discovered last year. at the same time, i can announce there will be greater coordination of the distribution of salt so those areas that need the salt will not be denied it, and i hope i will be allowed to reassure they get theúç salt that is necessary. >> leader of the house has written to representatives of other parties on this issue. the government is content to proceed. >> you say politics have become more of the playground with government andq media. çwill the prime minister take e powers he has to bring forward to our agenda for decisions of proposals toq reform this house, will he please do that in the next few weeks? >> i think it3ad is all of our

interest to save both the standard of debate and what is discussed should reflect the views and values of this country, and all of us want to make sure the house this discussion -- discussing the issues that matter. we welcome the committee report. i know he has taken a long standing interest in these reforms. the creation of a business committee, party ballot, all are being looked at with details, and the leader of/l5 the hoes;s made clear we will have the opportunity to debate and discuss these recommendations. to make a debate in these due course. >> mr. speaker, in due course we've been waiting now for weeks. isn't it typical of this government and this prime minister? he makes a big announcement on june the 10th last year that we're going to have urgent reform in the house of commons when it comes to action, the government acts with all dispatch with a particularly arthritic slug on its way to a funeral.

will he tell us is he still -- is he still committed to urgent action to this ineffective and incompetent house or are there people on his own bench stopping it happening? >> he gives me a great deal of home that the approach is going to work. mr. speaker, i think he is part of the talks. the talks are taking place. the issues -- the issues about the creation of a business committee, party ballots for select committee membership and ballots of the chairmanship. these are issues that were recommended by the committee that was chaired by the chairman of the public administration committee.

qw3çed at c-w3f video archive to pass prime minister's questions and links to theç archive and prime ministers websites. xdtomorrow on "washington journ" a discussion of international and homegrown terrorism. also, a liggett same-sex marriage with david ma -- all look at same-sex marriage with david masci. finally, we will talk about the role of afghan civilians in taking a leadership. live said 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. -- live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. tomorrow a highway advocacy group releases a report of

traffic safety laws. also, a look at text messaging and distracted driving. live coverage starts at 11:30 eastern here on c-span. japanese prime minister hatoyama held his first news conference of the year and said his first priorities were to prevent another recession and balance the budget. it is about 25 minutes. >> the prime minister will begin with remarks. >> i would like to wish this will be a wonderful new year for all of you. we are able to realize a change in administration.

the reality is i think at this point we are now just standing on the starting line. we sought to create a new kind of politics not run by bureaucrats, but where the citizens play the leading role. with your support, our new administration is ready to achieve this on a great once in a century scale. our efforts have just begun. it has now been just over 100 days since the new administration started. i know in many ways we have not come up to your expectations. we are in a difficult process of trial and error, but i believe the people now feel politics and -- in japan have begun to change. i seriously -- sincerely believe this. my determination is to maintain my original focus as prime minister and to work together

with all citizens to create a new kind of politics, of politics that will serve your needs. this this year will be crucial. i visited the shelter. there are many people there in difficult situations. everybody who lives in japan should enjoy the minimum standard of living guaranteed by the constitution. the government should be supporting people who need a place to live, who want to work but cannot find jobs. çi hope to create the kind of politics that safeguards people's lives. many people are concerned about the economy and employment.

i know many people feel these concerns. now we cannot permit this to be a double-dip recession. we will not allow that to happen. with this determination at the end of last year, we put together an emergency economic policy response but includes money budgeted two projects to promote future security and growth. based on this, we developed a second supplementary budget for fiscal year 2009. we hope you pass this as quickly as possible so the citizens of japan can begin -- can gain a sense of prosperity. we promised many things during the election campaign in our manifest and with the three

governing parties. these include a child rearing allowance, free high school education as well as individual household income support. we have created a budget proposal that creates a solid commitment to the kinds of proposals but protect people, whether this be employment, including small businesses, child rearing, health care, long-term care, education, and the environment. when this budget is passed, i am confident people will appreciate how ebit it truly is. we will make every effort to insure the earliest possible passage of this budget.

this is our determination. as the end of last year, we led efforts to develop a growth strategy. the purchases also to empower people with hope and enthusiasm toward their work so they can manifest their full capabilities. it is easy for issues such as the environment for the aging of society to be viewed in a negative light as a problem to be dealt with. i think we have to turn around and see theseok challenges in a positive light. the environmental issue is a greater opportunity for japan to create a world class industry, for a chance to develop creative policies that help people maintain their health and can make japan the best place in the world for seniors to live.

we believe our growth strategy reflects this kind of foreign- looking psmrpective. we need to shift emphasis to the demand side of the economy. until now, people have been seen as a means for realizing economic growth. many feel the economy should exist for people's needs. this is the change in thinking we want to employment. this is why it is crucial to empower local communities to meet the challenges. the idea of the central government should do everything is out of date. whatever can be resolved at the local level shouldiñ beenw3ç. e1the zwer should come within the community. this is how we hope to change japanese society. this is what we mean by politics in which citizens take the lead.

