disclosure, we impose new tough to score and requirements for political ads. everybody is familiar with the rules that have politicians appear on camera at the end of their ads. for any corporation that decides to buy air time in an effort to influence an election, we will impose the same stand by your ad requirements on that company's ceo even if the company funnels money through a shell group or theories resources with other corporations, our bill would require them to the identifying any at the put on the air. we will drill down to the ultimate funder of the expenditure. the ceo who goes on the air will be the one who has put in the most money.

>> third, the bill is going to include the unit's rate required. the corporation will run ads on broadcast cable and satellite television -- the candidate in the political party is given a fair chance to respond by receiving the lowest ad rate for that medium market. we have found this to be very, very effective in terms of the so-called millionaire's. we are applying the same types of rules here in this constitution. overall, the supreme court goes

the decision opened up -- sorry. overall, the supreme court goes a decision -- supreme court's decision opens a floodgate. it helps recapture the congressmen -- recapture. the congressmen and i will be working diligently to repackage those holes as quickly as possible. >> i want to thank my friend chuck for all his leadership on this issue and leading together so quickly to respond to what was a radical supreme court decision that does open the floodgates to big corporate special-interest money being pumped directly into elections in an unrestricted manner. we do need to move very quickly to blunt to the corrosive impact that the decision will have on

our democracy. i want to thank senator schumer for his leadership. thank the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, for putting together a task force. i want to thank the members of the task force and others that have participated because we have taken the ideas of the task force and the ideas for many bills you have probably seen it and have been introduced, incorporating many of them within this framework. i want to talk briefly about the two provisions dealing with preventing foreign interests from dumping millions of dollars in the u.s. elections. as senator schumer pointed out, you have many u.s. corporations that are based in the united states that are controlled by for an interesting. whether it is hugo chavez, many others. i hope that every american would

agree that we don't want foreign interests spending money to influence the outcome of american elections. understandably, those interests but before an interesting -- put the foreign interests first. we protect those entities from spending that corporate money in these elections. our test is threefold. if the foreign ownership is 20% or more, that constitutes a corporation controlled by a foreign interest. or if a majority of their board of directors is made up of foreign principals, that also constitutes a foreign controlled interest. and finally, there is an objective test in those cases where you have ownership below 20%, but it is clear that the

effect of decision making with respect to political activities and the expenditure of funds for political activities is made by foreign interests. those are the components that will be considered in the legislation for determining where the ban will apply. çówith respect to whatçó we call paid to play transactions, every american would agree that we don't want federal contractors that are getting taxpayer dollars that will turn around and use those dollars to fund campaigns to support or oppose the federal contractors had been treated differently and other parts of the world. that treatment is with respect to the expenditures that we find here.

by definition, we are receiving taxpayer dollars, and you can't turn around and spend money to elect or defeat candidates directly through the corporate funds. if you have received tarp money, if your aig or a big wall street firm, until you pay back those, you cannot be using your corporate funds to try to defeat or elect a candidate. we don't want a big firm like aig to be able to take taxpayer dollars and turn around and try to use those dollars to defeat candidates that support regulating wall street or other big financial interests. that is just wrong, and we don't want to make sure that that -- and we want to make sure that that doesn't happen. but nisei word about the disclosure provisions.

they are extremely important. every country should agree that we should know who is paying for the political advertising. thev%ter has a right to know about the disclosure, and when it comes to corporate spending that we're talking about, shareholders also have a right to know. they are required -- we are also going to be lookingñrñi to be finding some sort of shareholder approval in the house. that is a possibility down the road to be added to this if they can devise a meaningful structure to accomplish that purpose. and so that will be included if they can work something out that we all think makes sense going

forward. i want to thank members of the task force, think senator schumer, it is important that we move expeditiously. the supreme court decision will begin to open those floodgates of big corporate special- interest money. it is not in the interest of the american people. we need to act quickly. >> what provisions would apply to unions as well? ñiñr>> every provision would apy the unions, i believe. every single one. because the law, by the way -- we don't want a corporation to be able to hide behind things by channeling money behind one of these organizations. >> you talked about the argument to shareholder approval. canada also applied union membership? >> that is one of the difficult

issues. in both our bodies, the banking committee is working with our colleagues to see what we can come up with. yes? >> any republican support? >> we believe we will get some republican support here. it is very hard for me to see how people would be against disclosure or allowing foreign corporations to influence our political process, or even allowing domestic corporations to try to use the new supreme court decision to get government contracts and money. we try to limit this. what we are trying to do is limit it in the area that will have broad consensus. we are hopeful that we can get some of the republican colleagues to be supportive. we spent most of our time drafting this legislation. we wanted to leave the the broad outlines and specific out lines today.

so that we can get reaction from people while we are on recess. we will continue to reach out in the house, trying to obtain support from every member. the senator said it should not be a partisan issue. if you look at the public service, it is very clear. the independents alike believe this is a bad decision. the fact that we have -- the supreme court decision came down and senator mccain said he was disappointed in the supreme court's decision. he then said he wasn't sure whether or not he would be able to do anything about it. we have provided a very targeted option for doing something about it. we hope your republican colleagues will join us. >> the disclosure requirements,

duties require of the disclose expenditures at the same time, or will the fcc -- will the sec be posting this stuff? >> whether it is a separate group or for the ad itself, it has to be posted within 24 hours. >> [inaudible] can you give any more detail about the white house level of involvement? [inaudible] >> the white house has been very much involved. they have been generally supportive, and when we actually introduce legislative language, we are letting the state have suggestions. soon, hopefully by the time we're ready to come back here, i

expect we would get white house support for it. that is what would have to be decided. we want to move quickly. speaker pelosi did that as well, to put in a proposal quickly. thank you, everybody. >> the schumer jobs proposal -- çó>> we have to go. >> do know any way that it might beçó crated -- >> it is not supposed to be a panacea. it is supposed to be quick and immediate to affect corporations that has seen -- if companies are about to say they are going to hire someone, this will push them over the edge. we expect it will be very successful. there are payrolls, but you just

don't know how many. it is aimed at the unemployed. a small business that has five people that use this, you don't have the fallout -- you don't have to hire an accountant and apply for next year's taxes. that is what is from previous -- >> [inaudible] >> i am not going to talk about that. i don't make any. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a few moments, the president of iran says his country is enriching uranium, but is not building a nuclear bomb. in a little less than half an hour, the white house press secretary is asked about u.s. relations with iran. after that, a group of senators led by john mccain proposed new sanctions against iran for human-rights private -- human rights violations. and then, national security and foreign policy. foreign policy analyst robin wright joins us on "washington journal" tomorrow morning to discuss u.s. relations with iran. we will focus on the economy and jobs withçó republican rep marca blackburn and bruce reed, head

of the democratic leadership council. we're live, every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> it is the only collection of american presidential portraits created by one artist. a renowned painter and sculptor, chaz fagan. see the entire sculpture collection on-line at c- span.org. >> iranian president ahmadinejad at a rally in tirahn on the thirty first anniversary of the islamic revolution. they say that iran is enriching uranium but not producing a nuclear bomb. the coverage and english translation are courtesy of the rpess t -- of press tv.

