we understand they don't need any legislation enacted to do this, to call on outside technical experts on their issues, i imagine with them getting clearances, they would have to take steps to make that happen. that's certainly something the board supported as well. >> marcy wheeler. >> did i convince you on 309? >> i can see both sides of the issue. >> okay. >> but i think -- >> that's an improvement. >> if odni had not spent so much time making less than credible arguments about ratification on section 215, it wouldn't be such a concern. >> we can agree to disagree on that. >> okay. i want to know if you have any special insight of the fbi oversight. i have concerns about nsa, that's where we've all been focusing for year and a half. but fbi -- steve mentioned the ig report, that happened to be the 215 report which somehow

didn't come out before usa freedom was voted on. fbi sort of obstinately refuses to tag the source of their data. some of which comes from nsa. which nsa has had to do since 2009. so the same things that nsa is required to do, just for spying, fbi is not required to do, yet they're the ones throwing people in jail. so -- >> i mean, we made as a nation a policy choice after 9/11, there was a lot of discussion about should we set up a separate domestic intelligence agency. and the choice was made, no, we're going to keep it in the fbi. that necessarily means we've got an agency that does both intelligence and law enforcement. that creates a lot of complications, particularly in an environment where every commission that's looked at every terrorist attack has said, we need to share a greater flow of information back and forth. i'm not really in a position --

i don't have that much -- because the fbi is part of the department of justice, i don't have the same visibility of the oversight there that i do with respect to the nsa, but the problems are am much more complicated because of the dual functions of the fbi. >> bill of rights defense committee. i have a question for mr. litt. so last year, your boss, in exchange with senator wyden, did intentionally, at least on sfi indicate, what would you say to the millions of americans around the country that is concerned with overpolicing and their exposure to hyper vigilant justice where people are being murdered in the streets with impunit impunity, that officials are,

whether it's the cia hacking the senate, when there's impunity for espionage operations and lying to the people's representatives without legal consequence, what is your message to the communities of color that are overpoliced? >> i'm not going to talk about community of color. i do know something about director clapper. i don't know if you've had a chance to read the letters i wrote to "the new york times" and the "new yorker" about this. it is utterly wrong to say that he lied. there's a famous quote from justice oliver wendell holmes that says even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and tripped over. lying means you're saying a conscious falsehood intentional. i can tell you he made a mistake. he acknowledged making a mistake. he was at a hearing -- i can't hear what you're saying. >> did it take a revelation of classified --

>> the question is, did he do it in public, did he correct it in public before the snowden disclosures? the answer is he didn't. maybe he got bad advice from his lawyer on this. but we talked about this immediately after the hearing, because we went to him and said, you know, that's not right. because of the 215 program. which he had not focused on. if you read his answer, you'll see he's clearly thinking of the 702 program. that's clear from what he says. we talked about, can we correct this or not. and the problem was, and i had conversations with senator wyden's staffer about this, and the problem was to correct this on the public record, where he essentially would have had to reveal the program that was still classified. it is, a, wrong, and b, kind of annoying to me that people continue to repeat this statement that he lied. because he didn't. and so to go on to your question, i would say that the difference between this and other things, there was not a crime committed here. >> in retrospect do you think

that it should have been handled differently? >> yes. that's what i said, he may have gotten bad advice from his lawyer. >> in retrospect what would have been the right way to handle it? >> send a classified letter to the committee immediately thereafter saying, i misspoke, but i can't reveal it on the public record. one of the things i regret in five and a half years on the job is that i did not advise the dni to do that. >> in a situation like that, i think that in addition to a -- if there's public testimony, there should at least be some public marker that there is a classified addendum in that hearing. >> the problem is, there shouldn't be questions asked about classified hearings -- classified programs in public hearings. >> senator bird agrees with you there, so you're probably okay. >> thank you.

i'm adam with the american library association. great panel. mr. litt, i appreciated your comment a couple of moments ago that you thought that additional transparency and additional expertise being provided to the fisa court was important. may i hope that you feel equally strongly that it's important for the fisa court to have the availability of special advocates. that was a provision in the very late stages of the usa freedom act negotiation, that uncomfortable rumors that it might get treated away. it would be helpful, to be perfectly blunt, in the coming debate to have your endorsement of the advocate to the civil liberties. >> i think actually the house bill also had a special provision for special advocates. it just had a sort of different trigger threshold. i would say that my endorsement is probably considerably less important than the fact that the president of the united states has endorsed it. so i don't think there was any likelihood it was going to be traded away and i don't think it's going to be traded away.

at least not by the administration. i have no idea, frankly, what's going to happen to this bill in the next congress. there may be somebody sitting a couple of rows behind you has a better knowledge of that than i do. but i think we would -- from my perspective i would like to see that bill introduced and passed. the bill as a whole, including that provision. >> yes? yellow shirt. >> i just wanted to follow up with that comment about the usa freedom act. while many of the provisions changed in section 215, require action by congress, other provisions notably government transparency requirements, and company reporting could be enacted by the administration, which as mr. litt said, has endorsed the bill today. so i'm wondering, do you think

that the administration should and has it engaged in any thought to enacting those provisions on its own right now as opposed to waiting for a congressional option? >> i guess i always feel uncomfortable talking about what the administration may or may not be considering. i kind of tend to think that things that are being considered should be kept under wraps until a decision is made. >> i would like to ask if we actually trust our national security information with the israelis and the british. and yet we don't allow tenure to a political professor and a

ph.d. why can someone in an american institution not be trusted rather than a british or israel agent. >> assuming that question is directed at me, i don't know enough about the fact that you're talking about to offer an opinion. >> the gentleman in the back? >> thanks. i'm daniel schuman with crew. can you all hear me? okay. this question is for mr. litt, but also directed to other members of the panel. a couple of days ago we had a major speech by both the chairman and former chairman of the intelligence committee. where they raised a number of concerns in the context of the torture report, but with the cia. they said, for example, that the cia provided extensive amounts of inaccurate information about the operation of the program, and the effectiveness to the white house, the doj, the