one of the priority objectives is to create regularokç venuesr deliberations between the central and local government. we also want to affect the change from traditional subsidies to lump-sum grants given toç local communities. çwe will budget funds specifically for usea/aç by localities. çover the course of the nextq year, we want to fundamentally change the relationship between the central and local government. we want people to feel this change. this has to be done under the leadership of the elected officials, and it has to be done speedily. we are laying the groundwork so electedi] officials can work effectivelyt(. we feel that revamping the

system in preparation for this is extremely important. this is why we abolish administrative ministers. people in theç administrative levels have worked hard, and we have been able to initiate policies driven by a elected officials. we want to keep moving forward step by step in this direction. our efforts have been very well- received. we want to further expand to include regulatory and systematic reform. we would also like to include reform of independent administrative organizations and public interest corporations in this process. we would like to hear ideas about independent administration organizations no longer necessary or that could be reformed.

we also want to be more strict. it is my belief that diplomacy and security are among the most important responsibilities for the central government. in my first hundred days, i travel outside of japan on eight different occasions. it was especially important that i met with many of the top leaders in asia. i think there was able to convince them with the new administration, japan was beginning to change. i felt this very clearly from their reaction. whether the issue is climate change or nuclear disarmament and to non-proliferation, japan has something meaningful to offer. i think people are starting to feel this. i would also like to make next year the year in which, while maintaining a strong relation of

the security alliance, we emphasize the development of an east-asian community. this is one reason it is important to resolve the issue of moving the u.s. air base. we need to respect the feelings of the citizens of okinawa, but at the same time there is an existing agreement between japan and the u.s.. these are my honest feelings, and i do not believe i have been delaying on this issue. an, with the solution that will work and the americançó people. w3we have created a committee wh the three governments that i promise will debate thisç issue and produce an outcome. this is critical of the very important u.s.-japan security relationship. i hope in the future people will

look back and say it might have taken some time, but he produced a good resolution for this problem. the coming year is not just a critical year for the party ofç japan or the coalitin government. it will be a crucial year in terms of whether politics are returned to the people, whether people can feel truly confident in that regard. ççi want to make it a year in which our senior say it has become a safer,jujuáqhure place to livei], where young people looking unsuccessfully for work can say i found a job. i want this to be a year in which young children who feel strongly they are moving toward a hopeful future.

over the course of the next year, the cabinet members under myçó leadership will work to the utmost of our ability. our cabinet exists for the sake of our people. we will continue to work, keeping that time line inside. with that, i would like to close my new year's message. thank you very much. we will now have questions from the press. i will indicate the people who will be asking questions. please state your name and affiliation. please raise your hand. >> please allow me to wish you a happy new year. it is clear the biggest political battle coming up in the new year will be the house of councilors election.

i would like to ask what your stance willç be. you intend to keep the same membership, or is there a possibility you will reshuffle in preparation for the election, and is there any possibility of their would-be a simultaneous lower house election concurrent with the councilors election, and finally, i would like to ask how many seats you think you have to weigh in in the election in order to declare you have been victorious in that the election. >> as i mentioned earlier, our first priority is to pass the

budget end to safeguard the welfare of the people of japan. i want to greatly accelerate our administrationzv's efforts durig the eighthw3 year, so i am completely focused on getting -- çduring the year, so i am completely focused onç creating the kind of politics that will safeguard the well-being of the people. çeverything comes down to this. this is therefore not the time for me to makeç statements abot the coming election. in other words, i am not giving any thought to reorganizing the cabinet ahead of the e election. nor do i have any thoughts about callingç a double election for both houses. i am not thinking about that at

all at this point. our goal is to do the best for çthe people of the japan. through such efforts, we will naturally be able to see how best to compete in the the election. i am therefore not in a position at the start of the year to tell you how many seats would count as a victory. the next question please? >> the regular session will be convened this month. there are a number of bills being tabled such as to elevate it to department status. when did you think this might pass? >> your political responsibility for the incident involving contribution records will become the focus of inquiry. the opposition parties will seek further information about

how the money was used. how do you plan to respond to the inquiry staminate -- inquiries? >> first, regarding the session, various legislation's will of course require coordination with in the democratic party of japan and other parties. this is something but still needs to be worked out. çóçin order to have filled the further promote the ascendancy of elected officials over bureaucrats and to revise delaunay, these are some of the things were due to revise the law, these are some of the things we will be debating. the most important thing is to coordinate our views within the governing party'ies.

once te have been coordinated, the process of coordination is the most important thing, so we can pass the supplementary budget that will safeguard people's livelihoods'. ççokthis has to take priority. then we will start thinking about proposing and working to pass various laws. then regarding the question of my political contribution to have received, the situation surrounding this incident is just as i informed you and the end of last year whenç i held a press conference. i believe i explained everything asç well as i can to the extent of my knowledge of the even. there are things that happened in the past that i myself do not

really understand, so i can appreciate why this might not be very convincing to the people of çjapanç. i will continue to exert my best efforts to explain these matters. as for the prosecutors, they have already reached their conclusionzv, so inok terms of e question of falsified xdcontribution records, i think the matter has been settled. if this comesç up, i plan to respond as fully and carefully as popular -- possible. this is my intention. in terms of how the money is used, there is a question of how much grasp of the matter i have, but i will do my best to explain the matter. next question?

