now and where i saw her in 2001 i just want to tell her don't worry about your right about negotiation because we will not let it happen. >> i have to add, we had 11 women leaders from afghanistan who were brought here. he was very involved with pulling this all together and michelle garsa who is a kennedy school grad and we put together 20 meetings in washington and they were featured on the news hour and at the pentagon white house, et cetera. it was striking to me, and what are you going to do? you can't have the taliban at these talks and she said, look.

the taliban, these are our family and, if my arm is hurting me, if my arm is wounded and if my arm is diseased i don't cut off my arm. put us at the table and in three days there will be a difference, and that's something that we have a very hard time understanding and imagining. please, sir. >> thank you. i'm from bangladesh in the program. one of the changes that happened to me after coming to the school and started asking all kinds of difficult questions. so i seek your indulgence -- [ indiscernible ]

the first time i heard it when you used it today after a long many years. this is the town all around so all of a sudden i came to see that town and hardly around us. so i would like to see why the evolution of this term, freedom fighter, how it's transformed and what made it in the freedom fighter and why she is a freedom fighter and yet taliban and

hamas and palestine are not. and they stated very differently. how do you use a term like freedom fighter which is so positi positive. and then you talk about other groups as terrorists. >> yes. >> is that in short? >> my understanding issy call someone freedom fighter who is fighting for something or which he or she thinks that she's not allowed to enjoy and by that definition, i tend to believe that most of the terrorists who are now band withed -- that they also have a cause they're fighting for, but we don't call them freedom fighter.

>> yes. >> i would like to see what is the difference, what is the bottom line and not call them freedom fighters. >> yes. thank you. thank you for asking it. i am going see what comments you all have because you're living in the situation, and i can answer in my own mind, but please, yes, please. and you're saying when you see freedom fighter, it's positive. it means somebody is fighting and is expressing and it's demanding their rights because there have been robbed of their rights and that is also how i understand it and that's how i use it very proudly because and the situation in south sudan as

i said erarlier, and it was ver clear, and the lows were enforced and they were never given time to develop ourselves and we are starting it now and that's why today when we talk about the reconstruction and rebuilding we say there is nothing to reconstruct. there is nothing to rebuild. we are starting fresh and all that was happening was our sources were being robbed, were being siphoned and even our oil that was discovered in south sudan and was being taken to a refinery. so we're not given an opportunity to exercise our political rights and that's why we call ourselves freedom fighters. that is what i would say, fighting for a cause, but you are not fighting for the sake of killing someone else. you are fighting someone else

who is trying on rob you of your right and you say no, i will not allow you, and it is a human right. these are freedom fighters and this is just to confront. if i were talking, like, ten years ago you would have -- you are just like any other terrorist. you are just trying to kill others. you -- you have no cause, but today that we have accepted to sit at the negotiating table discuss the issues and we sat and sat and sat for years until we managed to reach the process of elections and referendum and independence and the new country has been declared we said, fine. we don't want to fight anybody else, so that's what it means to be a freedom fighter. there are other groups that would want to fight for the circle, imposing and it's just the other side of the coin. if somebody -- it's the other side of the coin.

for me, it was fighting for my right. on the other side, somebody was bombarding villages and they were coming to take our right and these are the people who want to encroach on your right so they're the ones who want to fight and i think the difference is someone who wants to terrorize and someone wants to impose their own opinion and someone wants to rob others and these are the ones who are not freedom fighters because if you ask them, what is it? why do you want to abduct children if i go back to what they were seeing and these are young people that are supposed to go to school and that are supposed to school if, and they are inscripted into a movement or an activity which at the end of the day the children or the young people are asked to go and commit -- throw bombs and swi

suici suicidal attacks and this to me is negative, and it has to be very clear and even us as freedom fighters we don't want to be mixed as terrorists and people who want to fight and it is a positive perspective and it must be short term and you must be thinking toward a solution, and i think we tried our very best and there is a political will and that's why i think having it positive is very, very important and it must end with education and with transformation and with the faith building and development. >> i agree with everything you said and i can also, very much, i think, sympathize with your point of view in that question because, clearly, there are very few people who say, and i'm a terrorist, you know? right? that they feel like that they are also fighting for a just cause and like you said,

rerebecca, people would have been calling you a terrorist and then after the fact those terrorists become freedom fighters or the freedom fighters are terrorists in the eyes of other people. i will tell you that it is triking to me that the name of elizabeth newfer was called this evening because elizabeth worked in rwanda and she worked in bosnia, and she died in iraq. i think she would be right with me saying that intervention should have happened much, much sooner and what do we mean by intervention? we mean bombs and we mean bullets and if you stand back, and i was advocating for that, as ambassador. i was there through indiana, advocating hard, as hard as i could inside the white house for military intervention.

