction and it became clear that wasnot true, they went back to that source . he said, why do you live? >> he said you guys were torturing me and i wanted you to quit so i told you what you wanted to hear. it's great to make people talk. it's not great for making them tell the truth and were going to take actions like starting a war with another country, i think we ought to know the truth and not just have someone that talks so i don't think anyone on the other side can point to

anything concrete that torture has done for us.but i think you can look at the iraq war and see what torture did to us and i think we really lose our credibility in the eyes of the world. we led the effort, the convention against torture. not like we led the international criminal court and other things where we are really about preaching, not good about practicing. i think as long as, until we officially condemn torture, until we hold people accountable, for torture, then we are not, we are talking the talk and not walking the walk. >> you retired after 34 years at the congressional district. >> kenny speak up a little bit? >> i am retired for years with the congressional research service. and i believe that what is wrong with wonton demo is due

process. men have been there up to 15 years. the site of the denial of due process seems to be what's important was moving these men to the united states to increase their access to due process. >> that's a really good question because if you recall back in the early days of the obama administration, the plan was to move the detainees to i think it was illinois to a prison sitting empty there. else has just made a new the location that's important. and i think you have to go back, why did we open picked up in the afghanistan area and we hold them halfway around the world. and what we had that facility

there, we became people by the tens of thousands. why do we take people halfway aroundthe world? because there are people that wonton demo was a law free zone where you could do anything to anybody and there was nothing anyone could do about it. and that's kind of sad comments about our country that we are this shining city on a hill but were looking for a spot somewhere on the planet that we can explore people. my attitude when i was chief prosecutor was looking at the process and the same would have been torture and detention is how would we feel if it was an american on the other end? any country we don't like. ran, north korea, whoever. if they were doing the same thing to an american that we are doing to someone else would we say it was okay? and if we wouldn't, then why is it okay then we do it? if we had americans that had been detained for 14, 15 years and never been charged or if we had americans that

had been detained for 14 or 15 years and the other government has said we don't need these people, these people now that are there for no reason other than their citizenship, most from yemen, i think we would, americans would pitch a fit so if it's not suitable what happens to one of us, itshould be suitable for us to do it to somebody else . >> i worked at the gray sheet. one of the things in the journals that we are concerned with is when president obama came to office he said he was going to be best administration in history and so far i think we have seen someone of the opposite. at least in the journalism industry. from your experience working with crs, could you speak a little about what changes you may have seen or what kind of abilities you had to talk to

the news media because when i contacted crs information, questions usually end up in a black hole somewhere. where if you ask for a congressional report your answer is usually go to this specific office at congress so could you speak a little about what your relationship is with the press and what kind of pressure you were getting from the administration? it's important to remember that crs works for congress, not for the president so i think it was more a function of, let me back up a bit. i had a very limited window into the first year of the obama administration and i think they came in with optimistic ideals of the change they were going to make. and i think the act of governing was a lot more difficult than i think many had anticipated. it seemed to me that in the early first year, there were a lot of ideals that wanted

to make this a different administration on the past administration and i think time has shown that in many respects, there have been no noticeable improvement but crs, i think one of the problems with crs is i think they are so concerned about offending somebody over on capitol hill that they don't want anybody tosay anything . you may have seen lately where there's this debate about using the term, i can't recall. as a term that congress is insisting they use versus another one, i can't recall exactly what it was. there was one that when i was there, the division iran, it was the issue about allowing gays and lesbians in the military. the actual policy, the regulation was a homosexual policy. mister mulholland was concerned there were a couple members on the hill that

bought homosexual was a derogatory term. how do we write something when the title of the policy is this and we can't use that term? there's so much concerned about doing anything that might offend someone on capitol hill. example that was cited often, there was the office of technology assessment which is kind of a sister organization to, there's gao, crs and the ota and the perception was that they came out with some positions that were contrary to what congress wanted so congress shut down the organization. i think there was a lot of that mindset in leadership at the crs that you got to tap dance around anything controversial or congress may just shut us down which again, i think a lot of congress tends to go to the organization that is going to give them the opinion that supports their preconceived notion. i think crs could play an important role in providing that independent nonpartisan assessment that it's always

been a very focused on congress and not the public and certainly your experience has not ... everybody gets the same reaction two questions. yesterday there it's test of i on the hill they said we are accountable, i want to get this right for the management and the failures of the detention and the integration program. he said that publicly but refuse to go into any details in an open session about how they were