>> i am from the nikkei newspaper. you spoke a moment ago about the u.s.-japan relationship. this year will mark the 50th anniversary of the revision of the u.s. and japan security treaty. i would like to ask if you can share in concrete detail your image of the ideal u.s.-japan relationship. >> i think this year, marking the 50th anniversary of the i]treaty is aç very important . i hope we can avail ourselves of the positive opportunities it presents. in other words, security matters are at the heart of the u.s.- japan alliance, but there are many other levels of which japan and the u.s. are indispensable to each other.

i think it is important we recognize the aspects of the relationship. there are a number of global issues like climate change and nuclear non-proliferation. with regard to these issues, i hope we would have a relationship where we can assert our respective issues, where we can say what needs to be said even as we continue to enhance mutual trust, even if you have your own viewpoint, if you feel it will not be shared by the other side, so you choose to remain silent and follow with the other party wants. this is not the ideal relationship. it should be the kind of relationship in which one can say what one wants to clearly. this would improve trust within the relationship. this is the kind of u.s.-japan relationship i would like to build, and this will be an

important year on a number of different planes. >> my question is regarding the revision of the constitution. in the past you have written your proposal for a new constitution, and i like to ask your thoughts on this. in what way should the process of revision be pursued? how should debate proceed, and you have any intention to evoke the constitutional review committee? >> us a politician and a member, i naturally have my views about the constitution. this is a debate that should be held among the members oso in this sense i would like to offer my ideas and proposals for what my ideal of the constitution should be.

more than security issues, my ideas are focused on my concern for increasing regional sovereignty. it is based on the idea of a fundamental change in the relationship between the central government locality. at the same time, i am prime minister and i am obliged to uphold the constitution as it presently stands. this means my work must always be conducted from the position of of pulling the constitution. when we think along these lines -- upholding the constitution. when we think yvonne -- along these lines, we need to consider this as we further debate issues. this is critically important. i think as members, we cannot avoid debate on the constitution. at the same time, there are crucial real-life issues such as

the economy, issues of pressing ñrimportance the need to be resolved for the sake of the citizens of japan. this is the most important challenge facing the government, so while upholding the constitution, we need to have debate among the governing parties, i dealing among all parties, and this debate should be fully pursued -- ideally among all parties, and this debate should be fully pursue. therefore, it should be decided jointly through the governing and opposition parties. this is the proper way to pursue this. this will be the last question. >> i believe this is actually a question that should have been asked when your administration was first launched, but i would like to know if you intended to maintain the same cabinet lineup all the way through to the next general election? was that your intention when you

put this cabinet together, or is there any possibility you would reshuffle of your cabinet if this were required? >> this is an important question. i believe if the members of the cabinet are always changing, it undermines confidence, not only domestically, but more importantly, internationally. the cabinet is the face the country presents to the world, becomes a steward, and this makes japan less of a presence in the world. therefore, it is my hope that each of the cabinet appointments i have made will be able to continue in their post for as long as possible. i would like them to work in those positions as long as possible. i do notç think it serves the national interest to continually and casually reshuffle the cabinet.

we would like to close the press conference at this point. thank you for a much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow afternoon, remarks by the newly electedç head of e afl-cio. that is live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. ç>> the house is back in sessin tuesday, january 12. live coverage on c-span. the senate returns january 20.

they plan to consider judicial nomination and increase in federal debt. off the floor, house send senate leaders are debating the health care bill. the senate passed its bill on christmas eve, but it did not include the public auction. . exported history, art and architecture of the capital.