congress, the cia, inspector general, the media and the american public. that was by senator feinstein. senator rockefeller who is the former chair said, the study is also the story of the breakdown in our system of governance that allows the country to deviate in a horrific way. one of this was through the act of subversion of meaningful congressional oversight. this is the former chair of the senate intelligence committee, who then went on to say, it's clear that the briefings that you referred to earlier, were not meant to answer any questions, but intended only to provide cover to the administration, to the cia, and that the more the committee dug, the more the committee found and they were both shocking and deeply troubling. these statements that were just recently made, were made in the context of the torture report. but of course, you know, it could reasonably infer this could apply to other matters

such as surveillance. would you address questions of credibility for the cia and intelligence community, particularly when you have the chairman current and former of the intelligence committees saying themselves that they find the cia to be less than forthcoming, less than credible, to be misleading both to themselves and their overseers within the executive branch? >> i guess i would refer you to director brennan's report yesterday. >> i would like to add that i understand, of course, where the question is coming from. but i would be reluctant to paint the intelligence oversight committees as either heroes or victims. i think they have a lot to answer for themselves, but they have not yet attempted to address. they are not, you know, passive bystanders, they're the ones writing the checks for where we've been for the last dozen

years. and there hasn't been any kind of exercise in self-criticism or self-awareness about where their own oversight fell short. and i think that's a serious defect on their part. including in the torture report. by all means, attack the cia. but why not ask, you know, where were we, why didn't we do a better job, and if we were misled, why weren't we in a better position to compensate for that. and exercise more leadership. on torture, on surveillance, on all kinds of issues. >> in answer to that, i think they did get really inaccurate briefings and did get shut out. my main criticism of intelligence oversight in that period is that this was actually starting to come out into the press. you know, yes, senator feinstein didn't get briefed on the cia program until, you know, i think

a few hours before president bush disclosed it. but i knew about it, right? you just have to read the newspapers. that said, senator rockefeller did try to investigate. i don't think he tried to -- i don't think he pursued it as strongly as he could, but he did ask to investigate, and the chair of the senate intelligence committee at the time, pat roberts, a republican, shot it down. and, you know, accused rockefeller of being accused of attacking our intelligence personnel. the intelligence committee contains multitudes, it contains ron white and mark udall and richard burr and saxby chambliss. there are wide differences in the leadership changes. if you increase the power of individual members of the committee, and individual members of congress to ask for oversight, because there's so much more variation, that means that you don't want it to rest in the hands of one person,

whether there's oversight or not. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> thanks. i'm elen nakashima with the "washington post." not to gang up on you, bob -- >> i knew what i was getting in for. >> thanks. about section 215 bulk collection. and president obama in his january speech made clear that his preference would be to have the government end the bulk collection of phone metadata, and asked congress to work with him on it. it's a year later, still no progress. so what obstacles are there to the administration moving on its own administratively to end that nsa collection of the phone metadata now on its own? i know it would be preferable to have that enshrined in legislation, but why can't he move now to do it?

and hopefully congress will follow suit? what obstacles are there? >> i think if you go back into what the president said, he said he would like to end the collection of -- the bulk collection and replace it with something that has the same utility. without the legislative reform, we cannot do something that creates the same operation of utility. >> what exactly are you -- >> well, if you look at the provisions of the usa freedom act, and what it requires, we can't do that without legislation as it currently exists. and so the -- if congress -- i mean, i promise you that the president wants to stop this. but he also doesn't want to deprive the intelligence community of the capability. >> are you referring to the capability to do contact chaining or hops? is that something you need to mandate by law on the companies? >> there are a variety of things that need to be done in the legislation, and that were done in the legislation. we spent a lot of time working

both with the congress and, frankly, with privacy and civil liberties groups and so on, so we ended up in a place where assuming that the telephone companies continue their current practices with retaining data, we would be able to replicate the operation of the utility. but we couldn't do it without the bill. >> i think our time is -- was there -- >> i just want to comment. that sounds very foreign to me. again, i worked as an analyst for over 30 years. and just before we left nsa, and i'm talking about bill benny, myself and a few others, made some huge technology break-throughs. that did not require special legislation to put into effect. but we were swept aside by money interests, faulty thinking, about what a proper analysis business process is. and i'm telling you, there is nothing preventing the

government from asking us, who know how to do this, and safeguard privacy, and catch bad guys in big data, from inviting us in to a conversation, and i will tell you, we've never been asked. not by congress, not by the executive, no one. >> the problems are not technology. >> that's all i want to say. >> the problems are not technical. >> they are partially technical. i'll leave it to a lawyer to tell you otherwise. >> i'm afraid this is one -- i hope you'll continue later. join me in thanking our panel. [ applause ] especially i thank bob for coming and letting us throw tomatoes at him for an hour. [ applause ] and siobhan for her acts of journalism.

[ applause ] this month is the tenth anniversary of our sunday primetime program q&a. and we're featuring an encore presentation of one q&a from each year. highlighting authors, historians, journalists, filmmakers and leading public policy thinkers, from 2005 kenneth feinberg's interview on the victim compensation fund. lonny bunch on the importance of the african-american experience to u.s. history. from 2007, robert novak on his 50 years of reporting in washington. from 2008, the value of higher education in america. and from 2009, conservative commentator s.e. cupp. a decade of compelling conversations, december 22nd through the 26th. at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now, an update from the pentagon from press secretary john kirby. in the briefing, he says that iraq will receive mine-resistant vehicles to deal with the

roadside bombs set by isis. >> good afternoon, everybody. only seven minutes late today. i know you've seen the secretary's statement but i would like to go over it again, with respect to the terrorist attack on the pakistani school. on behalf of all the men and women of the united states defense department, the secretary extends his deepest condolences to the people of pakistan's following today's ruthless attack on the school in peshawar. the heartless slaughter of the innocent students and teachers was an act of pure cowardess. the united states remains instead fast to ensure security in the region. we stand with the pakistani, we honor their sacrifices and join

the victims in their mourning. >> can you bring us up to date on iraq, the troops that are going to be going in. now that the funding has been approved. can you give us an idea of sort of the pace and over what time period can we expect to see the additional shl- >> it's part of the -- it's not been signed into law. we're grateful for the support we got from congress. and we know it's coming. there have been no -- they are -- we're still working through sourcing solutions on all of -- or as many of those troops as possible. so no troops have been given orders to go yet. nor have any actually started the process of deploying. but the sourcing solutions are being worked out. as i said last time, general austin has taken advantage of resources that he has in the region already, to begin to set the stage for that. so he's done a couple of things. he's got a small number that are already doing some advise and

assist operations and missions there in anbar, a small number, 50, 60, something like that. and then he has another nearly 200 or so that are beginning to build out the infrastructure, and set the conditions so that when we fall into those four other locations to do more hands-on training with iraqi brigades, they'll be ready. while no training has started yet, no formal training, we are doing advise and assist in keeping with that program and setting the stage for the trainers that will follow. and i would like to add, you know, as i said before, that many other nations are planning to contribute players as well. this won't be a u.s. mission. >> what's the target, i guess even a general target date for when the troops might be in and the training might start? >> i'm not aware of a specific date on the calendar of when it will start. it will not be a shotgun start.