held accountable. so i want to get your thoughts on that. and then the issue with a special rubber chore on torture, i guess they settled for a standard for guantánamo bay facility and so i want your thoughts on the u.s. role on torture and human rights. >> again, it is disappointing. as you said, he did not go into a lot of detail. certainly no one has been prosecuted for engaging in or permitting or sanctioning torture which is really what the convention against torture requires. also another requirement is, if

someone is a victim of torture requires them to be an avenue for them to seek to address. they'll be compensated for the injury. the obama administration has fought every torture case that has been brought into federal court. so you have yet to see any person who was knowledge victim of torture, they certainly have not gotten a settlement or even a day in court. to meet one of the most egregious examples is the canadian example. if you have seen the movie rendition, it is roughly going to be her story. we take him off the plane in laguardia or jfk, and eventually ends up in syria. i were debating out whether we should be launching military strikes against assad, will a

few years ago we are sending people to aside as we did with this man. he spent about one year in syria in custody being tortured until eventually the syrians realize that this guy was not a bad guy. they sent him back home to canada. the canadian government apologized and gave him monetary compensation for their role in helping us sent him to syria to get tortured. we have yet to say, we are sorry. when he tried to file suit in court, the administration qualified immunity or state state secrecy program and it was successful and blocking him for getting his in court. so until we are willing to give people the opportunity to pursue their cases in court, until we will hold people accountable, criminally accountable for engaging in what we will call a roller crime if anybody had done that to us. were really good about assisting others in the prosecution of other leaders to engage in common i fact you say recent convictions in south america and africa as well for leaders, for

acts that happened a long time ago. i am hoping at some point there will be accountability for what we did because we cannot just ignore it and pretend it did not happen. >> we have time for one more question, but before let's do housekeeping. so you've joined us as part of the newsmaker series and it brings prominent speakers a newsworthy topics year-round to the club for q and a zen comment such as this. visit our website at www.press.org and follow us on twitter using # and pc life. one last question for the kernel. >> no. while i have one. as you know and as we have discussed, congress has been unwilling to accept the guantánamo detainees on u.s. soil. and so our allies from the world have taken them. has that helped has that helped or hindered our relationship that are ally friends are now cleaning up some of the mess that we created?

>> people that i know have been involved in the efforts over the years to repatriate some of the employees in one of the arguments, think we've been to just about every country in the face of the earth to try to get them to help us out. the person they say is how many have you taken? the answer is none. we have begged and bribed everybody else to try to undo and fix the problem that we created and we have taken on. if you recall one of the best examples as we scoop these guys up and sent them to guantánamo wonton among quickly realize they were no threat. china said they would be happy to take them. of course the leaders -- was a what we could do with them, the other countries we say they are not dangerous, they're not a threat, help us out. and then we have them releasing the cn say we cannot have these people coming to america. so we we eventually got them sent to

other places. i think someone to bermuda. we are supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. do you think we could be as brave as bermuda? we just have not done that. i think it really hurts when he got other countries and we read this problem but were on willing to do anything ourselves to undo the harm that would cause. >> that is all we have time for. thank you so much everybody who joined us in the club today, on my, television, we look for to seeing you again very soon. thank you very much. [applause].

>> today in phoenix, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues as the democratic national committee holds platform hearings ahead of their party's convention in philadelphia, starting in philadelphia, starting july 25. see today's earrings live at 5:50 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> with the political primary season over, see c-span's road to the white house takes you to the summers political convention.

watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> we will be going into the convention no matter what happens i think think we're going to go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting on july 20 fifth, with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward, let's win let's with the nomination and in july, let's return as a unified party. >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial, and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national convention, on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> here's a look at our primetime schedules on the c-span networks. on on c-span, after the dnc platform hearings wrap up, today state department briefing on certain policy. at 8:00 p.m. on c-span two, the

network of enlightened women host a conference conference with conservative authors and businesswomen on public policy policy positions. on c-span three, news conference on the future of guantánamo bay detainees. >> book tv has 48 hours hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs coming up this weekend. on saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, from book expo american, the annual trade show in chicago, former and be a player cream abdul-jabbar talks about his book, writings on the wall about the political and social landscape. on sunday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, roundtable p.m. eastern, roundtable discussion about donald trump's book, the art of the deal, first published in 1987. panelist will discuss the book.