83 disc cd set. >> coming up next on c-span, juan zarate about national security issues. this is just over two hours. >> it is my time to welcome our first guest speaker of the day, juan zarate to the weeklong seminar>> congress and the obama presidency. this program is one that brings students from all over the united states. i have been associated with this program as a factory director for about 10 years.

this is a program which is very dear to my heart. we have consistently had some of the best speakers available and certainly this is true of juan carlos zarate. there is a scene in the movie about the watergate in bashan, all the president's men, and there is a meeting in an underground garage where an informant with the code name of deep throat tells robert redford playing bob woodward that if he wants to find out who is responsible for the burglary at the democratic headquarters, you should follow the money. we have somebody here who has followed the money. he did so in his capacity as the deputy secretary of the treasury board took this was a

job that involved one of the most complex tasks and the anti- terrorism effort. that is how these people get money, spend their money, and it takes a person with uncommon diligence and intelligence to be able to track this down, including the assets of saddam hussein. he went on from there or at the treasury department to the national security council on where he was responsible for a major part of the government's counterterrorism strategy involving international security threats, counter-narcotics, maritime security, a hostage taking, organized crime, his portfolio is a very broad one. not only has he followed the money, he followed a lot more than that.

he will become professor zarate on the 16th of may when he becomes the faculty director for the washington center's but week-long program that will run into the 21st of may in washington. we will fit him for his cap and gown when the time comes. juan carlos zarate, welcome. [applause] >> thank you. i am looking forward to being a part of the team. i want to leave us much time for open discussion as possible

because there have been so many important issues in the news, including the president's meeting yesterday with respect to the terrorism threat in how it is evolving. i want to talk for a bit to set the stage but also make sure that we have plenty of time for questions and answers. i have been quite privileged over the past eight years in the positions that i have help. in particular, the national security council over the past four years in the second term of the bush administration. i was responsible for the

national security council's strategic lookit all trans- national threats. in that context, and in my role of the treachery department, terrorist financing and financial crime, i was able to see what was important internationally in terms of security. with the few minutes i have today, i would like to talk about that change in the international landscape. i think that france so many of the issues that we're facing today. it frames so many of the problems the constructs has and the political establishment and also affects the relationship between congress and the executives which is obviously a topic of the seminar this week. in many ways, 9/11 was not just the shock to the u.s. national security system but a momentous event in ushering in a new era of international security. one in which a new paradigm was introduced. individuals, networks, and sells operating from the darkest corners of the world could have a brand geode-political impact

using the implements of mundanity -- modernity. it will continue to shape how we look at international security over the next decades and even the next century. this is an environment that is defined by factors that i think that are well-known by to put are important to put into context. increasing globalization where what happens in one country can ripple across the world and affect others, i think the recent financial crisis has only underscored the dimensions of the interconnectedness of the world. if there is a pull operation of information, good, bad, indifferent, conspiracy theories, truths, information is widely distributed and available at any corner of the world. it is an area in which the means of destruction can be

catastrophic and could be available to individuals and networks. i think the recent case of the bomber who attempted to ignite the device on the flight to detroit is a good example of individuals being able to use a relatively simple explosive devices to create catastrophic effects, even in failure, having major political ramifications. one can only imagine what would happen if terrorists or networks or to use weapons of mass destruction, and biological agents, radiological devices or even a nuclear device.

those means of destruction are out there. the information about them is widely available and it will only disseminate further in the future. in addition, i think 9/11 is well demonstrated about what to do with the game and -- yemen is that no corner of the country can be ignored. the world is so interconnected and people can connect so easily with the western world, there is no corner of the world that can be ignored. that goes not only for terrorism were you have safe havens in places like the troubled regions of western pakistan, the lawless land up somalia, but also with issues

like health were a pandemic and start in one corner of the world and rapidly spread to the entire world. we have a much different landscape given the nature of how interconnected the world is. in addition, we have a taxonomy of nation states of the world. some have great capacities, others are faltering, others bordering on being failed states and others being failed states. you have a full spectrum of countries that are in many ways on able to deal with some of the threats and issues. in some cases, either willfully blind or complicity in the threats. finally, there are issues of resources and demographics which i think become increasingly more important over the coming years, if not

decades. there is the rushed for resources. you see this in china's attempts to acquire access to oil and other precious resources around the world. we see this in the question of water resources in the middle east. another key question in the context of the game in which has -- of yemen which has diminishing water supplies. a study was put up called the grain of the great powers. it talks about the aging western powers, in particular, western europe. questions of demographics with the effects on the economy,,

national security, will continue to be important. i think that we are witnessing in new era in which albert national security is tied intimately with the international security environment around the world and in every corner of the world. in the financial crisis, for example, things that were not considered part of our national security previously. this has real world ramifications. i think the terrorism example is the easiest one to think about in this context. known actors can work in small

groups or even as individuals. they can operate from any where in the world. these are areas and the world better not governed and areas where individual actors can in essence create geopolitical have it from these regions. to have this in the context of al qaeda but you have it in other groups that are important to watch which can have geopolitical impact. there is a kashmiri group that has been responsible for many attacks in india. there are many holidays where we lost holidays because of terrorist acts.