we'll start it when and where we're able to over the next few months. but i think it's going to be a period of several months before we're actually ready to get it launched and get it going. >> several months for the beginning? >> i think so. i think so. but again, we'll keep you updated. always i said last week, we'll keep you updated as we know. certainly when units are deployed, you'll know. because we always inform you and the public about that. so once we're at that position, we'll be able to talk to it. jamie? >> can we go back to pakistan, the attack for a moment? >> sure. >> what is the ability of the taliban to mount these kinds of high-profile mass casualty attacks, say, about the u.s. commitment to reduce the number of u.s. and international troops down to very small number next year? how is that going to work? >> i'd be careful, jamie, drawing a direct correlation or line between the two.

between their ability to conduct these kinds of attacks inside pakistan, and our mission in afghanistan, and what that's going to become. nothing has changed about the fact that the combat mission ends at the end of this month and we'll begin a new mission in afghanistan. nothing changes about the fact that we're going to be pursuing a different kind of security relationship with afghanistan. different kind of defense relationship, not just one built on internal security, but to helping to advise, train and assist them as they improve their own capabilities. and nothing changes as a result -- or nothing from today's attack changes. there's no changes to our relationship with pakistan, as a result of today's deadly and terrible attack on that school. this is a threat that the pakistani people have been facing now for years. we've long talked about the fact that it represents a common threat we both face and share.

and one of the reasons why we've tried so hard to get the relationship with pakistan on to solid footing, and there's been understand and downs, and there's things we haven't agreed on, and there certainly have been tense moments in that situation, but this attack today is a grim reminder that the threat is very real, and the pakistani people continue to suffer at the hands of that threat. we've certainly made it clear to pakistan we're willing to help in the wake of this attack, should they want, or need any. there's been no request for u.s. assistance. we certainly made it obvious that we're willing to assist in any way we can. but as terrible as it is, it's not going to change our commitment to afghanistan going forward, or the strategy over the next couple of years, and the missions we're going to be conducting in afghanistan. and it doesn't change the kind of relationship we want to pursue with pakistan. >> so the taliban -- this attack was in pakistan obviously.

the taliban has also conducted a series of attacks in afghanistan. we all saw what happened in iraq. when iraq was seriously challenged by insurgents within the country, and the forces there were not up to the case. what gives you confidence that this strategy that is being employed in pakistan is going to work. that the taliban is able to strike this way? >> several things give us more confidence, jamie. let's start in afghanistan. the afghan national security forces are very capable. they are already leading security operations in their country. and for all intents and purposes, are conducting all the combat missions inside afghanistan. and they're doing it quite well. they secured not one, but two elections this year that the taliban were unable to disrupt or affect in any major way. yes, there's been sporadic violence inside kabul, i'm not minimizing that. but that's also somewhat

expected. as the mission gets ready to come to an end there, that the taliban would try to divert attention from the fact that real progress has been made and that afghanistan is a more safe and secure environment than it was, even just six months ago. it wasn't that we haven't expected that they would do this kind of thing. it is still a dangerous place. i'm not -- nobody's walking away from the fact that afghanistan still remains a dangerous place. which is why we are heartened by the fact we have aly lateral security agreement, which is why we're working our allies and partners for the support mission that will start in january. and it's why we, as i said earlier, we want to continue to have a more normal defense relationship with afghanistan than what we've had over the last 10 or 12 years. in pakistan, again, this is not a new threat. the pakistani people have faced, i wouldn't say there's -- this isn't about confidence or

arrogance, but the pakistani military has also proven quite adept at this threat in the last several years. they have inflicted a lot of casualties on the taliban in the border region. and they continue to do that. as a matter of fact, as you well know, the taliban claimed responsibility as an act of retribution for the pressure put on them by the pakistani military as of late. this is a military, an armed force that is very capable and competent at dealing with this. i suspect you'll continue to see them go after that threat. but nobody's minimizing the fact that the taliban still remains organized and still remains capable of doing this kind of thing. i think when you see something like what happens today, and the recent attacks we've seen in kabul, i think it just steels all of us. not just afghans, not just pakistanis, not just americans, but all the coalition members, to make sure we continue to stay dedicated going into '15.

>> i just want to follow up to something you said. you point out that this attack was a response to the pakistan, to their military -- >> they claimed it was. they claimed it was. >> that's pretty obvious. so should we expect to see then more attacks like this as a result of the military push that they've made, that the u.s. has -- >> you'd have to ask the taliban what their intentions are, justin. what's the alternative, to just do nothing every time a terrorist group decides to mount an attack like this? to just turn and walk away? i don't think that's good for anybody. it's not only practical, it wouldn't be an effective response. i think you have to continue to apply pressure on these groups across a spectrum of capabilities, not just military capabilities. i think you'll continue to see all of us do that. phil? go ahead. >> four and a half years ago, we had a training effort there

with -- when relations were better. we are now entering a period of time where pakistan is, as you pointed out, taking more aggressive hand toward extremists. what is the possibility to, you know, restart that more hands-on relationship that was derailed by various events over the last four and a half years, in terms of more active partnership between the u.s. and pakistani forces in pakistan? >> well, obviously this is a matter of discussion between our two governments. as i said, we continue to offer whatever help we can to pakistan. i wouldn't get ahead of decisions that haven't been made or discussions that haven't been conducted. but i can't answer that speculative question. what i can say is that we continue to want to, and to pursue a good productive defense and security relationship with pakistan. and i think you'll see that that