>> at 9:00 p.m. eastern, afterwards the political science professor talks about his book, isis, the history. that looks at the history and rise of isis. he is interviewed by author of mecca and mainstream, muslim life in america, after 9/11. >> so it is said isis must be a direct result of the civil wars, and the air of ease, the the security vacuum that exists in iraq, syria and the perception that somehow the peaceful collective action could not really change the existing order. >> it go to book tv.org for the the complete we can schedule. >> less than one week before the u.k. referendum on european european european union membership, there will be a speech that to take place next wednesday. this this discussion

also comes one day after british labor member of parliament, joe cox was shot and stabbed to death. as a result, campaigns for the referendum were halted. this is a one hour and ten minutes. >> thank you very much, good morning and welcome to the heritage foundation. it is my great pleasure to introduce our very good friend, john. i've known him forever 15 years. he is, in my view one of the most gifted conservative writers of his generation. some of his most powerful speeches, john was able to join us today to talk about margaret thatcher just days before the historic british referendum that is to be held on june 23.

he served as special advisor of thatcher from 86-88. currently, john is editor of quadrant magazine in sydney, australia. he is president of the institute of free-market, a think tank in budapest, hungary. he is senior is senior fellow at the national institute and editor at large where he served as editor-in-chief for over one decade. and for decades, as a writer, columnist and writer on both sides of the atlantic, john sullivan served most recently is the executive editor for radio for europe in prod. editor on foreign policy in editor-in-chief on united press international. his book, the president, the pope and the prime minister, the world is the revival of western

market democracy it has been published in seven languages. please join me in welcoming john sullivan [applause]. >> ladies in johnson, many thanks for inviting me today. and for giving me such a generous introduction. as my mother used to say when she had thinks, time just doesn't be of to hold down a job. you have given me a very strong topic and highly controversial topic, namely weeks referendum. now controversy on that question has been briefly stilled in britain by a day of mourning for joe cox, the young person who is murdered yesterday in the most brutal and horrible fashion by one of the constituents. who who we must hope was a mentally disturbed man and not some kind of a political fanatic.

most of us here in this room would not share his politics but it was adventurous intellectually, a wife and mother, someone who had risen from a poor background in the first member of her family to go to college. we should mourn her passing, seek justice for the murder and trust that she now lives in god's mercy. we, here carry-on increase. my topic today -- it seems to me a few months ago highly significant that it's almost the third battle of the referendum campaign was over the question, what would maggie do? more precisely, how would maggie thatcher vote in the next thursday's referendum. it was between their former aides, friends in mind, but not

household names outside that small circle. but it was therefore well-informed debate. what is more interesting even in the outcome of that controversy however is the fact list. for a quarter century after she left office margaret thatcher is one of two postwar british prime minister. the others churchill whose views on britain's role in europe remain both contested and important to large numbers of british people. that is because whatever are the criticisms may be leveled against them, i may be believe both leaders are recognized universally to have had a visceral or that made them love their country and fight hard for its interests. now other prime ministers that before us inspire quite that same belief. that is why people asked what would maggie do. i'm going to return to that question in a few

minutes. to do so do so i must first describe the thatcher legacy on what is also called that tourism. if you want to understand the basic emotional drive of margaret agger embodied it is to be in found in some works that she addressed in a television interview toward the close of the 1979 election campaign. with the election campaign almost over, she felt able, for a for a moment to let down her guard. she exclaimed, i can't their written decline. i just can't bear it. it was also prophetic. whatever also was, was, thatcherism was a politic design to reverse the decline of britain. but margaret thatcher was a practical politician politician rather than a philosopher. her legacy was record and result of practical responses facing britain today. initially in the reducing

britain's crime and remedies were cautious, flexible and responsive to those problems. and so far as they are rooted in ideology they were drawn from the english, scottish tradition of classical economics. the late shirley points out in a 35 study, thatcherism. that has been born to both parties, it was seen as a conservative one as much is that classical liberal liberal one. it was also an intellectual reformed tradition. with applications to most of the problems facing the new government. above all however, the most obvious rival of economic, social democratic, seem to have

come to the end of its tether. with strikes of what brought her into a standstill in standstill and what became known as a winter of discontent. naturalism and economics have a strong claim to be in a new economic common sense, following the implosion of postwar consensus economics. thatcherism was never a purely economic set of ideas. when when british interests were challenged from other directions , as in the war in the cold war, missed that that church are one other relevant traditions, notably tradition of tough-minded national interests in a moralistic one of liberal internationalism to justify what her patriotic positions were of the day. moe over. >> a fierce but it was governed by a highly, practical prudence. the two central victories in the wall show this is so.