we have to spend a lot of time dealing with the aftermath of the handiwork of some of these nefarious actors. the attack in mumbai is exactly what i am talking about. they took the city hostage for three days, and were able to do it with the regular weaponry and, with just 10 individuals, with some training and probably backing from authors, but able to in essence during q political havoc -- bring in geopolitical havoc. they have the same with hezbollah, a group that the support and opposition to israel

and has become a global terrorism group of the past 25 years. it is a group that is supported by iran and is trying to become more and more part of the social and political fabric of love and on. it is a group that has its own agenda. it is considered a state within a state. and then work of factors -- a network of factors. what is interesting about this is not that just you have these groups out there but what is important to watch in the future

is how these groups and other loose affiliations and networks, drug trafficking groups, international organized crime, smuggling networks, all interact. there is some very important and revealing cases that demonstrate this. the dea recently unsealed an indictment in which they alleged that a number of individuals tied to al qaeda in north africa or responsible for drug-trafficking from south america through west africa into europe. what you have in that case is a demonstration of what kinney fault in this new environment where international networks cannot only adapt and the concerts to elaborate and work together. you have the drug that works out of south america tied to a rocky the groups in africa affecting security issues not just in that region but also in

europe. you have the potential for disaster if you see the facilities of these groups and to work internationally. the nightmare scenario is some of these groups collectivizing for purposes of profit or radiology and use and struggle -- and use or smuggle a weapon of mass destruction. what we worried most about was al qaeda or other groups who expressed an interest in obtaining and using a weapon of mass destruction could get access to it through some of these unaffiliated networks where we know in the past, there has been devices smuggled through central asia. this is a world in which these networks and individuals can relate to very easily and very effectively using mode density -- using modernity.

this makes them incredibly potent. this also speaks to the information environment. the web 2.0 technologies of today, the ability to move money through cell phones, use a chat rooms or blogs, highlight where we are coming national security perspective. you see this in the terrorism context where you have

individuals that are radicals that are connected to other groups by the internet. the use of communicative tools but we saw in the fort hood case where the perpetrator was communicating with eight american yemeni cleric. this is a different era in terms of information. it is also a different era and the context of how social context operate. not only the bad guys can use this but also other movements can use them like the green movement in iran. the use them to organize and plan moving forward. we saw the importance of facebook and several of these moments. one of the things that we saw on the national security council was a growing movement against terrorism using these technologies. there was one movement that was incredibly effective in using facebook to draw out a global protest campaign against the terrorist organization in

colombia. but one individual was able to organize and rally people worldwide against kidnapping and other uses of violence against colombian citizens. that is an important demonstration of the power of this technology to actually impact local security issues and geopolitical security issues. one of the challenges for us and our national security complex is this new environment. the way the international security structures are established rely on a state to state, westphalia and model for how to deal with these issues. we dealt with the latter part of the 19th century and a state based model for international

relations where countries and alliances and balances of power define how we were securing ourselves as well as dealing with some of these other ills. the problem with that model in this context is that aid is not nimble enough to handle the dynamics that impact geopolitical ways in the 21st century. one of the huge challenges for any administration or national security professionals moving forward is trying to figure out what this environment looks like, not only how to defend against these cataclysmic events but how to prevent use

and implemented this new environment things like technology and facebook to align dynamics internationally and create greater security. there is the question of what to do with help with the green movement in iran estimate do want to help that. that is a good debate. there is a more fundamental question that if we did want to help and we wanted to use technology for have technology served as a lever, what would that look like? how would we use social networking? how would be used access zones for people and oppressive countries? how should we think about that is a national security issue, not to mention as global

citizens? that becomes incredibly important. how do we think about the power after ngo's that have incredible resources in parts of the world where we may not have access? groups like the a foundation that is a conglomerate of ngo's that do humanitarian work in southeast asia and africa. how do we think about them and how should we work with them and how should we leverage the power without tainting them? these are all critical questions that have yet to be answered. finally, how do we, from a legal perspective, this gets into the role of congress, how

to restructure legally how it is that the u.s. government deals with this environment? for example, under current law, the state department is restricted from messaging into the united states or to u.s. citizens. part of a broad set of rules to avoid the u.s. government from propaganda which is good. we live in a free and open society. we do not need the government propagandizing. that said, and the age of the internet, how does one define communications in the country and to american citizens and communications outside? what does that legal framework look like? and that has yet to be entered. those are the types of legal questions that need to emerge and. i think congress has a major

hand in this. i think unfortunately, the history of congressional action on national security issues hasi largely been one of being reactive, after the fact. dealing with the last case scenario. the 9/11 commission dealt with the prior event. hearings usually have to do with the last thing that happened. congress by its nature is not a nimble and not necessarily outfitted to be looking around the corner for the next threat. there are certain things that we need to look at, like how we think about information, but there are other issues that congress needs to be engaged in. one example is something the was mentioned in an op ed in the "washington post." it is the need to talk openly