ends up being the case. but it has to be -- it's a sovereign country and these have to be decisions that they and the people of pakistan want to make. phil? >> on the future in afghanistan, with the u.s. military presence there, one of the missions is going to be counterterrorism. and as we're all reacting to this terrorist attack, i think we're all wondering with some kind of terrorism capability in afghanistan for the u.s. next year, would terrorist attacks by the afghan taliban count? would american troops be assigned to go after them if they committed these bombing attacks, or raids, or other spectacular attacks? >> let's revisit the counterterrorism authority. we talked about this in the past. we will still retain the ability to conduct counterterrorism operations against terrorist networks, al qaeda and affiliates and other terror groups that directly threaten

our people, or our allies there in afghanistan. so we still have -- we have those authorities. nothing's changed about that. we've also said that we're not going to target taliban simply by virtue of the fact that they're taliban. so being a member of the taliban doesn't mean that the united states is going to prosecute operations against you for that reason alone. that said, and we've also been clear, that a member of the taliban who undertakes missions against us, or our afghan partners, by that act alone, renders himself vulnerable and liable to u.s. action. so it's not about just being a member of the taliban, it's about what you're doing. if you're going to conduct terrorist attacks, it doesn't

matter what i.d. card you're carrying. we have the authority to act in our own self-defense, and self-defense of our afghan partners. >> there's a report yesterday in a british newspaper about the taliban basically being in control of large sections of southern afghanistan, i guess the power of the distribution network, and they're charging locals for power and also for protection to keep the lights on basically. and so as fewer american troops are in afghanistan, and the taliban feels emboldened to do these kind of things and potentially conduct terrorist attacks, how will you limit the response to counterterrorism response that you just talked about so it punishes attacks or responds to aggression, but couldn't continue the combat role that the u.s. wants to end in afghanistan? >> let's not get too far ahead on hypotheticals. we have the authorities we need to protect our people, protect our afghan partners if we need to. and certainly the capabilities

are resident there, and will be going into 2015, to do exactly that. more importantly, and this gets lost in the discussion about this, is you have a bigger and more robust, more capable afghan national security force ready and able to defend their citizens and their people. and they're doing that, and they're doing it quite well. frankly, that's been the role since the beginning is to get them to the point where they can defend their people, and their government and their borders. and they are more capable. it doesn't mean they don't need some help. we talked about enabling capabilities that we'll support them. but that's the real answer to whatever threat the taliban poses to the sovereign state of afghanistan. it's the afghan national security forces. and the help that we're going to give them as a result. yeah, john? >> has the sourcing been worked out for this 1,000-troop bridging force that's going to be in afghanistan early next year? >> there's really no need for a sourcing solution, john, because what will happen is, general campbell will just not draw down

to 9,800 at the outset. he'll draw down to whatever number above that that he needs inside that extra 1,000. it may not be a full 1,000. it may not be 10,800. but he has the authority now to keep in country that number which he believes he needs in order to buy space and time for our allies to come forward with their sources solutioning. the real sourcing solutions are on our allies, not us. >> do you know how long they'll be staying? >> i don't know that. they might have thought through that math, i just don't have that level of detail. >> a target number? the coalition and u.s.? >> you mean beyond the -- for the -- >> beyond the 9,800. >> the total resolute support number i think was about 12,000. we can go back and check the numbers on that. but that was back when nato endorsed and signed up to the resolute support mission, it's about 12,000 total, i think. we can get you an exact figure

on that. >> [ inaudible ]. if there are school children? and do you see a difference between pakistani taliban and taliban in afghanistan? because what the question today is about that, saying they're pakistani taliban. taliban is the taliban, whether it's pakistani or afghani. >> your first question, i'm sure you don't expect me to try to defend the murder and the slaughter of innocent kids at a school. so i'm not even going to try to do that. on your question about the taliban, and we've said this before, we don't look at them as one homogenous group.

do they share certain ideologies? yes. and a radical view of the muslim faith? yes. and a belief that terror and murder and violence is a way to pursue those goals? yes. but we also recognize that there are subgroups within those who call themselves taliban who have different, more specific goals and objectives, whether it's geographically bound or ideologically bound. i'm not an expert on all the different groups, but we know some are more directed at afghanistan, they direct their activities in afghanistan, some direct their efforts more inside pakistan against the pakistani government and pakistani people. the point is that they -- it's all terrorism. and it's all a common threat that we face along that spine between afghanistan and pakistan. a border which exists only on the map as you look at it, and not necessarily in the eyes of the people that live there.

and certainly not in the eyes of the terrorists that use it as safe haven and sanctuary, which is why we've been for so long pursuing a tri-apartheid relationship, between us and afghanistan and pakistan. there's been several -- we've had good discussions very recently, in the last month or so between officials of all three governments. there's more work to do. but it's got to be a comprehensive approach that we take in the region. >> that 15-year-old malala was attacked by the taliban, and now she's a nobel peace prize winner. do you think that -- >> again, i am not going to -- i'm not going to stoop to try to answer a question about these despicable motivations. i don't know. but it's just a barbaric thing that they did here. and slaughtering innocent little kids going to school.

and there's no way to justify that. i'm simply not even going to try. >> counterterrorism issues, post-sydney, even the australian prime minister now says the perpetrator in sydney had a long criminal, violent past, was mentally unstable, and counterterrorism officials looked at several recent cases, see this trend of mental instability and criminal violent behavior in so many so-called lone wolf terror attacks. what i wanted to ask you, as you begin to look at this scenario, does it lead to any re-thinking of the conventional counterterrorism strategy against isis, against the isis lone wolf attack, if so many of these people just basically are mentally violent criminals? as we just saw in sydney.