she did not expect her plan for an argentinian fortress. but the politics that national regeneration could hardly refuse such challenge. though she was annoyed by the efforts, she let let them play out to the end. she took calculated risks militarily and diplomatically. but only after she had digested the best economic and diplomatic and military advice. at several points she offered consents consensus to point to saris. but she did so from the calculations that greater dangers lay. >> all in all, she maneuvered to victory as much as it moving boldly towards it. similarly, she surrendered the demands in 1981 when she was informed that britain had insufficient to resist a strike.

but she had once began a buildup of stocks and other preparations to resist a strike that might come later. when it did come later, three years later she defeated it. these two outright political victories ran counter to the usual postwar british politics of compromise. >> with that economic labor reforms is a consensus in politics and elevated hurt national profile. import affairs, mrs. thatcher personally played a crucial role in helping other west european governments to resist the powerful peace movement and thus, getting u.s. stationed in western europe. in my view that is the moment we won the cold war. she war.

she brought together reagan and gorbachev towards ending the cold war peacefully in the mid--late 1980s. to be sure, thatcher was obviously a subordinate partner in the thatcher, reagan relationship on military and diplomatic policy. given the relative size of the two economies and military, could hardly been otherwise. indeed she should have also been the junior partner in terms of economic influence too. but she wasn't. it was mrs. thatcher who would probably be regarded by history as the more influential and revolutionary economic reformer. why should that be so? in the first place, there recovery of the british economy in the 19 '80s was more impressive because it started from a lower economic point and occurred in a more left-wing country. jimmy carter was not good at raining an economy but he did not match any socialist would have been running britain

for most of the postwar time. then, mrs. thatcher had a harder opposition to overcome. she had to, the labor market deregulation had to have resistance to the west as well is for labor. finally, the reforms had to defeat major non- parliamentary challenges from the labor unions. once the miners were defeated however, the british economy joined the american one and providing a demonstration effect of what free-market reforms could accomplish in a relatively short time. those devastation affect were not so identical. tax cuts were america's principal intellectual expert. that was in the reagan years. privatization was was britain's. of the two, privatization turned out to be more important, globally sense boat post third

world and since the economies were burdened by large inefficient state industries to which privatization was a ready-made solution. when privatization succeeded, which it did was a. surprising speak, the most unlikely took no. that's her, even more than reagan posed an economic an economic challenge to the soviet union, as a reform or for fall further behind to the capitalist west. in in comparison to the british economy after a decade of free economic and the continuing stagnation of the soviet economy after 70 years of -- was simply too embarrassing to ignore. once i was introduced however, that was a result, he very rapidly save the system is designed to say. once the collapsed in 1989, revealing the extraordinary wasteland produced by state planning, is the thatcher model that the new democracy mainly sought to end. thatcher, rankin, john paul john

paul ii were all heroes in post- communist europe. but it was thatcher to whom a new new economy administered such as poland's, check a czechoslovakia, and and others look to as their model to how to reform from bankrupt social economy. they says much today. and the post- communist societies followed the that your model the more quickly the economies rose from the dead. it is not only in the postfeminist world however that margaret thatcher was seen as an inspiration. that chisholm had an important impact both in africa and asia. privatization, the control the control of public debt, lower taxes, the reduction of trade and capital movements, these became the new conventional wisdom and ministries of finance from the globe. the broad result, globalization

became the watchword of world bank and reports. now, there naturally points of view much more critical than the thatcher legacy then you have heard from me. they argue that her economic policies, some labor veterans argue that some of her economic policy simply failed. it is undoubtedly true that heirs of economic policy were made in the thatcher years. it's hard to imagine in a government that doesn't make some such errors. but they were far outweighed by the economic successes of the tourism. notably a sustained rise in productivity. some of those successes were evident at the time. she left britain as the world's fourth largest economy, largest economy, but the general and sustained economic performance continued through the main administration, more or less right up to the 2008 financial crisis. indeed on becoming chancellor in