>> i want to say a few words about the recent issues between us and them. i said that they have opposed iranian progress since the past. at every juncture, they tried to spread false comments, and they tried to get under our skin. they used this as a pretext. they support such treacherous elements in the region, and at

the same time, they are chanting the slogan that they want to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. they seek to resist the resignation process. they want to actually hamper of the iranian nation from achieving technology. i do not want to just shed light on all the time mentioned. at a particular time, they said men. when we started our operation, they tried to yell at us, and they shouted and made use of all instruments of their disposal for a certain time. they said you should shut down

your activities, but due to the resistance of the iranian nation and the supreme leader and also due to blessings of the time, our nation and then shoot obtain victory. -- the nation manage to obtain victory. later, they said they want to cooperate. in geneva, they said they want to cooperate. we welcome it. we said, you have tried to counter the iranian nation. why do not you engage in interaction instead of -- what was the result? why don't you engage in interaction instead? we tried to provide them with an opportunity in order to

correct the%)u)uu"e. everyone should know. you know that based on regulations, in case the member is in need of 20% fuel, all the members are obliged to help. unconditionally, they can just received the costs. other members must provide the fuel. if the further into debt research -- if it is based on research, all members are obliged to cooperate. in order to give them an opportunity to correct their attitude and actually take them

down the correct path, we gave a letter and said for the reactor we are in need of 20% fuel. whoever wants to provide us with the fuel can go ahead. they informed us that two countries are prepared to help -- the united states and russia. we said that is ok. we have to sit at the table and negotiate. when negotiations started, they said you have to return enriched fuel. we said this is not obligatory. the field belongs to ourselves, and based on regulations, you have to give us the fuel and receive the money. they insist for the hundredth time, to show our good will, we can calculate the amount of fuel that must be given, the amount that must be received, and you can to the enrichment.

the fuel is here, and as soon as the 20% enrichment is completed, we can engage in the process, but they said no. first, you should give us the fuel. you take away the fuel, and later we are going to obtain the fuel. see what happens. we are the purchasers, and based on the iaea regulations, they should provide us that unconditionally. it is a tradition that if you want to order a commodity if you are actually the one who set the condition. they acted in opposite way here. it is the hegemonic nature. they insisted first you should give us the fuel. we're going to take the fuel,

and later we are going to provide you the fuel, and they started to go on with attitude. they said they wanted to take emperor from manufacturing a nuclear bomb. this is the literature of the prolongs to the era and the bush era. our response was clear. we said, we do not trust you. they started is engaging in propaganda. they issued a resolution, and once they tarnish the prestige of the agency do to theirxd

expansionist policies. they are obliged to provideçó us with the fuel. if they do not want to give us the fuel, they can say they do not want to give us the fuel. why are you claiming you want to hamper iraq from making an atomic bomb? ñi-- iran from making an atomic bomb? they even said beyond this is thought through the propaganda by the media, they thought they weakened the iranian nation and now they can impose their views. they said they are going to give more chance to iran to except the imposed wishes of the westerners, and they used the threatening tone, and they once again showed they have no honesty. they proved our lack of

confidence towards them is true, and we have the right to live trusted them. ñrthey said they are going to give us the opportunity to set a deadline, and our response was clear. we told them the iranian nation will never give in to bullying remarks and has no fear. xd we told them that the fuel for the reactor is aimed of medical purposes, and in fact, it is

going to produce medicine for 800,000 people, and it is running out. we do not have much time. we have to obtain the fuel. for this reason, we told them we only have two or three months. if you just provide us with the fuel, that is ok, but if you do not provide us with the fuel, we are going to produce the fuel ourselves. either give us 20% fuel and receive the money, or give the food of rigid the fuel and received 3.5%. once again, they lost their chance. we are aware of what they think, and they thought the iranian nation has been weekened. -- weakened. they start acting in a joking manner.

they made remarks, then they did not care about the patients. you remember several of the go -- several months ago virus was mutated to sell a medicine. this was the nature of those who wanted to limit purity in human lives. they did not give us the fuel, and we were forced to produce the fuel ourselves. i want to tell you the day before yesterday the process for producing 20% fuel started, and i want to tell you that -- i want to probably announce that the news by the organization was that the first convoy of the 21st -- of the film was produced.

due to the blessings of god, this process will continue to meet the demands of the country. i want to mention a couple of points. the first is as soon as the production process is started, iran cannot produce the fuel. they started marketing its --ñrr they started repeating their remarks that are of no value anymore, but when they realized it was serious, they started

threatening us again. it seems they have forgotten today they are in a weaker position. they are in an illogical and lawless position. they are not in a position to make such remarks, and then expect the iranian nation to accept what they save. the second region what they've say. -- a except what they --

accept what they say. whoever provides us with the fuel, we're going to purchase. we have no problem. you have a problem with iran becoming a nuclear state, and you should correct your behavior. some say it does not produce medicine, and they are going to sell it to us, and they say, what is the problem with iran producing radial medicine, and you can purchase it from us. and we're going to produce this medicine, and you can purchase it from us. why shouldn't we purchase it from you. >> boo! >> they speak in such a way as if several hundred kilos of interest cranium -- enriched uranium is taken from iran, but would be a major victory for them.

we are going to give the fuel to you. we're going to give you your wage, and you will see the ongoing progress of the iranian nation is not plan to be hampered. we are manufacturing several kilos. we are stockpiling them, and in the near future, we're going to increase threefold our daily production. they should do something in order to create a trust in the iranian nation and other nations. they should listen carefully. if we were in their place, to show our honesty, we would have obtained 20% fuel. that is the regulation enacted by the, and they could have

observed the regulation, so a number of nations could realize there is not a bit of honesty among them. the service is this said that iran with 20% fuel will get closer to manufacturing of a nuclear bomb. i think they are either uninformed, or they pretend to be uninformed or illiterate. of course we have some signals that the people in lower classes of organizations do not

give them sufficient organization. we do not believe the president of a country such as the u.s., britain, or the head of germany is so uninformed and illiterate in such a way they would not know all of our fuel is kept under the monitoring of the agency. they are transferred under the agency's monitoring. is it possible to manufacture a nuclear bomb under supervision? if it is possible, announced this so everyone would know. meanwhile, they all know that even right now we have the capability to produce fuel with high enrichment. why do they think that by producing 20% in richmond, why do they think -- 20% and

richmond, why do they think that would have been bonilla -- 20% enrichment, why do they think that what happened? we have no enrichment. they should listen carefully that we are not a liar and a coward like you. you know that the activity going on is not the path of manufacturing of bomb.

if you do not know, you should hire honest and skilled scientists and experts to explain what is being done. it is not the path for manufacturing of bombed very good all of our activity is transparent -- it is not the path for manufacturing obama. all of our activity is transferred -- mfg. a bomb. all of our activity is transparent. those worried about the future and think the nation needs a nuclear bomb. i want to draw your attention to the point that they should know our nation is so courageous that in case it intends to make a nuclear bomb, it will openly announce and make the bomb with no fear. when we say we do not manufacture a bomb, we mean it. we do not manufacture a bomb.

we do not believe in it, but if we want to manufacture it, if you think the nuclear bomb can save you, you can keep it. if you think a nuclear bomb can save you, you can keep it for yourself. you should know you are mistaken. we are open late announcing we oppose your management -- openly announcing we oppose your management. we oppose your policy of imposing your view.

we oppose your blood during policies. we oppose york region we oppose your plundering -- we oppose your blundering policies. we have the courage to announce this, and you should have the courage to say you want to dominate the region, as the iranian nation does not permit you to do so. this is the source of dispute. the whole world should know they want to dominate this region, and the iranian nation will never allow them to dominate this region.

we are spreading unreel remarks and causing distress. you want to cause disputes among nations. you claim it is a source of threat when there is talk. when there's talk of a rocket, you claim you are in danger. when there's talk of nuclear progress, when our youths become champions, you feel danger. in which direction are you heading towards someone you are opposed to any broad -- heading which direction are you heading towards?

today, world nations have become vigilant, and they are aware, and they will not allow you to obtain your hegemonic objective that iran hegemony has come to an end and you cannot dominate the world through lives. the world should know they are facing difficulties in order to cover up their problems and spread it to other parts of the world, they raise different pretexts, and they engage in different games, and they want to cover of the political and cultural fiasco. they should know that they cannot do this. they will suffer a crushing defeat.

i am officially announcing the era of a superpower and bullying has come to an end in the world. ñr xdñiñiñiñ2adthe fourth pointd knows. ñii want to reemphasize we seek french chef and cooperation -- friendship and cooperation.