between the executive branch and congress about a legal paradigm that deals with the problems of terrorism as we understand them in the 21st century. the major political debate, and some of it is rhetorical, is whether or not we are at war with terror. should the subject -- sow should the subset -- should the suspect in the detroit bombing be treated as a hostile enemy? we are neither fully and war and the classic sense of state- to-state, that with all the rules and structures that applied to that but neither are we fully in a criminal legal context. part of that has to do with the multiple feeder to mention of what we're talking about. people are shooting at each

other in places like afghanistan, but it is hard to say those are criminal environments and solely? of criminals. at the same time, it is hard to argue with our european colleagues that this is a war paradox. many of our european colleagues think the fear of radicalization is in their streets. it is very hard with the baltic will theaters at play when we talk about the terrorism threat in the 21st century to say we are in one paradigm or the other. one of the things that we have felt collectively to do as an american society is decide how we are going to deal with this threat. and deal with it in a way that appears legitimate but is constitutionally a legitimate.

much of the debate in the prior administration surrounded the military commissions act. there is a larger question of how to deal with known terrorists who are trained in connected to this international network but against whom we might not have sufficient evidence to present in a criminal or military context. what do you do about those threats? that remains an issue. you saw yesterday in the president's address when the president said that with respect to the detainees in guantanamo, given the conditions on the ground in yemen, that we would

suspend any further expand -- extradition of them to that country. you cannot return known terrorists into an active theatre of battle or environment, especially when those individuals or present a threat. i recommend you look back at this and read it. if you look back to the president paz important speech at the national archives in may, he said it very explicitly that he and we will not release individuals who are a danger to the u.s. regardless of whether or not we have enough evidence and he admits quite openly that we are going to hold people against whom we are not able to bring charges either in a criminal context or a military context. we are talking about a preventative detention model under the u.s. legal system. this is under the obama administration which has talked about bringing the rule of law into the war on terror. this is incredibly important to have the consensus and the u.s.

as to how we are coming to address this problem is moving forward. this is not just the problem of guantanamo. guantanamo is a system of this larger region a symptom of this larger issue. we need to deal with this moving forward. the problem is not going away. the president said yesterday we will need to continuously adapt to deal with the problem. i think congress and the administration have a responsibility to set forth a legal paradigm that explains this and that is constitutional and that is defensible, not just here at home but also abroad. that is something the president committed to in may. one other point with respect to how we deal with this new national security environment. i think we're not very good at figuring out how to use non- state actors and individuals

from the good side to actually affect our national security interests. how do you deal long term with the problem of this radical ideology which purports to be based in islam that is radicalizing individuals and trying people to the battlefield? what do you do about this? one of the answers, i think, at least a core part of it, is the solution and the rejection of this ideology has to come from

within communities themselves within the united states and also a broad. frankly and hopefully, many voices are starting to emerge that countered the ideology of al qaeda and the ideology of some of the violent ideologues that support their broader agenda. we do not hear much about it in the u.s. media but these are courageous voices in the muslim community beginning to emerge, many in the grass roots context, to start to oppose the al qaeda agenda. there is a group called sisters against violent extremism. they have gathered together sort of like the mothers against drunk driving movement

here. they have had an important impact in places like india and pakistan where they are organizing chapters and rallies and starting to organize people. there are groups made up of ex jihadists who have seen the light and decided to counter their old ideologies. i think that is an incredibly important movement to watch to see how they can work internationally. these are things that are happening organically. one of the problems that we had when i was in government and i think we still have is figuring out how you harness these organic trance and networks -- trends and networks that influence our national security? how do you do it in a way that does not paint them? some individuals to not want to be associated with the u.s. government. it is not just a matter of

funding them. what does that look like? how we create the conditions that helps? the challenge of the coming decade or even decades is recognizing the changes in the security environment but figuring out how we address the issues, defend ourselves against the most severe threats and then figuring out ways of positively affecting the environment to the very same dynamics. with that, i would be glad to take any questions that you have and continue the dialogue. [applause] [inaudible]

>> my question is pertaining to the fort hood massacre a few months ago. sarah palin said that she would support profiling against muslims and the army if it meant saving lives. do you agree with that? >> i cannot think profiling is the answer so i do not agree with that. i think the reality is that the vast majority ofñr muslim americans are incredible patriots loyal to the country, including those who serve in the military. i think we need to be very careful that we not allow incidents like the massacre in fort hood to create artificial provisions in our society. one of the strength of our

society pointed to this that we have a society that this integrated, populations, cultures, ethnicities, from all over the world. there is one scholar who has said that the best counter to the radical ideology that the added states has is the reality of the american dream. the fact that you can come to this country, be considered an american, thrive, have your children do well, and be a part of the society. that is incredibly important. i would also say that there are a number of important and courageous muslim americans that work in the federal government and with whom i have worked for the past eight years and continue to work. one of my close friends worked with me at serious organizations and remains a close friend. there are several muslim americans that are an incredible part of this country. >> if we had profiled in the