1997, after the labour victory, gordon brown was given a treasury briefing which conclude with the words, these are wonderful figures. to which he famously replied, what you want me to do, what you want me to do, thanks send them a thank you note? even as the criticisms of fascists and. economics were correct however, they would not be conclusive criticism of her overall record. her privatization has safeguarded democracy by the defeat, her victory in the four club, her role with dragon undefeated communism, and these and other changes she ruled were plainly both important and beneficial in political or strategic, or's constitutional terms even if they contributed nothing to economical improvement, which improvement, which of course they did. one could sensibly mount a particular criticism of these achievements, but it is simply

not possible to convince that there are substantial failures. the proof of that even with the labor and liberal democratic parties continue to dislike them, they do not propose the repeal or rejection. now the exception to this list of achievements is the european union. most of thatcher's belief that her stance on europe was a major historical era, the parting of her country would see in retrospect as nostalgia run rampant. should be left behind by history and by britain when it eventually embrace the european future. and until the last few months went the referendum revealed that britain is split down the middle one whether it's identity and future are truly european, it looked as though her critics might be right. it is clear that this question is still an open one. since views will, and do

influence others, the referendum debate on what would maggie do began. now, it began when charles, now lord poll wrote an opening in the sunday times in which he argued, she would say and vote yes in the referendum. charles was maggie thatcher's closest collaborator inform policy. his closeness was indicated by the fact that he and his wife carla were the only other gas at the dowling street dinner party that prime minister sacher gave to president mrs. reagan on his last official visit to britain. there were six people around the table. he remained a close and devoted friend to maggie thatcher right until the day of her death. in fact he was the last run to see her. i think his opinion on this question commands therefore, respect. respect. so does robin harris, who

vigorously disputed the judgment and the london spectator. he was a head of the research department, before that one of the ghosts who help with her biography, as i did in and he helped her with her final book. he he declared adamantly, i know that margaret thatcher would have fought fort with all her strength. charles judgment was seconded by one former cabinet minister and this is thatcher's cabinet. and also by you. wayne and from the sidelines was charles moore, her more distinguished than recent biographer who, in the spectator cautiously said that he doesn't

usually speculate on what mrs. thatcher may have done about controversies and issues that took place after her death. but he concludes that in the end, yes she had firmly but privately embraced it by the end of her private life. this is a very distinguished list. i customarily take the same position as charles when asked what mrs. that you would've done the iraq wall or anything else. in the strictest sense, it is is impossible to know what someone would've done about an event after his or her death for the simple reason that the deceased did not know the circumstances in which the event takes place. and as remark, circumstances with which some would pass for nothing would in reality every political principle is discriminated and distinguished in color and a discriminating

effect. the circumstances circumstances are around every civil and political scheme is it beneficial or not to mankind. in this case, charles would presumably argue that the reforms prime minister david cameron brought back from his european tour and britain's relationship with it were a real improvement in the european union and thus favorable circumstances that would move the revived lady thatcher to both remain in the forthcoming vote. equally they would say that the reforms are so trivial that they fail to render the year pain union left to britain but even show contempt the country that would confirm lady thatcher and her desire to vote leave. in other words, the debate would become one about the wisdom or otherwise of the substantial decision as much as, or more than what mrs. thatcher would decide. if given all the facts of the case. when that happens, i'm afraid we

all bring our personal biases to making such judgments away risk furthering our own opinions on the deceased. that said, when he not observe the strictest standards and such controversies in the interest of reaching a commonsense verdict. in this case and what maggie would have done. to do that possibly we must test the reasons that these well-informed and intelligent people give for holding such opposing views. paris on his side have a more straightforward task. they simply quote statements mrs. thatcher made, and her last book, and locational public speeches and in speeches criticizing the european union.

and also what's now known as its direction of travel. some public statements go to the very brink from the e.u. and then just stop there. but she went further in private and told a number of people simply that she wanted to withdraw. charles does not deny this, but he argues that there were effectively to thatcher's who veered back and forth between her excitable rhetoric and her irrational decisions. she go against europe as a skeptic and that i quote, settle for the best she could get in european negotiations. now there's undoubtedly a great deal of truth in this picture that charles paints. on a few occasions i was in in the room when she did exactly that. she was blowing off steam and frustration at the antics of british is your pain partners and then she settled down to work out generally with charles what she had to concede to get what she wanted. sometimes she later considered that she made a mistake. charles, my view would be less than human if leaving the remaining cause he does he did not also believe that he would vote able to work out a similar

deal with her at this occasion to stay in europe on better terms. that said, which vote which version is closer to reality. let me suggest three criteria of judgment. in the first place, there were occasions when mrs. thatcher formulated in private and conceited later in public or public statements were almost invariably cautious, well calculated, and, and reflective of her intended policy. yet from her last year in office until she left public life, her speech is on the european union for almost uniformly critical on authority, on domestic policy, and on its weakening of national sovereignty. here's the next or from speech he gave to the congress of prague in 1996. i quote, the overall european union federalist project which was invented by some from the start, but which is only recent