we do not welcome confrontation, but they all know the iranian nation will never 3ptr+e in to bullying and will resist. ñrñi >> foreign policy analyst robin wright joins us on washington girl small morning to discuss u.s. relations with iran. will focus on the economy and jobs with marcia blackburn and bruce reed. that's live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

during today's white house briefing, press secretary robert gibbs was asked about the events in iran. this is about five minutes. >> you have warned earlier in the week about a crackdown in around -- iran, and there have been reports of a crackdown. >> we continue to monitor and try to get the best available information. i understand a lot of media has been basically unplugged. i think the president was very clear that we stand by the universal rights of iranians to express themselves freely and without intimidation of

violence. iranians have gone out into the streets to do just that in a peaceful way, and we will continue to monitor it and continued to express ourñi condemnation and dismay for any violence that should happen as a result of the universal exorcising of those rights. >> have you heard from them? >> i will have to check on that. i saw some e-mails. i do not know of that was based on news reports. ñi;>> the head has cautioned the president began speaking. he said the consequences are

beyond the imagination of anyone. can you give your reaction to that? >> i think iran has madeñi statements that are far more political than that. they have undergone a series ofi problems throughout the year. what ahmadinejad said, he says many things that appear to be not true. i would also say if they are serious about the peaceful useçó of their nuclear program, what they should have done was taken more seriously the offer on the reactor, understanding increase of 3.5 to nearly 20% was what

the united states offered some medical patients could haveçó access to theseñr medical isotopes. iran cannot replace and continue to operate at its current pace, not taking the partners of on a common-sense offer leaves the world to believe iran has other ideas. ñrthat is why the actions of around have led the world to be more unified than at virtually

any other point in the past many years. our partners are now moving in a court forward to taking the next steps. -- in accord forward to take the next steps for regan -- next steps. there will be more phases to this, including the united nations. çóñiñr>> the deadline is at thed of 2009. why should they consider any consequences of obeying with theñi u.s. wants -- >> as you said, the president is working through and with our partners on making that happen. this was not going to happen in times square when the ball hit zero. this was an important time, but

our allies are more united than they have ever been. to take actions and consequences based on the statement san and actions of the iranians. >> [inaudible] >> we believe the chinese will continue to play a constructive role. they work with us constructively on the un resolutions dealing with north korea. we believe and think they believe it is not in their interest to have a worldwide arms race. it is certainly not in their interest economically do have an arms race in the middle east.

>> that is not really an answer as to whether or not they are on board. >> we're working with them. this will go through a process of the united nations. >> one does the public process start? >> the process of writing this has already started. >> the question is not whether china will support sanctions but what kind? >> i am not going to get into the back-and-forth. understand it is everyone's interest. >> on capitol hill, a group of senators led by john mccain is calling for new human-rights sanctions on iran. their bill will target individuals accused of committing human rights violations. this is a half-hour. >> today is a momentous day. it is the 31st anniversary of the islamic republic rigger for most americans it is only government they know, and it is one they would rather forget.

the resources of a great and proud nation were stolen by a corrupt ruling elite. 31 years of dignity trampled. they have said enough and demanded better for themselves. they have taken to the streets and the internet, risking a violent reprisal. as i speak, iranians are demonstrating peacefully today for freedom and justice. they are being beaten in the streets, unlawfully detained, tortured, and worse.

ñrthese iranians must know the free world and america's most cobol favors they're just cause. i have long -- most of all favors they're just cause. i have long believed a young woman dying in front of those of the world was the beginning of the end of the regime. we must support that effort for freedom and democracy. today, joined by my colleagues, we are introducing legislation to further that cause. basically, the bill has two parts. first, it would require the president to compile a public list of individuals who are complicity in humançó rights violations, no matter where they occur.

i want to stress this will be of public list posted for the world to see. this will impose the full battery of sanctions under the international emergency economic powers act. ñiñithat means blocking any property they hold under u.s. jurisdiction, ending their transactions with other entities and this would be the first time the u.s. government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in iran because of their human rights violations. under this bill, iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the goal will reach of the u.s.

financial system, and they will send a powerful signal to every bank in the world but they should think twice before doing business with the oppressors of the iranian people. it should now be clear that the ruler of iran have no desire to meet their international response abilities and every desire to use the tools of violence of their disposal and crush the peaceful aspirations of iran's citizens. faced with this disturbing reality, the united states must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the iranian people and to put the effort at the center of our policy with iran. this is not about picking winners. it is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear and championing the cause of those who seek to secure those values for themselves. the ran human rights sanction act is important for this

effort. i encourage my colleagues to move quickly and pass it into law. >> senator mccain is absolutely right. this is a significant day in iran, but i hope we'll will look back on today as a significant turning point within the u.s. government. this is the first family of this bill is enacted into law that the united states government will apply sanctions on people within a run for abusing the rights of the people of around we have been focused on the application of sanctions to stop the nuclear weapons development program or to stop its support of terrorism.

those are external threads that iran represents. now we turn inward, and it is quite appropriate, because the government that so brutally suppresses the rights of its own people, a government applies to its own people, a government to its ohe mostle, a government democratic in the region and then is the country were more4-e world, that government cannot really be trusted in international relations, so i think this is a very significant piece of legislation. i am proud to be a co-sponsor with senator mccain. the abuses of the iranian government against their own people are not just rumors, but

in the extraordinary power of modern telecommunications, we see them with our own eyes. we see them today in youtube postings and internet text messages we're getting from people on the streets of iran. as the human rights movement has grown within the country, the government has increased its suppression or attempt to increase suppression, but i think senator mccain said it right. the day the iranian woman was allowed to bleed to death on the streets of around at the hands of a representative of the iranian government was the beginning of the end of this fanatical, destructive, dangerous regime in tehran.

china alleges difficult for people involved in this struggle within iran. i hope this legislation -- i know this is difficult for people involved in this struggle within iran. i hope this sends a message. the fact is this legislation has already won broad bipartisan support. give we have 10 co-sponsors. republicans, democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals, moderates. i think by the time we move this along, we're going to be supported by maybe every senator. i is thessaly want to -- i especially want to thank senator mccain for the leadership he has given this cause. the fact is john has been a

fighter for freedom and of freedom agenda at the center of our foreign policy throughout his career in public service and with his career in uniform before, so we hope this threatens the abusers in iran, and we hope this legislation says to the protesters your struggle this difficult, but has been the case for those who fight tyrannies, ultimately, the cause of freedom and justice will prevail, and you, the freedom fighters will prevail. >> one of the things we're learning from iranian dissidents and others is that when sanctions are tied to human rights abuses in iran, they will much more likely succeed, and the reason is there is a bit of a debate about

whether sanctions imposed on the autonomy of iran will be effective in supporting our business, which is that the iranian government should stop proceeding towards nuclear development, or will cause the people of iran to have a bad reaction toward the west and towards the united states specifically, for making life more difficult for them. what we have heard it and learned is that this initiative, which will gain the support of the people and will most likely to enable the sanctions to be effective. that is part of the theory behind this. it is one of the important reasons for this be done. i just want to point out that he said he knew the day would come

when ronald reagan declared the soviet union the evil empire, and freedom did come to him and more. the same support can come for those to demonstrate a on this important day. ñi>> one reason the american people are angry about washington is their perceptive we cannot agree, but today's announcement stands in stark contrast. we have the independence working together, some of the most conservative members and some ofñr the most liberal members, who have chosen to co- sponsor this legislation. it is a timely announcement. that only is this the 31st anniversary of the united nations, but people are being beaten in the streets as we speak, and their president announced they have perhaps taken major steps.

it is in the national security interest of the united states to foster the government so the nation can join the united nations as responsible, rather than a menace that is what today's's announcement is all about. our country is at its best one we align ourselves with freedom. if you're a journalist in iran, you risk being tortured. if you speak out against the regime, you risk being beaten and killed. we have to stand with the people of iran against that kind of tyranny. the final thing i would say is i have been privileged to serve on the intelligence committees. one of the profound questions we face is what is the editor who radical islam and global terrorism? i believe it is for us to step

on the side of freedom, the freedom to enjoy the fruits of your own labor, and to the elected government of your own choosing. when we step on the side of freedom, we send a beacon of hope to those across the world and a message that there is a better way than a government that only retains its power by imprisoning, beating, and killing its own civilians. that is a process we will win. >> [inaudible] can you talk to me about the also do think there's a sense of rallying people around the world? >> i think actions taken yesterday by the end ministration by imposing some

sanctions is very helpful. i think the of ministration is now much more interested in the present then perhaps a year ago. . .

i would also like to make a couple of additional points. number one, of the three of us along with other members were in munich over the weekend. the speaker on friday night with the foreign minister of iran.