>>. >> is the counterterrorism strategy pursued by the u.s. military, by the intelligence community, is that enough? or maybe it's a new era? >> i think we've recognized it's a new era for quite some time, barb. there's been greater cooperation in our agency and internationally between militaries, intelligence agencies, diplomatic organizations, and nongovernmental organizations than i've ever seen before. and if we learned nothing from 9/11, it's the need to try to break down some of the stove pipes and walls between those kinds of agencies. there's a limit -- i can't speak for law enforcement. because some of this is clearly in a law enforcement lane. the fact that an individual self-radicalizes for whatever reason, and/or has mental health issues that lead them to pursue violence against innocent people. sometimes that has a military

component, sometimes it doesn't. from a military perspective, we very much believe that there are capabilities we can lend to counterterrorism efforts that are important and effective. we've seen that. we've seen it in iraq, and we're seeing it in afghanistan. we're certainly seeing it in isil. we recognize this, there is a limit to what military operations and military intelligence can do. particularly when you talk about a home-grown threat, or an individual, say a foreign fighter who goes and gets radicalized and then would come back and visit violence upon his or her own civilian population. there's certainly a limit. and we recognize that, to what the military can do. even against an organized, well-led, pretty well resourced terrorist threat like isil. we recognize there's limits. we've been saying that all along. we've conducted more than 1,200 air strikes against isil. and we know we've certainly put

them on the defense. they're definitely not in the same position they were before, yet they still exist, they still pose a threat. we just talked about the taliban and the threat that they can still pose from a security perspective, even after 12, 13 years of fighting in afghanistan. so you have to be mindful of the limits as well. >> on the taliban question, after the end of this year. so if the policy is to no longer go after taliban, unless they pose a threat to the u.s., or the u.s. allies, just to be crystal clear, does that let omar off the hook? or do you still go after him? what would happen if you came across him and he's just sitting there, some partnership -- >> sitting drinking a mai-tai or something like that? i wouldn't get into a hypothetical here. we also -- we don't talk about

targeting ahead of the fact, or what we will or won't do. that's just not a good place for me to get into. i think i would just go back to what we've said before is the policy, that just being a member of the taliban doesn't make one susceptible to u.s. military operations. going foreward, in 2015 and beyond, but posing a threat to u.s., our allied interests in afghanistan. >> i believe, somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but omar is under the rewards for justice program. from the u.s. government, as well as a number of other taliban and al qaeda senior operatives believed to be either in afghanistan or pakistan, talking about that area. you don't seem to be saying that mullah omar, it's not hypothetical, we're coming to the end of the year, is he still

a target? is he still someone the u.s. wants to take into custody? or with this new policy, does mullah omar now get a walk? >> to the degree anybody continues the threat, u.s. personnel, or personnel or allies, and our interests over there, they will remain susceptible to u.s. military operations. >> is he and the other people on this list, are they no longer liable for their past acts in afghanistan? >> i can't -- i don't know if i can answer that question. as the recognized leader of the taliban, to the degree the taliban still poses a threat, or poses a threat to us or to our allies, they will continue to be prosecuted by u.s. military

operations. i can't really make it any simpler than that. >> could you give us more details about the training program of the iraqi forces? how many u.s. members would be involved in that program? and also, if you are aware of any contacts between the u.s. military and the sunni tribal leaders in iraq? >> okay, joe, hold on a second. we talked about the fact that we don't have -- we don't have the sourcing solutions on the 1,500 additional -- it would be up to 1,500. i think i actually put this out when we initially announced this. you'll have roughly advise and assist mission, 630, roughly, again, it may not go that high.

some of those will be enablers. there will be people who do logistics, command and control. in the building partner capacity mission, the training mission, about 870 of those. again, those numbers are flexible. because we may not go up to that 1,500. the training hasn't begun yet. i think i dealt with the status when i answered lee's question. on your other question, there's been no direct -- from the few advisers that we have out in anbar, there's been no direct involvement with sunni tribal leaders, from them. now, they are advising iraqi leaders. and one of the things that we're working with iraqi leaders on is to encourage their outreach to sunni tribal leaders. but there's been no direct contact out there between the very small number of advance advisers that we have there and sunni tribal leaders. that said, now, in the office of security cooperation in iraq, out of baghdad, which has had a footprint there since 2011, when we ended our combat operations

there in iraq, they have had some contact with -- as the due course of their duties, they have had some contact with tribal -- sunni tribal leaders in that part of iraq. but there's been no direct advising, assisting, training of sunni tribal leaders. >> excuse me, just a follow-up. there is a plan to arm the tribal -- the sunni tribes? >> it is something that we've been in discussion with iraqi leaders about. and we've stressed the importance of inclusiveness here, with the sunni tribal leaders. >> but is there a plan to equip and arm the tribes in iraq? >> no, we said before, that could be one iteration of the plan down the road. but it wasn't going to be at the outset. the outset is to train iraqi brigades, nine, and then we have opened the door, we said it could be possible that later on down the road, there may be an equipping program, or a part of

it that would include some equipping of sunni tribes. but that that was something that hadn't been decided yet. it was something under discussion. and we just aren't at that point right now. >> in the centcom, there are several reporters here from the pentagon. the centcom leadership there told us that it was up to the iraqi government to reach out to the sunni leaders, and not the u.s. is the u.s. going to be involved in trying to revive a sunni awakening? or is it going to be up to the iraqis to do that? >> jim, as i said to joe, this is something we want the iraqis to do. we're not in direct communication and coordination with the sunni tribal leaders right now. we want the iraqis to do that. in fact, that's part and parcel of the whole advise and assist mission itself is to help them

be more inclusive, to be more comprehensive, and to be better at what they're doing, in terms of defending their own people out there in anbar. so there's no plans right now for a new awakening, as you saw during the operation in iraqi freedom. we want the iraqis to do that. we were encouraging prime minister maliki to do that before he left office. >> since the sunni -- since some of the sunni leaders have already made it clear that they still don't trust the iraqi leadership in baghdad, do you see a role for the u.s. to serve as some kind of middle man, a mediator? >> well, you know, now you're asking a question that may be better put to my colleagues at the state department. i don't see a u.s. military role in that regard. again, we want to advise and assist them to be more inclusive, and for them to be better at what they're doing. that's where the focus is on, is

helping them get to that point where they're more inclusive of sunni tribal leaders. >> what was secretary hagel's assessment of the iraqi progress on the front that mick has been asking about, about how well the new government is doing, reaching out to the sunni? >> i think the secretary -- as he said to you guys when we left baghdad, he came away from those meetings encouraged, that iraqi leaders understand the importance of doing exactly that, of being more inclusive and reaching out to the sunni tribes. but the secretary also understands that that requires some energy. and some leadership out there in baghdad. and again, he's encouraged that they understand the need for it, and that they will exert that leadership. but he knows that this is -- you know, this is a new government. so this is new ground that they have to tread. >> i just want to make sure i understand barbara's line of questioning about the taliban.