so what does that make me, you know? when you get to a point where the least violent option is military intervention, what a failure. what a failure, and we should never be proud of that moment when that is the only option because we could have somehow done something, even putting our lives on the line in the hundreds of thousands if that's what it took, if that's what it would have taken to earlier on have, you know, stopped, the political figures with their power grabs. so my sympathies are with you as you ask that question and i'm very, very glad that you asked. thank you. we can probably do one more. i'm getting a sign from the back and you're first, i believe. was she first or were you first?

>> who was first? >> you were first, okay. okay. sorry! you snooze you lose, you know? okay. >> i -- i want to thank you all so much for -- for sharing with us. as a journalist i've been a guest in many communities and many countries that contend with conflict, and over time you flirt a lot with cynicism, and i didn't hear a note of that tonight which reminds me that cynicism is a luxury for people who think about conflict and not for those who are forced to living with it and for me that was very powerful. so thank you. i was struck by what you said, rebecca, that after the war you need to give the eggs back to the villages to paraphrase what you said much morie lovingly thn i did. the freedom fighters, once they've ascended to power and then lost power and they talk about the right to power that they earned through fighting and

you talk about the responsibility that fighting gives you to the people that helped you get there, and i wonder if your male freedom-loving colleagues share this perspective and if it looks that way from other countries and how we can get more people thinking like you after the fact. >> what did you say? yes, it's your question because -- you said something really extraordinary. they gave us the eggs and the chickens and we're going to give them peace and stability. is that the general feeling shared, do you think? is it -- let me put it this way. is it as easy for men to get to that point as you described, as you think it is for women? >> i'm sure it's not easy, but again, with trespect to south sudan, to going back to say that

i wish we were not pushed into war and into fighting and i don't want to think that women are the angels and men are the devils. no. if you fight for something then you must carry it forward as you agree with me. we go back and take responsibility. today there is a government in south sudan and one of the things, examples i would give as how i think our government is considered even if there are males and for instance, women are with the affirmative action for women. if our men were thinking otherwise, the women would have allowed that space for us today, and affirmative action in the constitution and when it comes to filling the seats, was there

a term for the men who took our seats and our government never said no, you can't do that. it was our right to do that, so i believe they share with us the feelings that it is our right and we have to take our right. it is the same thing when we talk about having women in the covenant, for instance, or in the legislature. i remember when we were appointed by decree in august, when we're sweating, and the presidents say i know you are being looking at me. i am just talking about the political will so that we will not think all men don't have the heart, and he said for you deputy ministers, there are ten of you deputy ministers which is more than 25%. i think that was very considerate and he stated during this ceremony and said i'm happy

that i want to give your right and you fought for it and deserve it. for the full ministers and there are five of them, i know, you have a bone to pick with me. i think that was very considerate of him to think about that. also, the area of development in general, i think without government now, development is key education is key. i come back to the perspective of women and what the jgeneral says earlier for it is that we have that self-skills, and our antennas are always, you know, picking areas that are not fueled by men sometimes. so we keep vigilant and we talk about them. so we continue to sensitize and that's why in our movement and in our coalition as women, we

don't leave men out. if they don't have that self-skills -- we make sure that they are there, that we are reminding them that we give the chicken and the eggs back to the community. they know that. it's part of the policies in the government and i know that is happening and again that reminder. we have to keep it on and we have to make sure that the construction and the building and it's because the rule. you cannot rule without giving them their right and without giving them the stability they need and it's happening with our government and again, we have to keep vigilant and we have to keep reminders and we have to be persistent and we have to keep on giving people back their right. >> the general, a short comment. >> maybe from a social point of view, the first population to be vulnerable and their attacks and

their violence are children, women and elders. so women have that awareness in a natural way because they can play both roles and our role as women as strong women, and as women who have to increase the awareness in our main colleagues because men, and the next time we'll be able to see it as fast as we might do it. >> so this has been fabulous, as always. and rebecca, you ended your time in our class because i was teaching inclusive security here at the school. you ended your time in our class in an extraordinary way. would you end this forum? yea. yea. i want you to do what you did.