years open, is in truth, nightmare. or, from her book statecraft, for such an unnecessary and irrational project is building a european superstate was ever embarked upon, it would seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. and britain the traditional global destiny should ever be a part of it will appear to be a political era of this doric magnitude. >> i think it's hard to accept that this consistent line of arguments over more than one decade, with the case of blowing off steam that she would discard when faced with a decision on breaking. secondly, although she changed her mind a particularly european issues, she did not zigzag on europe. she did not go back and forth in policy terms. there is a a clear trajectory in her career that takes us from being an

unenthusiastic endorser of u.k. membership in the 1975 referendum through growing disenchantment for this as prime minister, to her latest criticisms. she moved erratically but consistently in a skeptic direction. there is no indication of any reverse movement later. finally, charles is right to say that she lay the groundwork for making the european union a more habitable institution for the british, she obtained for example a financial rebate for the uk's excessive payments to brussels. it's also true that later prime minister's surrendered and gave that achievement back and surrendered still more sovereignty to brussels. again, it is hard to imagine her voting for a european legal order that which means the 17 rest with european institutions like the european court of court of justice rather than at westminster.

and the only way to remedy this is -- which inclines me of the side of the argument. it seems to me to be obvious that the woman who said, i cannot stand britain in decline, i just cannot stand it, would be appalled by the leave campaign that basis by the remaining campaign the basis it takes for the e.u. on the argument that britain, the largest economy 50 largest economy in the world thanks to her is too small people to exist outside of german run. but, i am always the on the other side of the argument so you must aim for bison my own views. that being so, let, let me try to go deeper into thatcherism rather than simply consider what mrs. thatcher the political leader set on this. in her important study of thatcherism, they argue that naturalism drew more broadly on

a distinctive english morality. a philosophically sophisticated book she argues that since medieval times, and other european nations had a your morality that joined on the classical philosophers and distinguish between reasons and thinking that reason should be vested in a government powerful enough to control the unruly passion of its citizens and to prevent the descent into conflict. the english however had developed a different view of recent that something not distinct from, or opposed to but is integrated with them in a single faculty. in this moral vision, the thatcher reason is a faculty that it enables human beings to interpret and respond to experiences they will, a courageous power that enables each person to choose differently from others. indeed differently from what he himself did yesterday.

so in individual is neither a mechanical fact of larger social causes nor a plaything of his or her own unruly passions. this is the author writes, in this picture then, the human being is never really potter's play, it is both potter and play because he necessarily decides what to make of whatever happens to him. individuals are rational beings making choices in the light of opportunities open to them, those choices should be respected. social and political institutions should not be their permanent guardians imposing orders against their desires, but arrangements to enable them to make their choices without bumping into each other, and and therefore allowing them the maximum freedom in doing so. the author believes that thatcherism is the recovery of

this almost lost social, english social vision. she. she does not believe that mrs. thatcher herself had arrived at the same vision self-consciously and thought through it's a very simple occasion's. indeed, she know she hasn't. the she hasn't. the two women were good friends. but she thinks mrs. thatcher in part because she was provincial from provincial england at heart , had helped with the remnants of this traditional morality when it was retreating before the advance of status and socialist ideas in a metropolis. mrs. thatcher was rather like an amateur singer who unable to read a note of music, but was able to hold a tune, sing songs from her youth that others have forgotten until her singing stirs their memory and they see again as they once saw them. hence, in the in the authors view to surprisingly swift revival of england's vigorous rituals and latent enterprise,

swift recovery of british industry and economy once that had given thatcher freedoms. now, one may not share this entire analysis in order to see if thatcherism and the recovery of those forgotten songs. they are not theoretical spirit of english individuality, both liberal and conservative, both patriotic and open-minded. it once encompassed all english people in both parties. now however, they knew between those who still resonate the older liberal spirit and those can bird it to the liberalism of europe. now you may have thought i argument to reason and conflict has been abstract and sympathize with you. but consider this, the founders of the european union next lucidly justify their new

political order as a means to preventing their people from following their passions into conflict. that is why they have deprived them of the kind of democratic institutions that we this country, in england tend to take for granted. yet, almost inevitably, given the paradoxes of history it is the european successes of those funny fathers who now aggravate the national conflict and social distress by their own unruly passions for uniformity in the case of the euro and the european institutions. well, that was of course mrs. thatcher's last battle. she reached skeptic conclusions on the euro more broadly on britain's european commitment. she took time to do so, as a practical politician she was always a work in progress.