what we are trying to do with this legislation is healthy iranian dissidents and people struggling for freedom get the information about, helping them with the modern means of communications that we have today, which the iranian government is trying to restrain. i hope the and administration will now understand that this unclenching of the office has not worked. it has been over a year's delay, and the iranians have proceeded towards the our acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> [inaudible] is this design? >> i just told some folks downstairs of those of you who have been in the senate for some time know that most of the business was conducted by unanimous consent for a bipartisan way. a lot of that is under the surface. it is the everyday stuff. it might be regional more than partisan, but we do a lot of business, and what we're seeing is other examples of that, as is this announcement by a bipartisan group, and there're others not represented today who really represent both spectrum's, soy think there has been a lot of emphasis to go so things like the health-care

debate. the reality is on a lot of things we do get things done, profile things in which there are differences, and we have an obligation to represent our constituents as best we see it, and there will be some bipartisan undertones. ñrçó>> [inaudible] ñiñrxd>> no, i thought i made it clear that most of what we do is done on a bipartisan basis, that there are occasionally high- profile issues that create a very strong views on both sides in which there become partisan divides, and that is the nature of the senate. it is the nature of the political senate. i think far too much is made of that. >> i want to add briefly, because i know the protesters

follow what happens here, and i hope they will take this broad bipartisan sponsorship of this measure as an expression of the people, that we stand with the green movement in iran, and we stand against a repressive government. >> [inaudible] what more can and should be done on the front? >> as you know, there is a legislation all of us have been involved in, which imposes a broad set of sanctions as well. financial institutions, refined çk>k

t, this, but i think there is movement. i know senator kerrey has been supportive. ñrçóñiñrñrthis will go to sena's committee, and senator dodd has been very supportive "ndñi i think the demonstration is on board terry get i think weñi could see passage of this legislation real soon. >> it happened quickly and unanimously, so some people may have missed it above but about 10 days ago, the senate had this tough iran sanctions bill unanimously, and it is on its way to a conference with the house of a similar bill. i want to mention senator mccain and i rose to introduce this proposal as an amendment to the film. for procedural reasons, senator

mccain graciously allowed it to move forward, but i feel optimistic that we have got a real good possibility to have this proposal be adopted by the conference committee as part of of broader iran sanctions bill and that bill will come out pretty soon, and i say ahmadinejad's announcement today they have gone to 20% in richmond really builds the case for moving with a real sense of urgency to tough economic sanctions against iran based on the nuclear program. >> [inaudible]

>> i think you know they have blocked the internet. they have not said google will no longer be allowed in iran. i would be very interested in seeing their replacement. i am sure it will be incredible competition for google. they're taking every measure to shut down the modern ways we use of communicating with each other. they are aware of what happened on facebook. they are aware of the rallying capability this new means of communication has, so they are trying to take every measure they can. i do not think they are succeeding so far, so our job is to help them to see if we can find ways around their attempts to block this vital means of communication. >> something we talked about

returning from a trip to germany is the support the united states government gives. this is a tremendous asset of the cause of liberty because it brought us some real newbies into iran in a way it the iranian people can appreciate the fact there's a different point of view from that of their government and support that. just to give you an illustration, the day we were returning, we got word from our american representative the seventh people he and his staff had interviewed in different locations around the world to come on board, all iranians, and all of them had been offered

a position for the purpose. they were arrested and detained in iran today before. who would try to do everything to help those people. one way we can do that is our support for radio free europe. >> [inaudible] jobs seem to be a high-profile issue. >> i know he felt very strongly about cooperating with the democratic leadership whenever we can, and it is not always possible.

this second stimulus bill is part of that. it contains elements that are important to all the people in the senate, and i do not agree with all of the parts of it. i know some of my colleagues do not agree, but it is an effort to bring together a group of things a consensus can be developed around and to get it passed. you saw what they put out today as a draft of the legislation, and it would be senator mcconnell's view of that is soon as we return from this break, the senate will take the legislation not, and i have already said it will be adopted. shoveler clearly a big issue. the reason i do not put the and the highest profile as i think we're going to see a series of smaller jobs packages. this is just one of them. it is not the same size and

scope of the original stimulus package. [inaudible] it will. there will also be a unanimous consent agreement that will set of the way forward for the state returns. >> i am concerned about how it is paid for. i withhold judgment until i get

a chance to say how much extraneous stuff is added to it, and how much does it increase the deficit? >> [inaudible] >> i will have a look at it. the fact is this was a ruling by the supreme court. i strongly disagreed with it, but i would certainly have to look at it before i would want to sign on to any provisions, but our own have to look at it.

>> they have some republicans have a double standard. [inaudible] >> the reason we passed the military commissions act of the end of 2006 was to put a stop on it. i must say with some deference, we have been interrogated a guy and said we got the information we needed and got his miranda rights. no one question the patriotism or even the dedication to fighting the war on terror as mr. brennan has about us, basically saying we are assisting al qaeda. that is an insult.

the fact is this individual should be in the military tribunal. we're working on legislation that in the case that once an individual is deemed an enemy combated, that person should be tried only in military court and never given ran the rights. thank you very much. çó[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a few moments, a forum on national security and foreign policy. then a discussion with two members of congress on health care and jobs. after that, a hearing on the federal budget and deficit. >> robin wright joins us on "washington journal" tomorrow morning to discuss u.s. relations with iran. we will focus on the economy and jobs with republican representative archer blackburn and bruce reed, head of the democratic leadership council. "washington journal" is live on

c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow here on c- span. coast guard, got thad alan speaks at 1:00 p.m. eastern. then a senate banking subcommittee hearing on an into regulations. that is that to 30 p.m. eastern. -- his bill, hillary, the movie, was the focus of a recent supreme court decision on campaign finance. david bossie, sunday night on "q&a". >> now, a forum on the obama administration's foreign-policy hosted by hudson institute hudson institute in new york. payless include theñiñr former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. this is an hour 45 minutes.

on some level, we all know that unless we win this at nothing else can be debated. this one is for all the marbles. what is it? what are we fighting? who is fighting? how can we win. what his victory. all these things have the metal since 9/11. on 9/11 we knew we were hit. >> and one says america isxd at war. america's military is at war. i experienced it briefly.

there were fou gflgas draped coffins. that will drive it home like nothing else. we are in the position of trying to define how we reclaim american liberty. recognize how we must protect it. i will dig it different. i will introduce each of our speakers individual for a particular reason. our first speaker is someone who has seen on the news many times. he retired in 2005 after 40 years in the service of the united states air force. he was the 15th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff from 2001 through 2005. he rose from a young fighter pilots, which i think account for 600 hours. he rose to various levels of command to become the president's principal adviser on

military matters. he is the author of a book that i read and recommend to everyone called "eyes on the horizon. i would like to welcome general richard myers with a question, how we define the enemy correctly? who are we fighting? where is this war? do we have the strategy in place to win? ladies and gentlemen, richard b. myers. [applause] >> thank you very much. i have to start by saying that i came away with two conclusions. one is keeping my money buriedçó in the backyard. that is still prudent. a bit to get one of my children to go to med school if i want to be healthy. that was a great panel. thank you. i want to talk about national

secráy. 20 days after 9/11, i was sworn into office. ñrñithat experience colors my vw that is to meet the threat that we have from violent extremists. people have these terrorism to create fear. does not without optimism. this is a threat to our way of life since the civil war. let's review the facts. some declared war on the united states in 1998. at the time, i was the u.s. space command. we were slow on the uptake.

the basic philosophy is what kind of a handful of people, what impact than they have? then we have this in kenya. we responded with some missiles. the impact on the adversary was not as intended. we had the uss bombing in the harbor. then 9/11. that was the real wake-up call. we knew al qaeda was the perpetrator of 9/11.

at mixes a one-term presidency so be it. from a military perspective, i thought that was a bold statement. if you look at the -- whereokçóó violent extremist want to go they have a vision for the

future. their vision used to be laid out on the al qaeda web site. they would turn the " red with their vision and political process would turnñymkrqjññiñr red. america red. we are now of being converted. xdthey are patient. they have the will and resolve to carry out their particular vision. -- they are pretty early dangers because they use terrorism. terrorism created fear. when you are a free, you cannot think clearly.