it's going to be al qaeda, and the mission was expanded next year, so the u.s. military would be able to go after taliban fighters if they posed direct -- >> can i stop you there for a >> we have authorities in terrorism going in there right now. >> the plan was to sort of lift it. the plan now is they aren't going to limit it, they're just going to continue doing what they're doing. does this mean, under that phrasing, if they're partnering the security of the u.s. and aurour allies, is that any different than currently we're allowed to do, or are we wiping the slate clean, that just because they are taliban that we have to go after them, but are we wiping

the slate clear that in order for the u.s. to go after someone, does that mean they're going to have to have done something in the next year, or is it because you can go after them continually because of the things they have already done? >> it's not quite as binary that either one of your sides of your question would suggest. so if i could just look at where we are now. it's the middle of december, the mission officially, the combat mission officially ends at the end of the month, for all intents and purposes, it's ended. essentially we are not engaged

in combat missions in afghanistan. it doesn't mean that between now and december 31st that u.s. troops won't be involved in conventional combat with the taliban. very well could happen. what i'm just saying is that the development of afghan national security no, sirs has reached a pace and the confidence that you have, they are for all intents and purposes as you see here, in full combat lead inside the country. so going into 2015, all that really changes between now and the first of january is officially on paper we say that mission's over. just -- on january 2, just like here on december -- what is it the 15th today? the 16th? sorry. so just like today, january 2, if our troops are threatened, directly threatened, and it doesn't matter as i said before, what id card they're carrying, if there's a direct threat to

our troops, they have the right to self-defense and to defend themselves and to defend their afghan partner. same is true on january 2. if there's a direct threat, not just to us, but to afghan partners in the field, and we have the ability and the resources at hand to help come to their defense, we'll do that. and it doesn't much matter at that point who's shooting at us. but what changes fundamentally from today, the 16th to the 2 and. just by being a member of the taliban on january 2, just being a member of the taliban doesn't automatically make you a target. it doesn't matter who you are, it's what you do that make a difference. >> so now beginning on january 2, it would be up to the afghans to go after -- they will not aggressively go after taliban leaders that they have been going after all this time?

>> that's correct, unless there is a direct threat that's posed. >> but in the omar case, doesn't the 2001 authorization for military force against those who harbored and those who perpetuated the 9/11 terrorist attacks apply? so for omar, there's a congressional law that allows you to go after him. >> i think i answered that as best i could. to the degree that someone represents a direct threat, they still are liable for that kind of prosecution from us. >> so are you saying, a direct threat ---i guess what i'm trying to figure out, he continues to be a direct threat, but as of the end of this year, does that still constitution what you said just previously, which is as you said, swung who is a threat -- they find themselves in a situation where they're threatened, they have to the the ability to respond, to

find out where someone is, does the 2001 authorization still uphold and they have been able to do it or does this new authorization hold. >> i tell you what, let me take the question for the record rather than to further confuse you. let me take that one for the record. john? >> i think what we're after is does the taliban have to be shooting bullets or could taliban on the front lines still be target. >> if they're posing a direct threat, we have the authorities we need to try to alleviate and mitigate that threat. let's not get too down in the weeds as if someone is whizzing bullets by someone's head. if we have a direct threat, we have that responsibility for our troops, they have to be able to defend themselves. first of all, i wouldn't discuss rules of engagement from the podium anyway. but even if i was inclined to

two that, i don't know that it would be valuable to do it in a public setting. if we have a direct threat, we have the abilities to defend ourselves and our allies. >> i got the question, i'm not a lawyer, let me try to get you a better answer to that. >> it has put out public statements defining what the new mission supposedly is. so it's confusing as to how you define a direct threat. is a direct threat a senior figure in the taliban or not? >> understood. i said i would take it for the record, and i'll two the best i can to get back to you. >> does a direct threat include afghanistan? out in the kandahar or jalalabad, if it comes under a direct threat. >> if we have the ability and

the resources available, we have the authorities to do that, i will remind you, that we're coming down -- because there very well could be areas where we aren't in a position to come to the aid and the assistance as our numbers get smaller and as bases get closed, we are not even as we speak now, we are not in as many places and certainly not in as many places as we were five years ago, two years ago. >> so is that's war by an allah cart men u you. we can't help them here but we can help them there. how can the combat mission be over. >> the combat mission is over on december 31st. we have the ability to defend ourselves and afghan partner who is come under threat from, it doesn't matter who.

if we can we'll proassistance. i think the role goal in afghanistan, is that afghan national security forces that are competent, able, resourced and led to defend their own people. this is a sovereign country, and we get into this discussion about iraq all the time. well, you know, you can't, you i guys are angry because u you can't embed. we don't have the resources in there. it's iraqi sovereign territory, it's up to the iraqi people and the iraqi government to defend themselves. it will be and it is now. but it will certainly be going forward up to the afghan people to fund, resource, train and lead their own afghan national security forces to defend them from the threat that that state will face. just like any state has that right and responsibility. we're missing the large i point here, that we have reach ee eed period of transition in afghanistan, a period that we have been working for a long

time for them to have the able to do this the and we should be focused on and that not the individual specific details under which americans could come under fire and how we would respond? >> there was a point earlier today about u.s. troops and al assad coming in contact with isis forces, is that correct? >> i have seen the press reports, i have no seen no operational reports, we have no report of direct or indirect fire coming into al assad or the troops that are there. >> the personnel that are there are fine? >> everybody's accounted for, no injuries that we're aware of. again we have nothing to confirm the press reports that there's been any fire, indirect or otherwise taken at our troops that are working on al assad. i have no reporting that suggests there was any fire taken at al assad. >> there's been reports, i'm wondering if you might be able

to confirm this that a u.s. vetted pow operator in syria by the name of abu omar has defected and took u.s. weapons and hardware with him? >> that's the first i have heard of that. we'll have to look into it and get back to you. >> two things, how large is ash carter's trance discussion team and can you give us a sense of some of the people on it? >> i don't have the -- i don't have the exact list of people. it's a cross departmental team that is being read by a mr. lumpkin, he's got several people on it. i mean i can get you a better number, i just don't have that handy. it's not enormous, but it's people across the on opz the secretary of --