man at the fort hood massacre, it would have been prevented. >> i disagree. it is not a matter of profiling. it is a matter of judgment. one of the things that we need to do is refine our judgment on some of these issues. i testified to this to the senate. part of the problem i think was that people are not willing to make tough judgment calls about -- i disagree. i do not think it is a matter of profiling. i think it is a matter of judgment. i think one of the things that we need to do is refine our judgment on some of these issues. i testified to this in the senate. part of the problem i think was that people are not willing to make tough judgment calls about his service it -- his suspicious views, partly because he was a major in the military and a doctor. in many ways, he had the dual

privileges of being an officer and a medical professional in the military. there may have been some desire not to appear offensive because of his religious views. i think we need to get over that. i think we still need to ask this -- ask difficult questions up about people who are saying dangerous things. that is very different from profiling. >> thank you. >> you mentioned earlier the idea of interconnection of terrorist organizations. what is the chance of these groups organizing enough to attack the u.s. and what is the government doing to combat this? >> i have spent a lot of time

thinking of what happens beyond all keyed up. there will come a time and we are starting to see it or al qaeda is on the decline. that does not mean that the terrorism threat will disappear. al qaeda has represented the most strategic and direct threat to u.s. interests because they have had a global agenda and consider us the head of the snake. they have driven a global agenda against the u.s. using the most violent of themes. that does not mean they're not individual actors either inspired by that same ideologies or other ideologies that might want to do us harm. one concern of some analysts and is that at some point, the

environmentalist movement which has some violent tendencies, groups that have attacked individuals are set fire to developments, that there is a potential violent tendency in groups like that to ultimately then disrupt the the national security. i am not sure that i buy that. it means that we need to look beyond the current paradigm of al qaeda itself. it continues to be a threat. what is beyond that? what is beyond that is the potential of small groups of individuals organizing and using potentially catastrophic means to attack u.s. interests either

for ideological purposes or for profit. these are things that we need to constantly be thinking about and always be looking for. as a society, we must always be wary of the past threat and need to look to the near horizon for the next threat that may emerge. >> what exactly is the government doing? >> in the first instance, they lis that al qaeda has. you have seen a lot of pressure along with the government of pakistan to destroyed the base of al qaeda. you heard the president talked about going after their presence in yemen. this in the previous administration going after groups that have ties to al qaeda. there are groups in west africa

central africa that are tied to al qaeda and are working with allies to go after those groups. with respect to al qaeda, the strategy was and still is to destroy it al qaeda where it sits and wherever it takes root. with respect to international organizations and drug networks, we started to see the dea in cage much more globally. when i was at the national security council, they started a program to go after high value international marketers of weapons.

it was because of the dea that the merchant of death that was responsible for shipping weapons all of the world was ultimately arrested in thailand. you have the government trying to figure out ways to disrupt these high value networks and individuals as a way of disrupting potential networks. but it is very difficult. >> thank you. >> you mentioned earlier that globalization has increased over the last 20 years. with this chinese hegemonic status has increased as a result of it. do you believe that china could become a u.s. arrival? do you believe that this could disrupt the balance of power in today's world? >> great question. the role of china is a critical question in the coming years.

no doubt china will become an economic rival. they already are and will soon be the second largest economy in the world surpassing japan. in terms of the economic engine in china, all indications are that continued growth are expected. without a doubt, economically, there will be tension. there will be a race for

resources are round the world. the start to see chinese companies trying to acquire access to resources and foreign companies that have access to mines in particular resources of interest. they're going to be rivalries. the key question is the maturation of chinese foreign policy. are they less insular and less concerned about threats to their own power in asia and more responsible in dealing with some of these very important international threats? here is one example. in the run-up to the beijing olympics, the chinese were worried about terrorist attacks to disrupt the games being a black mark on china's reputation. we worked very hard with them and disrupted a few attacks. one attack would have occurred on an airplane heading to china. those came out of western pakistan. they were tied to al qaeda and

an islamic movement that we consider a terrorist organization. that said, china continues to see the threat of terrorism through their local landscape. they have yet to engage fully as a global partner on how these national threats affect global security. this also goes beyond the terrorist, -- terrorist context. their willingness to oppose sanctions to iran, to hurt their own commercial interests and to meet international security considerations. there is a full plate of international issues were chinese involvement would not only be helpful but would be beneficial to them. the question is when does that become national policy? >> thank you.