>> when you are afraid. if you think that to 9/11 andñr how many of you probably reacted to the infant and 9/11 predict reacted to the defense of 9/11, that affects the way you see it after that. people start to respond in ways that really are not logical. certainly, some do not have a lot of optimism. fear is a very dangerous thing. that is the whole game here with these violent extremists. they use terror as a method to get things done. >oki think a lot of thingsñr tht have been done since 9/11 have made it safer for the country. i believe that. i was a part of a lot of that. i think we are a safer society today than we were before. one of the elements that is missing and has been missing for a long time probably goes back to when osama bin laden

declared war on us. ñiwe have not come up with a strategy to deal with this global extremism. we have come up a tactical strategies for afghanistan and iraq and maybe yemen to some degree. those are important in their own right. ñrto me, they are more the tactical fight and not the strategic fight. the and not really defines that fight. in the many times i have been in the white house talking about terrorism, i can count on probably one hand the number of times we talked about the over arcing strategy. hundreds and hundreds of time we would talk about iraq or afghanistan. that was all appropriate. as happens in most

bureaucracies, the urgent always displaces the importance. the important part is trying to get a strategy down. the element of a strategy of course are important. there are three punishment of pieces of that. we have to correctly -- fundamental pieces of that. we have to correctly identify the at this area. i spent some time going over some work that i did with four really bright people that i sequestered a couple of months. i said, think about this issue in the broadest terms you can. come back with some ideas. what we decided we were facing is a global insurgency. indeed a quick trip around the

globe, there are elements of violent extremism and active terrorism that go on daily. things that hit the news on time more the tactical fight. what is really going on here? that is the global insurgency. çói characterized by saying it r primarily a struggle within islam to capture the continuing quest for an islamic researcher. they would say this is about islam on the west. çóreally, the struggle isçó witn the goal of the global insurgency is to limit american influence is so extreme views can be the basis for governance.

in this quest, al qaeda currently the leads but that will more overtime. they are not the only organization that has the same views. there are a lot of organizations. there are hundreds. there are probably hundreds of them. this particular enemy is conducting two campaigns of persuasion, one inside is on to a certain division, and the other outside to intimidate the west and to distract muslims from their internal struggle and in hand extremists'global stature. it is my belief that the enemy has no discrete theory of victory, certainly not lightly. we think about victory in a

certain way. and they have a cumulative strategy where basically fighting is winning. they can have victories that our humanitarian. they can even be rhetorical. they do not always have to be military. for i think if you doubt an insurgency, a look at what the adversary is trying to do in places like afghanistan or pakistan. you can take it anywhere. we are convenient and up to speed on the issues. the afghan taliban is trying to discredit and displaced the elected acting government. that is the legitimate government of afghanistan. you see the same sort of thing

happening in pakistan where they try to destabilize or give the impression that they cannot handle the issue and therefore may gain legitimacy and gain some power. i think those are some examples of what we are talking about that is one element of the strategy, at identifying the the adversary is. ñri think that is with al qaedan the lead. the second fundamental is that any strategy to me, you have to involve all instruments of national power. i can tell you nothing was more frustrating than the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff then not being able to get all instruments of national powerñi to address this problem with the same sense of urgency that department of defense or military would. it is still a problem today.

there are a lot of reasons for this. it is not because people are back. sometimes there are resources issue, both money and manpower. in my last year, as they are frustrated that for instance, at the embassy in afghanistan in 2005 -- when asked, what is the manning of the embassy. they said about 40%. think about that. if all your instruments of national power come to that embassy, you know some things are going to fall through the cracks. this will play a role. the political and economic, a couple of instruments are not often mentioned. they need to be harnessed to

bring to this fight. third, along with identifying the adversaries, we have got to organize to execute the strategy. if i were to ask his audience, who was in charge of our efforts against the global insurgency and afghanistan, who'd you think was in charge? okñii heard the secretary rumsf. that is good. you can use any of the names but that is the same thing. assume that you can have the president in charge of everything, he was the point

person of the media. to be in charge, if you have to have both responsibility and authority. ñiyou have to ask yourself what authority did he have over the national security council. what authority did he have over the state department, over treasury, over homeland security? the answer is, he did not. you may think that he was in charge or vice-president or whomever. the way we organize for national security came out the world war ii. in a way, it has been modified many time. we are perfectly organized for another world war ii. that is not the kind of at this theory we face today. it is a much different at this area.

-- adversary. all these instruments of power need to be harnessed in a way to address that threat. i would propose that we are not perfectly organized for that. i have not been for a while. it is no one administration's fault. it is the way we are organized. that is my part of what i think is a great threat. ñiñiit is the existential threao our way of life in terms of national security. listening to the economic panel and folks that were up here before, i have one other comment to make. this is on our fiscal situation. the department of defense budget right now is relatively robust. that is partly due to the fact we are still involved in iraq and afghanistan. you have to fast forward 10 years. ñryou have to ask yourself, what kind of military budget are we going to have?

what kind of military are we going to need? what i worry will happen is what happened in the 1990's. xdthe budget went down considerably. the part of the budget that went down the fastest was the procurements of research and development. we have a lot of operations that we had to do. we are not quite in that dilemma today. we have a pretty robust budget. we have additional funding. at some point, that will go away. ñrare we going to leave ourselvs two decades from now with the kind of military we need? that part of the budget goes for. training is not part of the budget.

are we going to leave ourselves with the tools we need three decades from now? i do not know the answer to that. it is something we need to think about. thank you very much. >> thank you. let me add to that. my roommate has a son. his son is now flying a plane that is almost as old as i am. the national defence -- america and america's military suffers from the fallacy of being the victim of its own success. everyone believes the military can do whatever is required when ever is required. there is another issue not only with intelligent but america's

legal system. we have a few experts on that today. one is our next speaker. america is at war. america's legal system sometimes seems to be at war with the war fighters. our next speaker, indium carney -- and the mccarthy, is a prosecutor who is responsible for leading the prosecutions of some of the most important to come into the courts. he is the author of willful blindness. most importantly, he is a native of the bronx.

[laughter] [applause] >> i should begin by asking you a question. that is why i wish chosen to speak between two an authentic american heroes. it is a great honor to be here today. it is a particular honor to be here. the topic i was as to talk about was the legal architecture. do we have the right architecture in place to try to turn back the threat that we are confronted by? i thought that in trying to into that question, i with their out an example.

imagine a terrorist regime overseas that trains its operatives commonsense highly trained terrorists to the united states to conduct operations against civilians and infrastructure. to increase the chances of infiltration and success, and they include american citizens in the venture. they come into the united states. they conspire to conduct their terrorist attacks. the president of the united states decides that they are not going into the civilian justice system. there will designate them as in many combatants. not only so we can hold them under the laws of war, he

instantly devised them to be tried by military commission. that example is not something that i actually pulled out of the air. that is something that actually happens. in 1942, eight germans came to the united states sent by the nazis. they landed on long island. in florida, they were quickly captured in june of 1942 byçóçóe fbi. they were designated by fdr as enemy combatants. they got their trial not in guantanamo bay -- we are not hung up on the idea that we not only had to give the military commission but we had to look like one -- they were tried in what is now the robert f. kennedy department of justice building.

in the middle of that trial, which there was not much delay in those days. it started about four weeks after they were captured, they sought habeas corpus from the united states courts. that is a judicial review. they wanted to challenge the notion that people whoñi wereñi arrested by the civilian authorities in the united states could be treated as enemy prisoners and not brought to the civilian justice system. xdthey wanted being treated as enemy combatants. the president's got wind of that. fdr is the most legendary progressive in american history. he brought in his attorney general. it was a legendary progressive francis biddle. he told biddle that he should

let the supreme court know that he did not care. he had no intention ofd+>ti áq&s regardless of what the justices thought of the matter. francis biddle pass that piece of information along to the chief justice of#d supreme court. somehow, the court found it would in itself unanimously to affirm everything that fdr wanted to do with the enemy combatants. as it happened, they were executed. six of them were executed about seven weeks after they were captured. that took place in june of 1942. [applause] the question is, do we have the

legal architecture in place? çóthe question becomes, what is different now from 1942? i think the answer to that is that in a half century after saving the world from freedom, we have forgotten to of the essential lessons about that victory. the first one is that there are worse things than war. there is tyranny, for example. the enemy is broader than just the jihadists. we have a much more insidious challenge on our hands. it is amazing that after all these years after the world trade center bombing, which i still regard as the declaration of war united states, that we do not even understand what jihadists is.