>> is everybody ready to shed their burdens? >> yea. >> do it. do it. do it. >> okay. i think we need to celebrate the women for the noble prize. the problem with me is i don't celebrate when i'm sitting and i like to move and it's the same way i celebrate everything and i celebrate the women and for we in the bal kcony, are we togeth? do you have the energy? remember, you are dealing with a freedom fighter. so you have to have the energy. weir going to sing a song, okay, but we really have to participate, all of us. and we've done a lot of talking and we are going to sing -- i am going to sing in simple arabic and it's about women shining, all the women are shining, but

remember, men, you are also shining with us. so, it goes this way, [ speaking foreign language ] all i want you to say is -- [ speaking foreign language ] the other thing you'll have to do, when i mention your name, i may not remember all of the names. i don't know all of the names, if you don't know you have to show us how you are really shining. you can't be shining like this, so you really have to shine. okay? okay. >> and the clapping and i will ask you at some point to stand up. [ foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[ foreign language ] [ foreign language ] [ foreign language ]

[ foreign language ] ♪ [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. thank you.

thank you. aren't they magnificent? okay, everyone. thank you so much for being here. you're watching c-span3. here's a look at what's coming up today. next, the history and use of executive power. that's followed by journalist from "the new yorker", al jazeera and "the new york times" at an award ceremony for investigative journalism. then former congressman mickey

edwards on the u.s. political system. and later a herring on racial profiling in the u.s. and with congress on break this week, we're featuring some of american history tv's weekend programs in primetime on c-span3. tonight, join us as we take a look at women's history starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. former congresswoman pat schroeder of colorado reflects on women in politics in the 1970s. at 9:00 remembering first lady pat nixon who traveled to other 75 countries during her time in the white house as an ambassador of good will. at 10:00 p.m. we exexplore harvard's relationship with women since the university's founding 375 years ago. american history tv in primetime all week on c-span3. and on c-span2, watch some of book tv's weekend programs in primetime. tonight, a look at american journalism. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern christopher daly in his book

covering america captures the culture of journalism and major news events. at 9:55, timothy gay tells the story of the war against hitler through the eyes of five reporters. ant at 11:10, beb bradley's 45-year career. book tv in primetime all week on c-span2. this weekend head to the state capitol named in honor of thomas jefferson with book tv and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri. saturday at noon eastern. literary life with book tv on c-span2. gene car han on family life inside the governor's mansion from her book "if walls could talk." also a butcher's bill ark business contract, a provisions list from ancient mess 30 tay yum to the university of

missouri's special collection. and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, on american history tv -- >> at one time in 1967 this was called the bloodest 47 acres in america. >> a former warden takes you through the historic missouri state penitentiary. also walk back through history in the halls of the missouri state capital and governor's mansion. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history of cities across america. this weekend from jefferson city saturday at noon and sunday at 5:00 eastern on c-span2 and 3. the federalist society at stanford university law school recently held a conference looking at government bureaucracy on the constitution. this panel discussion focuses on executive power. the constitution and congress. speakers include law school professors and former clinton, bush and obama administration officials. this is an 1:45.

>> testing. welcome back. thank you for joining us for our third panel. you'll be happy to note that professor yu did get his photo shoot. turns out vice president cheney did not recognize him. but he'll still have that for posterity. this panel -- first i have to make an announcement. two of our panelists professor yu and levinson will be selling their new books during the lunch hour. there will be tables set up. you can purchase them there. so that will be happening at lunch. this panel is moderated by judge thomas griffith. he no introduction. least of all because you have his bioinfo in your pact. but in brief, jeff griffith was appointed to the united states court of appeals for the

district of columbia circuit by george w. bush in 2005. he has a b.a. from brigham young university and his j.d. is from the university of virginia school of law. most notably he and his wife are the proud parents of six children and the proud grandparents of four. we're thankful to have the judge out here since he was just at stanford two weeks ago for the jay ruben clark conference. we're glad that something could entice him to come back a second time. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here. my congratulations to the conference organizers. i wish you hadn't remarked that i was out here two weeks ago in light of mr. gray's comment that the d.c. circuit is woefully underworked. so good morning. for those of us who are familiar with gathering of the federalist society, this is the obligatory

panel on the part of the constitution that seems to be of the greatest interest to federalist society event organizers everywhere. when a conservative administration is in power. those three enigmatic and inviting words in the constitution quote, the executive power close quote. as the moderator of this distinguished panel i plan on being seen more than heard. but i do feel obliged to answer a question i know that my colleague and friend judge silverman would want me to answer before going further. what are you doing on a panel about the executive power? you see my colleagues on the d.c. circuit for whom i have boundless admiration make two assumptions about me, neither of which is correct. first, that my time as senate legal counsel predisposes me to side with the congress in disputes between thepo