always the clever scholarship girl reading a new book. feeling her way into policy areas that i sugar more confident on an issue making judgments that would generally consistent with her other political instance. the more she encountered the more suspicious she became. it seems to to her to concentrate this sensitive and legalizing in bureaucratic both. >> she believed it did not suit the british were going on the different institutions and with a different social outlaw. on this issue she there was the head of the party are behind history. if it does occur then thatcherism may be in a phase of english history leading either to an adventurous independent, english nationalism some of the

different circumstances or to a renewed closeness to the countries of the anglosphere straddling the world. if britain votes to remain in europe she will seem to have been behind history. thatcherism will will look like a glorious last stand by liberal before she's subacute into non-european identity. in my view, in either event, she would've deserved well of the people she governed for 11 years. without her, they would not be having any choice in the matter. [applause]. >> thank you very much for those beautifully crafted remarks. extremely insightful. i would like to ask you and open question. with regard to the impact on

bracketed, how do you see britain post bracketed reach and could you also, i'm president obama when he warned the british people against leaving the european union telling them they would be at the back of the queue if they dare voted for it. >> well if indeed they vote for and that will not approve process overnight there will be no change. there be essentially two years of negotiated new relationship between britain and europe and i think they'll be accomplished much more easily than many people, including president obama have argue. britain is the largest market for the goods and services of the rest of europe.

it is not in anyone's interest that they should be kind of trade war, and both sides will therefore i think act rationally once the shock is over. furthermore, even, even supposed for example the british don't reach an agreement on entry into the single markets, that doesn't mean the trade will stop, most of the world is a member of the european single market, america isn't, and america traits more with the e.u. countries so as i think there'll be a deal for the best sides they can get and i don't think it will be a terrible outcome. one of the problems i have is that they're always subjected to what the european countries wanted to do and i think they're

reasonable from the standpoint there are much more critical of regulation and i personally think the best way to deal with those questions was through the device of what's called jurisdictional constitution. they have different taxa of regulation, obviously what's works out best in those countries compete and i think will be moving to that if we eat leave the e.u. through tran2. i think that is a promise to be a massive a massive change. in the long run, think the british will tend to look through the former countries of the commonwealth. one of those countries will be america, but i i think some of the earlier will be with canada, australia, new zealand. in fact some of you may know the

work of the father of the anglosphere, he has developed a very practical details plans of which are available online without having his technical knowledge here a relatively easily development which was severed by the british decision to leave europe in the 60s and 70s. so i think it'll be with those countries first that britain finds itself moving towards. a special relationship will play its part in that, but it will not be the only relationship. there'll be a slight nervousness in the beginning and whoever is prime minister in seeming to rush to be america's best friend , because at the moment the special relationship in england is suffering something of a decline.

i think that we need to work on the but i think it will not be the very first thing that the british will do in the circumstances. they will be looking at other members of the family and when they do that, they will then feel they're in a strong position to approach the united states with suggestions of those that are working. >> thank you. and i like like to invite questions from the audience. please identify yourself and any institutional affiliation you may have when you ask a question. >> you're saying leaving the e.u. is not the same as leaving europe, can i ask what you feel the outcome of the june 23 vote will be and what you make of if british and remain in the e.u.? >> two things, one with joe cox

it has in a sense brought all of the discussion over next week to a halt and it may be this will have some affect on the results may be the turnout for example, may be producing some sentimental votes to be on her side, and may be, i've i've not gotten the latest news but the merger seems to have some sort of connection, not sure about this but with a fanatical groups. if that's the case i think they'll be a slight slight disadvantage, quite unfairly for the transfer -- brexit side. the momentum was clearly towards it and because the campaign that remains has been a failure. they have lost the battle in

that sense. i will say this, while happen as a result whether it is yes or no, whether britain remains or goes, that your pain debate has been completely transformed in british politics. we now know the people who want to leave the european union or half of the population. it may be 8%, or 52%, they may fall to 40 but they won't go below it, they may go up to 55 or 60 but it won't go about it. you cannot have half the population leaving something powerfully and with the rest of the political structure, the major parties and the bbc, the media, acting as if there is a small handful. so the european debate is being completely transformed to britain and that is a permanent change.