the purpose of jihad is not to blow up buildings. the purpose is to establish this. if you can establish a by blowing up buildings, they will blow up buildings. if you can establish a fineçóñi legal processes, they are more than happy to take whatever gains they can get about having to blow up buildings. the problem is not just the al qaeda's the one to blow things up. it is the islamist organizations that come behind them and are making their own long march toward this. it is not a legal challenge that we are facing simply to confront terrorism. the problem is a lot broader.

the flip side of tyranny is freedom. freedom is not the natural condition of mankind. i think we would like to think it is. it simply is not. it is something that has to be fought for. if we do not fight for it, we uárssr'g to have the system in place that allows us to fight for it, and then we lose it. that is one lesson. i think the other lesson is the premise of the question that we are supposed to be able to fit this war into some kind of legal architecture. the fact is that you do not fit war into a legal architecture. when you fight a war, it is because the united states goes to war and needs to win in order to preserve our big institutions. your obligations is action to put your legal institution into the endeavor of making war to achieve victory over the enemy.

if we get that wrong, we are starting to lose. holmes said in 1918, when it comes to matters involving the life of the state, and judicial processes have to take a backseat to executive processes. that is the system we have. that is the system the framers designed. the understood the united states might not always be here. certainly if we did not defend ourselves. let me compare what happened to the german saboteurs to the recent case of an enemy combatant. he was able to challenge his status as an enemy combatant because that is the way we do in now. the courts have started to take the ability to review the enemy.

congress founded in 2009. no enemy combatants connection go into court and make that challenge. a federal judge in washington said we had to -- that he cannot be considered an enemy combatant. the government said the following. they identified him as a hard- core extremist before 9/11 ever happened. he traveled to afghanistan right after 9/11 using a known al qaeda smuggling route. he contributed money to an al qaeda front that is designated as a terrorist entity under u.s. law. he fled toward bora bora after the u.s. invasion using the same route as al qaeda and caliban fighters. his name was found in a al qaeda steak house on the roster that said "capture mujadijin."

the judge decided that it was insufficient evidence to conclude that he was an al qaeda fighter. this is not just any judge. we have lots of judges to do we have lots of crazy rulings. the judge made that ruling is calling kalar. you may have heard her name. if you have heard her name, you may know her as the chief judge of the foreignñi intelligence surveillance force. xdin 1970, we to give power that was an executive national security power for as long as there has been the technology to do it and returned to power over to a court.

now judges have the power to decide the final word on who we conduct surveillance on. the judge that runs the court is the same judge that makes the decision that i just described to you. to compare again to 1942, let me read you something that was written on behalf of the supreme court in 1948. justice robert jackson was an interesting guy. he is sort of a giant in both the political world, having been the attorney general for fdr, chief prosecutor and norbert, and in the judicial world as the justice of the supreme court. in 1948, he sat on the case which involved the question of how much involvement court ought to have in our national

security matters. here is what he said. "these decisions are wholly confided by our constitution. they are delicate, complex, and involve large element of property. they are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare the advance or in peril. their decisions of its kind for which the judiciary has nearly ignited the aptitude or responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry." the framers gave us a constitution and a system for self determining people. the premise of that system was that there was supposed to be an accountability interest.

the realism national security decisions are the most important decisions the political community makes. they wanted those decisions to be made by the actors who were responsible to the voters come american people. when those people but those decisions wrong, when they struck the wrong balance between liberty and security, we could fire them. we could get rid of them. we weren't born as a legal community. the idea was that we were going to be self determining. we would make the ultimate decision about our security. we have done what we have done since the 1970's when you take national-security decision in

the move them out of the realm of politics and into the judiciary, what you have done is taken the decisions that made by a sole determining political community and moved them from the one to have control over to the politically insulated judicial branch which you cannot get rid of it they get it wrong. because of their responsibilities, they are hard wired to increase due process rights. they have to be. their role in the system is to do justice to the parties thatçó

until we face down this notion that we can take our own decisions that go to our self- defense, to the poor and whether we are able to defend ourselves and hand them over to actors that we cannot reach, thank you. >> a little while ago, it was said that my role was to make him look calm. let me just suggest that that might not be entirely correct. there is what we had in the

executive branch. they do not care if they do. they do not think first. they do not analyze first. they do not consult constitutional lawyers. i only got a bñi +, but when i look at the cornhusker kick back, they say they will be paying for nebraska's ñimedicai, i do not think you can get there from here because there is a certainçó thing called equal protection. can talk about in the legal framework, and i am hopeful. it is coming right here to our stage. our next speaker is an american hero, as, of course, is general myers. ñihe has been there and done th.

we were asked where he was when saddam was captured, and he was right there in tikrit, in the home town of saddam. there was the fourth infantry division. candidate. we did not want to have any elected official speaking on the panels, but allen has been there and done that. when we left the army, he did not want to stay out of the fight. he went back to afghanistan for two years, serving there, helping what our forces were trying to accomplish. we hear a lot in our counterinsurgency efforts in afghanistan about the rules of engagement, about the air force holding fire to prevent the killing of civilians. are we sacrificing american

lives unnecessarily in that process? what do you think should be the rules of engagement in afghanistan? ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> thank you so much, and think you for the invitation to be here. one thing i want to let everyone know, when you look at this panel, you have two personas. when you pass the flight test, you also have an example of when you fail the flight tests, you get any other line, which is for folks to jump out of the airlines. with that being said, that gives you an understanding of my level of intellect. one of the things we have to understand when we talk about the rules of engagement, we have to clear the recognize this 21st century battlefield. the 21st century battlefield is totally different from what i grew up with starting as a young

lieutenant. they talked to you about formations, and then you went to the training center in the mojave desert, and, of course, my first tour of duty was in vicenza, italy, where i did patrols. but when i went to desert storm in 1991, we fought an army that very much applied those roles. i was in the first infantry division. -- much applied those rules. we brought them to their knees and about five or six days, but when i went back to iraq in 2003, it was a different type of enemy. it was a different type of battlefield. we have now come face with an enemy that took off this uniforms and morphed themselves with and the populace, which was different. when i went back againñi as an

adviser in qanbar, afghanistan, -- in kandahar, it was broken down. we are actually dealing with what i call illegal enemy combatants. and yet, we have rules of engagement that provides them an advantage against their soldiers. -- that provide them an advantage. when you get into a firefight, you have got maybe about five seconds, and after five seconds, people are going to start to lose their lives, and if you have rules that are out there right now it's a you cannot engage until the enemy shows some kind of hostile intent -- that shows you cannot engage until the enemy shows some kind of hostile intent -- it took approximately one hour to get

reenforcing aircraft to come in because they continually asked them, "can you verify that there will not be any collateral damage to civilians?" when you are a commander of a company, in a firefight, you do not have time to stick your head up and look and see our their civilians out there, and not only that -- are there civilians out there, and not only that, they were in a mosque, and they were not allowed to engage that enemy. we had a fire fight, and we put a lot of hurt on the taliban forces -- we had a fire fight. they went into a local village, and they got children, and they brought the children up, and they held them up close to them, and that is how the retreating their dead and wounded. when the canadian forces came

down and started an operation in the fall of 2006, in the low -- area, the taliban went into houses with women and children, and we continue to see that. one of the things we saw recently was the incident where congressman murtha said that our young marines were murderers, but when the enemy knows that the rules that you provide -- when the enemy knows the rules that you provide yourself, they exploit you. how many of you had the work, a book, of the navy seal? their mission had been compromised, and instead of following the normal seal special protocols, they decided within themselves to let those afghan goat herders go, and then

you that upwards of about 100 come down on a seal team, and if you recall, that it sent a helicopter was shot down -- and then you had upwards of 100 come down on the seal team, and if you recall, that cnooc helicopter was shot down. now, what must we do with our rules of engagement? first of all, it comes down to what son su -- tsun tsu said. we call it a war on terror. well, a nation does not go to war against a tactic. there were times when i went overseas for a mission that was not war. if we're going to have the right and proper rules of engagement,