>> i just wanted a bit of clarification. about the detaining of potential threat individuals. >> i think there are individuals and that are trained bout of kea will continue to be a threat and they should be -- trained by al qaeda that will continue to be a threat in should be detained. some have argued for a modification of the surveillance act. i am not sure what the right framework is but i do think there has to be a way of holding such an individual even if in the current context, we cannot have enough evidence to present in a criminal context but where an executive has made the determination that they are a risk.

this is not just a pushed administration thing. this is something that president obama has recognized and something that we must have transparency on. something that has a regular review process to it. not just the danger of the individual but the environment in which that individual is. the president said they would not transfer ye individualmen to because the -- not transfer individuals to yemen because that environment is dangerous. i could not think it should be pervasive but it needs to exist. >> thank you. >> in the past few months, i have seen on news channels that certain military personnel have been put on trial for instance is that happened after they

captured in battle. i for members -- i remember seeing how they put one military person on trial for assaulting a captured terrorist. some people have said this has been hindering our war. should we be focusing more on what is really going on?

>> by what is going on, what do you mean? >> i understand that we should treat everybody equally and i do not condone what happened in guantanamo but some of these instances that may seem a bit smaller, do you agree with that but that these instances are taking away from what our focus should really be? >> i would recommend watching cbs news. i am frequently on air. did not listen to those other guys. -- to not listen to those other guys. holding people accountable for doing things that are illegal is important. we demonstrated that we are willing to do that. i think there is a problem when we oversimplify what has happened in the past. that is shorthand for the use of torture and the abuses at guantanamo. there is a bit of myth making that has happened over time. in guantanamo, most people would agree including the attorney general, it is actually

a good prison. i was on the radio program the other day with a friend of mine that has a different view but when this announcement of the illinois facility being purchased to transfer individuals there, it was argued it was a bad idea. his concern had to do with the facility. he said the facility in illinois it will not have the same facilities. they have a library, a soccer field, internet access. these other facilities are ideal. guantanamo has such a bad

reputation and it is a symbol for attention of individuals. i think part of it is a character of some of the very difficult problems we are dealing with and continue to deal with. i agree with you. we need to focus on the broader issues and hold people accountable for the things that they do that are illegal. i think we also need to be careful not to oversimplify or characterize things without facts. . .

in -- criticism of this administration is important. one of the things i am worried about long-term is that, to a certain extent, it is under siege. the release of the memos and the special prosecutor reinstated to review cases i think the cia feels a bit under seige and the reality is that the cia is on the frontlines every day. there are literally in the worst parts of the world, trying to do the most important work for national security. i do not think that people should be above criticism.

i do not think any agency in or politician should be above criticism. that is critical to our society. we need to be careful about how we do that and what we may be saying or doing. >> thank you. >> i am from columbus state university. as you know, pakistan is a nuclear power and the taliban and al qaeda have a very significant presence in pakistan in the wake of the mumbai tax and almost every other week, terrorist attack in pakistan. in the event that the pakistan government should fall, do you know of anything or any type of plan that the united states has to secure those nuclear weapons?

because if they were to fall into the hands of the taliban or hawkeye, that would be a huge national security threat. >> let me address the first part. this is a critical national security issue. when we left office, there were some of us that worry about counter-terrorism issues. pakistan really was going to be a national security issue for this administration. you mentioned all the factors. terrorist groups and individuals operate in the country. you have potentially radicalize individuals willing to help. people often forget the group of pakistan and scientists that met with osama bin laden and al qaeda before 9/11 to talk about perhaps w in the material. this is something made public

after 9/11. -- weapons of mass destruction material. that is something the public after 9/11. -- made public after 9/11. you have global terrorism meeting with sympathies within a nation state that also has nuclear capacities. pakistan in such an important country in the region that it cannot be _ enough how important it is that we help pakistan remain stable. there is a were under way in pakistan. there are bombings almost every day. there was a horrific bombing of a volleyball and the other day near western pakistan. a volleyball game the other day near western pakistan. that town is starting to cooperate with the government

and form an anti taliban militia. there is a real war underway. i think that part of the challenge that we have had is to make sure that we help them as much as possible to deal with the threat on the western front instead of worrying some much about nba. >> thank you. >> -- except wording so much about india. -- worrying so much about india. >> how do we do with nations actions? what i would frame it differently. i think israel is a key -- >> i would consent -- >> i would frame it differently. israelis are our friends and allies. we were very closely with them. -- worked very closely with them.

it is an important society. i think that our allegiance with his role is critical and i think that we have to deal with the fact that others feel threatened by the existence of israel. one of the challenges in the peace process is to get people to realize that israel has the right to exist. israel is a member of the un. i am not sure why we should feel any compunction or any problems with supporting israel. i think israel is an important ally. >> thank you. >> good morning, i am from south

lake university and my question for you is that you mentioned an opinion in the washington post. my question for you is, what would to revise in fixing this legally and to prevent the reemergence of former detainees from once again reserving -- reverting to terrorist activities. >> it needs to be recognized that the bush administration was trying to close guantanamo bay. we had to solve the problem with how to deal with the prisoners first. this administration is starting to talk about it. of the reality of the fact that the bush a ministration released 500 detainees