will have to be reflective on the conservative party. one interesting point about this debate in the last three or four months it is being conducted almost entirely within the conservative party. the other party just have not counted. first while they're not counted because they were people thought they were uniformly committed to remaining within, but that is not quite true. the labor vote contains a lot of people. who want to leave. they they are discovering this and some of the people move to brexit. now it's part of the british struck structure and though tried to see that if any of other government keep their promises that they made in the campaign. so the european, as, as i said british politics has been altered permanently by this referendum campaign, whatever the result.

and it's going to be altered in a way that i think is better because the previous result was to try to deny the plain fact that millions of british people were skeptics and to treat them as people who are really not listening. >> i know tony as you probably do and i think very highly of him. i think he is wrong on this, but it's not surprising, the entire international establishment which tony is the kind of not a member of really but nonetheless he didn't, he would've had to spend a lot more time thinking about it and really looking into it before he felt he could come out with anything on the other side. i think his main motive, he must speak for himself, i think his main concern was the unity and's debility of europe at the time when it was being and by whom. i

don't think it reached to the conclusion that a reach but it's a very serious matter and we have to respect that kind of reasoning. >> to questions up front will take together. >> i'm with competitive enterprise institute. john, you do not discuss the future of the united kingdom if we have brexit, can you comment on scotland and how that might fit into the debate? >> i'm ralph with u.s. news world and report, and curious your thoughts on whether or not europe is willing to let britain go, regardless of the vote of the referendum. as as you know here in the united states who we have the idea that is a seven political entities joining together free association from which they could withdraw an idea that was put to bed in 1865. i'm wondering if they will

actually let bring go. >> thank you. first of all it's nice to see to you again, was your question again i forgot. all the answers, we have to put hypotheticals on hypotheticals. we don't know the result of brexit yet, suppose that passes, we don't know pass in scotland. everybody says scotland will vote against it, they may, by how much? there the, who is going to bring in who's going to pass this bill to have a second referendum, it would have to be eventually agreed by the british government on the grounds that you had a referendum in scotland two years ago and we don't referendum, with a famous cartoon, you have a copy of the french constitution, sorry we don't stop comes periodicals. finally we don't know if it would get through the scottish parliament because the scottish party no longer has a majority there. most of the other parties would be opposed to leaving.

so i think it's a possibility, it may happen. my view of scottish independence referendum was that i did did not want scouts to leave the union and in turns they didn't, but if they decided to go they had a right to go. i think they would not, this is my final point here, think this gods if they wanted to go with look at the change of circumstances that they would be facing as a country leaving the u.k., with the price of oil in the basement, and that was the basis of the economic case for scottish independence, and with the spaniards determined not to have an incentive to catalonia and leaving, but by letting the scott said. so i think it is one of the scare stories which doesn't

matter, it isn't true. it's not something that will keep us awake at night. finally, because after all scouts want to go, will let them go, and they may come back. i did not recognize you and the beer, how are you? what was your question? [inaudible] >> i think there is no doubt about that. i think it's impossible to imagine the circumstance in 200 years in which a european superstate would not allow one of its members to disappear. i think were talking about a completely different world. don't know what it would be like , for the moment there is a great desire in europe to keep people inches the way it is done is not with guns, but with large checks which has the europeans rented seller. cash. i think that will be true until

germany and others run out of money, that i think it will be interesting, but i don't i don't think there'll be a battle. >> with the center for individual rights, have a question about the effect of praxis on the relationship with the european union and russia. so i'm thinking both western europe tends to be more accommodationist with your separateness and also the populist parties, the pearl exit parties of the european union tend to be accommodations on the border of russia. so, want all of this and the to have the tendency to accommodate by germany, want all of those tendencies get greater impetus,

either for the breakup of the union or for more accommodation or both? >> let me try to answer in two ways, i will talk about about nato on the one hand and secondly the countries of central europe which i think you're worried of becoming too accommodationist. well will be as european defense policy attempts to create a separate and independent european defense army for example. it is either diverse resources from data or duplicates with nato already does. it it is a federally bad thing, the americans and before the british should not have gone along with it. they should have insisted that the european defense treaty to protect the whole of europe and has done so now since 1949 is nato. we do not want, what is it accept no substitutes. those substitutes are

distraction and to the resources at a time when the europeans are not spending enough money on defense of any kind, that is what we should be saying to them. instead of of creating these fancy dress uniforms, what we need is the europeans to spend more in defense. i think that may happen as a result of the rising anxiety of ten and russia. i think britons leaving the structure would be a plus. >> . . . .