we have to understand who is on that battlefield. we have to understand these belligerence. we are fighting against an islamic situation. the key thing we must do with our rules of engagement, there has to be -- who knows best what is going on on the ground than those on the ground? when we stop having -- you are putting our young men and women in a very bad situation. see, if you are out in the middle of the night on a road in afghanistan or iraq, and you have got a shovel and will bar and a couple of oblong devices with wires coming out of it, i do not think you're out there planting fruit -- when you have got a shovel and a wheel barrow. you will hear the pilots calling back and asking to engage. when they have eyes on the

target and they clearly know what is happening. the same thing happened back in 2005. it was believed to be a convoy with osama bin laden going down the road, and because of the delay, he was able to get over into pakistan. we have got to get this user- friendly down to the men and women on the battlefield, and one key thing is that political correctness cannot dictate political and -- engagement. now,ñr another thing -- [applause] what i just talked about was the tactical level or the operational level, but we also must realize something as part of this 21st century battlefield. you are sitting in it right now in the united states of america. i was stationed in fort hood, texas, from 2002 until 2004, so what happened out there was near and dear to my heart, as well as my wife and our two teenage

daughters, because we lived there, and we know what they went through you had heard about the peace with plastic explosives to wanted to blow up the synagogue -- and we know you heard bgut the situation with plastic explosives and ñipeople who wanted to block the synagogue. we had the fort dix six. all of these things are happening right here, not to mention a christmas present that we almost got from the nigerian terrorist. see, we have got to understand that right here and right now, we have to develop the right kind of rules of engagement to deal with this enemy on this battlefield which america clearly set in, -- america clearly sets in, because giving constitutional rights to illegal and in the combatants is not part of our liberties --

america clearly setits in. in florida, i got the opportunity to hear eric holder speak, and i did take a sickness bag, but one thing he said at that club event is that we are a nation that is at war, and then his next sentence, he came back around and started justifying bringing khalid shaikh mohammed here. he started to justifyin closing guantánamo. the guys who were shooting at me in iraq or afghanistan could care less what you do with guantanamo bay, and we must understand that come in, see, that is another aspect of the rules of engagement that we must have -- and we must understand that, see, that is another aspect of the rules of engagement that we must have.

he is all lawyered up and ready to go through the system. those gentlemen should be sent to guantanamo bay, and they have to be understood -- it has to be understood that they are illegal and in the combatants, and that is part of the domestic woe of engagement -- and they are illegal and enemy combatants -- illegal enemy combatants, and that is part of the domestic rules of engagement. conservative versus progressive, liberal, socialists, whatever you want to call them, but there is also an undermining aspect to that. there are also irregulars on

this political battlefield, and that is called acorn. it is called the new black panther party. all of these people who are under -- seeking to undermine this political process, this a lecter process, that we have here, and we saw what happened when this new black panther party went to be brought up -- this electoral process. the electoral based in the united states of america is under attack. that is a key aspect of the rules of engagement -- the electoral base in the united states of america is under attack. you have the so-called universal voter registration that is floating around out there. the census was brought under the control of rahm emanuel. how are you going to deal with the fact that a representative has introduced an amnesty bill? this is about changing the electoral base of this country.

the rules that apply to our political system are being changed right before us. we have talked about the violations of the constitution, so how do we engage them? how do we make sure that this republic, and that is what it is, is here for the next to a hundred years? because that is truly what we are up against -- for the next two hundred years? there is an enemy within an enemy without, and one of the things that you have to realize is that the enemy that is within is using your constitutional liberties, because any time someone is in a mosque on friday, and they are preaching the overthrow of your constitutional government, it is not freedom of religion -- because anytime someone is in a mosque. that is sedition. so how do we develop the right type of rules of engagement in this country to protect our constitution, protect our liberties, and protect the future and legacy of this great

republic? ñri am proud to see this title, reclaiming american liberties, because at least now we're beginning to understand it is under attack, and as you said, doctor, this campaign, what is our strategy to go forward? you are on a battlefield here in the united states of america. it is about the future of your liberties. you have got to get off of the sideline. you have got to have the right rules of engagement to fight this enemy. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much,ñi allen. before we get to your questions, we have last and very much not least our next speaker. we talked for the pasthvu) about the war against islamic extremism, and i would just

posed to the definition here that the enemy is not al qaeda -- i would just pose the definition here that the enemy is not al qaeda. i think one of the of the things that we have got going is the fact that the world has a lot of moving parts, and just because we are entirely focused at this time on the middle east, on islam at terrorism, on the threats that we face immediately does not mean that there are other things we can afford to ignore. the world has moving parts. gordon has lived and worked there, most recently in shanghai, as counsel to a law firm, earlier in hong kong as a partner at another group. his writing has appeared in "the wall street journal" and others, including "national review."

he is the author of a book, and, gordon, let's talk a little bit about nuclear power restoration, ñrwhich seems to be a little bit of an issue these days. china last week said they would not support further sanctions against iran. iran seems to be coming very close to achieving nuclear weapons. why is it in china's interest to have iran to achieve that goal? -- to have iran achieve that goal? [applause] >> yes, jed, last week china said they would not support another round of sanctions on iran, and that means that the p5 plus one are going to have to

keep talking to the mullahs about their an enriching uranium -- their enriching uranium. now we have to shift our focus to those who can really hurt the united states and our allies, and that, of course, is other nations. we have been talking to the mosullahs since there was the 22 revealing. the u.n. security council has ñiimposed three sets of sanctios on iran. last fall, the obama administration, instead of trying to stop the iranian

nuclear program, devised an arrangement to buy the international community more time to talk to iranians. iran at this moment has a quantity of enriched uranium, ebrucgnriched ñito about 5%, anf it is enriched to about 90%, they could have a bomb. they're talking about shifting it to russia and france, he would further enriched uranium -- who would further enrich it. the iranians say they need 20% in -- uranium for a research project --çó the iranians say ty need 20%çó enriched uranium.

the united states, europe, and the international atomic agency, the watchdog of the u.n., then "tto ac. ñrin november, it was said that the united states was confident that china would take the same position on iran as the other great powers. as usual, the talk asian adviser on the security council for obama -- the top asian adviser was wrong. they took sanctions off of the table. iran has not been negotiating with the united states in good faith up till now, and the chinese had just takenñi away oe more reason for them to talk to us. he should haveñi known that chia would not back sanctions. in the middle of october, the chinese premier wen jiabao announced china was going to strengthen its already robust

commercial ties with iran, thereby givingçó the iranians me means to resist international pressure. china, unfortunately, has become iran's number one supporter. beijing is now sanctions buster. -- is now açó sanctions' buster. china wants to compete for influence in iran, and they went to defend on intervention in the affairs of other countries, and, of course, china wants to support the mullahs, because they do not want to see the theocracy collapse, because if it collapses, that gives hope to the chinese people that they may be able to get rid of their of dictators. -- their own dictators. yes, this isñi why china is

supporting iran,ñr but we need o go deeper and understand what china is really doing it. okthey are threatened by the values that we stand before -- that we stand for. china thinks we need to change. so what is china doing? china is supporting every nuclear road, thereby fundamentally altering the structure of the system. yet, china's support for the mullahs -- what is this paradox?

in as a stumbling economy. -- it has a stumbling economy. despite everything else, the mullahs are winning. unbelievably, they are paying no penalty for doing so. so why are the iranians succeeded against us? our principal problem is that we have our priorities wrong -- so why are the iranians succeeding against us? there is a longer-term objectives. it would be great if china were irresponsible power, and one day, i am sure that it will be, but it is not one today -- it

would be great if china were a responsible power.

now, how to be contribute to this problem? we forgot every lesson that we learned in the cold war about defending our values and opposing totalitarian dictators. in the early 1990's, optimistic western analysts predicted that with the soviet union gone, we would enter a generally harmonious era. we were told that history already ended. because history had ended, because we had reached the end point in the evolution of human societies, as he told us, we engage the chinese with trade and with generous foreign policies -- we engaged the chinese. we gave them a seat at the top table, because we believed they would become responsible. but as we know, the chinese, in fact, did not.