>> 2016 budget a lock? a lot of people care about that subject. do you have a sense of, are you finished with the budget? >> we care about it too. we are still working very much on the budget commission telling us it's not final, as far as we know. >> will it go above the sequestration legal. >> as u i said before, we have to plan for multiple outcomes. >> a wide look at senate here where members are voting on the house passed tax extenders bill. the measure has already received the 60 votes needed for passage. the legislation will extend tax breaks that -- the senate will work on nominations, already today the chamber confirmed tony

blanken as under secretary of state. coming up on cspan 3, the 2014 nobel peace prize ceremony, and a hearing on whether genetically modified food should be labeled. with live coverage of the u.s. house on cspan and the senate on cspan 2, here on cspan 3 we complement that coverage with relevant congressional events. on the weekend, cspan is the home of -- the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events, american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past, history bookshelf, the presidency, looking at the policies and

legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the 70s. cspan 3, create bid your local tv industry and funded by your cable or satellite provider. now the nobel peace prize ceremony held in oslo, norway. this year is prize was awarded to 17 malala yousafsai and kailash satyarthi.

>> this date september 10 is the day on which alfred labelle died and it is also the national human rights day. december 10, this year is quite special. this year the focus is on the rights of the young people among us, thanks to the two prize winners. they have already met several thousand norwegian children outside the city hall this morning. for children and young people are very important in the celebration of this year's nobel peace prize. every year since 1919, a nobel peace prize ceremony has taken place in the oslo city hall, and today as always, the main hall is festive and ready to welcome international and national

guests. the two nobel laureates malala yousafsai and kailash satyarthi will -- 17-year-old malala yousafsai is the youngest recipient of the peace prize ever, she has already made an impression all over the world in her fight for the right of education for girls. she was shot not even this murderous attempt could stop her work for educating young people. kailash satyarthi is a children's rights activist who has won many prizes for his work. in 1987, he funded an organization against child slavery.

several thousand child workers have been set free thanks to the work of satyarthi. the oslo city hall as usual makes a beautiful setting for the traditional ceremony. the flowers decorating the halls today are orchids and many others. every year a norwegian artist is given the honor of signing the nobel diploma which accompanies the prize. the artist this year is among

the invited guests today, natural. and now, outside the courtyard, the two laureates are arriving. they are welcomed as usual by the head of the nobel committee. and secretary of the committee. the prize winners have come directly from the royalal palace where they have met the king and queen. the visitors had a full day with

a full program. and also the other members of the nobel committee here to receive them. and then now, the nobel laure e laureates have some moments before entering the hall, leaving their coats and getting ready for the important ceremony. there's already a close connection between the two

recipients, they call themselves spiritual father and daughter. and u now they are signing the guest book of the city hall of oslo. now ready to welcome the prize winners into the hall are four trumpeters from the royal navy band. the first guests started to arrive about an hour ago and have had time to admire the norwegian art in the hall. here is the official norway on the left in the hall, prime minister, and several other

members of the norwegian cabinet and many parliament members. here are some of the artists to be presented tomorrow at the traditional nobel concert. and so the finalists or the recipien recipients, malala yousafsai's father, mother and brothers.

so on that side, where the friends on the right side of the hall, here is the family of kailash satyarthi, also present. and now we're waiting for the procession for the recipients to come in. there are beautiful norwegian art examples in the hall, the big painting dominates the world in the south. important happenings in norwegian history are depicted.

on the other side of the hall, is scenes from norwegian working life. >> the norwegian royal family are arriving at the city hall. it is an old tradition that the royal family's presence at this ceremony, again being welcomed by the leader and the secretary of the nobel committee.

his majesty, the king, majesty, the queen, and crown prince and princess are arriving. we hear the 49 bells of the city hall towers. they play an important role in today's ceremony as they do in the daily life 09 people of the city of oslo. now the trumpeters are ready. ♪ ♪

>> their seats are in the front of the hall. now for the royal family. ♪ ♪

>> and now with the royals in their places, the ceremony can start. and it starts, has every year, with music.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> your majesties, your royal

highnesses, excellencexcellencis and gentlemen. a confidence exists in the world that extends beyond all boundaries which is independent of religion, culture and social adherence. it says that children have arrived to childhood, that children should go to school and not be forced to work. they should not start their lives as slaves of others. this world conscience can find no better expression than through kailash satyarthi and malala yousafsai.

the dear nobel peace laureates, a stronger ex -- would be difficult to find except through you two. we are honored to have you here, congratulations. the road to democracy and freedom is paved with knowledge. taliban and others dislike knowledge because they know it's

an important condition for freedom. attendance at school, especially by girls, deprives such forces. but nothing should be further from islam than using suicide bombs against their coup religions or shooting at a young girl whose only demands was to be allowed to go to school. violence and oppression cannot be justified in any region. islam, christianity, hinduism, protect life and cannot be used to take lives. the two whom we honor here today stand very firm on this point. they live according to what

mahatma ghandi would have said. there are purposes i would have died for, there are no purposes i would have killed for. they are not only behind the desk, but in practice. your majesties, your highnesses, ladies and gentlemen, kailash satyarthi's vision is quite simple, putting an end to child slavery. this has been satyarthi's overriding aim. he has worked at several different levels to achieve it. at the grass roots level, he has

achieved the release of some 80,000 children, sometimes in very dynamic circumstances. he has often been brutally attacked, it takes little fantasy to imagine the reaction when he and his co-workers go into worn down factories in india to set the children free. powerful interests have profited from child labor that do not give up without a -- satyarthi himself has adhered to nonviolence. the child laborers are not infrequently recruited by kidnapping, but respect often also hired how by parent who is cannot manage their debts. enslavement through debts remains very widespread, not only in india, but also in many other countries. satyarthi insists that it is not

poverty that leads to child labor, child labor maintains poverty. carrying it from generation to generation, school attendance releases people and young politics. satyarthi has developed a model for hard labor used children can be rehabilitated and educated. the most important instrument taking direct action to set children free.

satyarthi's struggle is marred by inventiveness, established in 1994, now it is a striking example. it is an international ---all by simple means check that the rug has not been made by child laborers, a network of inspectors have been set up to ensure that the system works. the children get to go to school and the adult workers earn a fair wage, exporters and importers pay a small fee to keep up this system of inspections and controls. efforts are on hand to ---on the

17th of january, 1998, satyarthi embarked on his biggest project, the global march against child labor, 7 million children and adults took part in this march which expanded many different countries and regions. the march ended up in front of the ilo headquarters. the convention has currently been modified by 172 countries, no ilo convention has been ratified more quickly. ilo conventions, 138 and 182 and the u.n. convention on the rights of the child now form the basis of the worldwide struggle

against child labor and for education. but nevertheless remains to be done. there are at least 60 million child laborers in india alone. most of them in farming, so if the country ratified the two ilo conventions, that would be a big step in the right direction. there are currently more than 68 million child laborers worldwide. in the year 2000, the figure because 78 million. in this as in so many other areas, things are thus moving in the right direction. and often much faster than we think. satyarthi indeed believes that child labor can be more or less eliminated in his own lifetime.

everyone here shares this hope. more majesty's, royal highnesses and ladies and gentlemen. malala yousafsai is the youngest peace prize laureate of all time. her work has become known all over the world. when she was 11 or 12, she began to write a blog for the bbc about what it was like to live in the valley in northwest pakistan, under heavy pressure from the taliban and with only amvalent support from the

pakistani authorities. the schools had to close, especially girls schools. malala was sure of her mission from the start, girls have a self-evident right of education. her courage is almost indescribable. we all know what happened on the 9th of october, 2012, when she was 15, a man climbed into the school bus and asked for malala. he fired shots at her, injuring her most severely, her life was saved and she decided to continue her struggle for girls education, anger from the taliban, no secret of her intention to try again.

pakistan's population numbers 200 million. one quarter are between 5 and 16 years old. it's not just taliban that seeks to keep girls away from school, because schools have been built without walls, without running water, and without toilets. and at least indoctrine nation is important of the skills and

knowledge needed in order to cope in a modern world. the teachers too, often only the minimum qualification needed. we appreciate very much that pakistani authorities have awarded the peace prize to malala yousafsai, the best gift they could give her the dramatic improvements in the country's education system. that would benefit the whole of pakistan, and ladies and gentlemen, few things provide a large economic and social -- than girls education. this lodgics applies all over the world. but they seem to be the individual person at the center of all politipolitics, the one

girls are excluded, are not a burden and not a threat to society, they present an enormous unused resource. here in europe, too such lodger is important. even here, it's not that children not receive education or obliged to work. far too many find nonuseful education or find no opportunities for work. we need to leave this negative situation and instead give the younger generation, your hope, which is probably the strongest defense against extremism. young people must be able to see into the future instead of being kept by dark forces and dark sorts.

they create extremists and to divide the world into us and then. the laureates show us something else. a young girl and a somewhat older man, one from pakistan, and one from india, one muslim, the other hindu, both symbols of what the world needs, mainly more unity. fraternity between the nations that offer to the nobels forever.

the laureates have downlied that if they can bring -- pakistanis so near and yet so distant, closer to another, this would add an extra dimension to the prize and we all share this hope. ladies and gentlemen, we need people like satyarthi and yousafsai that have the courage to fight. few have the courage to live according to mahatma ghandi's principles who say i accept only one tire ranlt in the world and that is still the small vice within me. we others have perhaps become

accustomed of hearing the voices of others, through social media or looking over economic interests or political interests. we often forget to listen to the voice that talks to us about justice. but we should bear in mind, freedom and justice have never been ceremonial. believe fortunately in a world that avoids all the violence and extremism we see around us. it is marked by an increasing

humanity. the people who once walked in darkness, are no longer prepared to do so. this has become an irrevocable part of our -- people like malala yousafsai and kailash satyarthi are among those people. i cannot explain how much i have struggled to find the right and the best words to say how much the norwegian nobel committee admires you. i will only say this at the end. you build for all the future two

new jewels in the history of the nobel peace prize, the role of campaigning a struggling people, people two have created the global conscience of which we can all be bearers. the call for freedom and justice, and the most important thing is to set children and young people free. thank you for your attention.

u ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ . >> your majesties, your royal

highnesses, ladies and gentlemen, now i call upon kailash satyarthi to come forward to receive the gold medal and the diploma.

>> and now i call upon malala yousafsai to come forward to receive the gold medal and the diploma. please come forward.

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ u u ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ [ applause ]

. >> your majesties, your highnesses, ladies and gentlemen, now, i call upon noble peace prize laureate, please come forward to give your lecture. majesties, royal highnesses, my dear daughter malala. excellence sees, dear brother, tom harkin, sisters and

brothers. [ speaking in foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] [ applause ]

[ speak being foreigning foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ]

>> friends, noble committee inviting me to present a lecture. respectfully, i am unable to do that, because i am presenting here, the sound of silence. the cry of innocence, and the face of invisibility. those children who are left behind. that's why, i have kept an empty chair as to remind us.

as a reminder. i have come here only to share the voices and dreams of our children. because they are all our children. i have looked into their frighteppfrigh frightened and exhausted eyes. i have held their injured bodies and have felt their broken spirits. 20 years ago, in the foot hills, a small, skinny child. he asked me, is the world so

poor, instead of forcing me to take a gun. a child soldier that was kidnapped boy an extremist militia. as his first lesson, he was forced to kill his friends and family. he asked me, what is my fault? 12 years ago, a child murder from the streets of colombia, trafficked, and slaved, raped, asked me this.

i never had a dream. can my child have one? friends, all the great religions teach us to care for our children. this is s jesus said, let the children come to me. do not hinder me. the kingdom of god belongs to them. >> friends, there is no greater violence than to deny the dreams of our children. therefore, i refuse to accept that all the temples and mosque and pray houses have no places for the dreams of our children. i refuse to accept that