our remedy for the failure of engagement in the past has been to promote more engagement in the future, and as we continued unsuccessful policies, which created reverse incentives. the chinese engaged in an unfriendly behavior, so we rewarded them. they continued on irresponsible conduct, and we offered more. why would they ever change? this could cause us problems. beijing, knowing it has gotten away with bad conduct in the past, will naturally think it can do so in the future. private administrations, beginning with those with george for what i think our indulgent and counterproductive strategies in regard to the chinese, but the obama team has taken a bad approach and driven it to its logical, i would even say real logical, conclusion. what do i mean? -- i would even say a logical,

conclusion. -- i would even sayñi illogical, conclusion. success inxd afghanistan and pakistan, arms control. on none of these issues can we succeed without china's cooperation. ñithey naturally think that they had a veto over american foreign policy. now,ñi china having a veto over preposterous to you and me, but that is not the way the chinese see it. they think that they can do what they want. they are wrong. çóunfortunately, the obama

administration has said and done things, like hillary clinton saying human-rights are not important in our dialogue with china.

lead us. we saw that this month. at the same time, china ruled out the possibility of sanctions. e1there was no deadline after a. washington's climb down was, indeed, a humiliating. there was useless conversations

at a time when iran is about nine months, perhaps one year, away from developing their first nuclear device -- washington's climb down was, indeed, humiliating. the united states cannot accomplish its foreign policy objectives. on a critical issue, washington is allowing two two-bit rogues to destabilize their regions, so having demonstrated that we are in effectual, who is going to follow us on any foreign policy matter? this morning, i was asked to say what is the significance of washington being unable to thwart the nuclear ambitions of iran and north korea, and this is the answer. no one is going to listen to us anymore. throughout history, when dominations have failed to lead, they have faltered soon afterwards be no country can lead the international system if it is ineffective of ray period

of time -- they have faltered ñisoon afterwards. no country can lead like that. ñrñiçóso let me leave you with e thought. it is about our ability to lead. the stakes could not be higher. óñiñrthe onlyñr thing that wore u.s. alliance system. so writes one man. it is ironic and a bit sad that it takes an australian journalist to see what american presidents cannot. this is about pursuing

multilateral solutions, but, unfortunately, those approaches have not worked. at this precarious time, it takes strong leadership. we are the ultimate, and sometimes, we are the only guarantor of the international system. others understand this. it is time for washington to do so, as well. thank you. [applause] >> let me make a couple of quick points. are you safer now than we were one year ago? we are approaching the anniversary of obama. these are not things that have been neglected and kind of went in a certain way. these are things that the president has done affirmatively. number one, he hasñr banned the

so-called enhanced interrogation methods by which a lot of informationñr was garnered from terrorists, detainees. we know that george tenet, the former cia director, said that those in hanse interrogation techniquesñi produced more valuable intelligence than the cia, the nsa, and the fbi combine -- said that those in hands interrogation techniques did back -- said that those enhanced interrogation techniques produced more about intelligence than the cia, the nsa, and the fbi combined. we are doing so at considerable risk, and that risk is best illustrated by the third point, and it was alluded to earlier. we are now bringing terrorists into new york and into detroit for a civilian trial. it will be a media circus. it will possibly endangered --

they will become magnets for terrorist attack. are you say for now? i submit to you, no. we will follow standard rules. you can ask anyone a question, and then anyone else will jump in with his opinion, so, please, yes, sir. >> this has been and honor and a privilege to listen to this panel. would you consider culture as a national priority? there is a realignment of our

priorities. i will not explain that at this point, because i think it is a vast, deep subject, particularly as it might apply to military confidence and strategic planning. >> sir? general? >> let's see if i get this right, because i may need some more definition. when you say "culture," say another word or two. >> well, it was referred to the last time. william manchester wrote a wonderful book, called "good-bye to darkness," and this might strike us funny now, but it was very true then. he was talking about hollywood films. he was talking about popular culture. i would include all of the fine

arts, the educational system. it defines courage. it focused on virtue. -- it defined courage. today, our culture is self- destructive, anti-ñiamerican, is undermining us. you might call a jihadñr from or own intellectual elite. [applause] ñi>> watching movies in the 19's and 1950's, listening to the radio in that same era, it was a different time, -- a couple of comments. i think there is a danger -- there are lots of danger there. the military is a relatively

small part of the numbers. 2.4 million men and women in uniform, active duty. çó2.4 million. that ratio is only going to get smaller. it is not well understood by the rest ofñi america, and i think t is a real danger. there are some real dangers in that, and i think some of the initiatives the people of undertaken that are trying to get into school curriculums, what the united states military has meant to this country are really important issues, and there are lots of them going on. there are others, and many others, as well, and i think that is really, really important. there is a divergence in

cultures, as i think you alluded to there. the military in some cases it seems to be sticking out that has values different from what the societies -- the larger that gap gets, then we are in danger. we are in grave danger for lots of reasons, but we are in grave danger. >> you know, i take that comment, and i think about when chris matthews, the comment he made after president obama spoke at west point, when he said the president went into the camp of the enemy, that should be something that is very disturbing, because here you are, standing before the young men and women who will go out and fight for our freedoms and liberties, and to have somebody in the media say he was in the camp of the enemy, that is the type of chasm that has been created between our american culture and the men and women charged to defend it. i also say there are two classes of people that are needed to sustain a society, those who

teach it and those who defend it, and if we continue to put down the military and allow that chasm to grow, this thing because america will fall, and i also go back to another thing. a man called it the paradoxical trinity. he talked about the will of the public. the overarching thing common it comes back about what was brought up in the economic panel. we are losing responsibility and accountability, and when that starts to happen, everyone is a victim. nobody is empowered. everybody feels entitled. those are the ties of cultural problems that i think we have to overcome, and i think that 2010 is a very important year for that. >> one thing i have to learn, after reading one book, there was a concept in rome. the spontaneous duty to defend

the state, to contribute to the state. we have lost that. in america, young people do not feel the duty, obligation to serve. they do not feel as investing in our culture, in our ways of life. i think that is a very big thing. next up, yes, sir. >> i do have to commented that we are very fortunate to have qjñlawyers here, and i, as a mer of the bar, applaud them. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> that is quite an honor, sir. we will all raise a glass to you

at lunch. it is not a fun subject, but you should take some pride in that. >> i do not want to take much time,çó but i commenced a lawsut to be reinstated. andy's recitation about what has happened to the responsibilities of the three branches of government to ensure true balancing of the three branches, and the issue of deciding who has the decision to authorities on security issues, he cited the fdr ñiñidecision to let the supreme court know he would ignored the supreme court decision. lincoln did the same thing when he ignored the supreme court ordered to release a southern sympathizer. but we have seen in the reason

the administration and the supreme court the holding unconstitutional of various bush administration decisions in the security area, without any real hope for the future, at least as i see. how that is going to change so the executive authority is again reinstated on security issues, and i wonder, andy, how we're going to turn that slippery slopes around so that security is again the responsibility of the executive authority -- turn that slippery slope around? >> i do not think you do it through the courts, for sure. part of what has changed so quickly and so badly for thezv country is this self-perception of the court. during the second world war, the court still thought of itself as one of three branches of our government, which meant that if our country went to war, we all went to war, including the entire government, judiciary

considering itself part of it, and the judiciaryñi is there essentially as the ball worked -- ballpark -- bill maher --ñi essentially as the bulwark. you can ignore them. and it would require a very strong president who was willing to do that, like fdr did in 1942, but, look. fdr did that and felt confident doing that because the reason hamilton thought the courts were the least dangerous branch was because they cannot enforce their own orders, and i do not

want to say that courts are a debating society. you practice before courts. i have a budget respect for courts andñi judges in their proper roles, -- i have abundant respect for courtsxd. they were never supposed to be in a number of things they have now intruded in, and i think until the other two branches say no, we are not going to honor the rulings that get made in places where the constitution and the framers did not assign responsibility to the court. then we continue to go down the cycle. you cannot rely on the courts to turn it around. >> yes, sir? >> general, i would like to ask you a question about the joint chiefs of staff. at the time the iraqi war was just getting started. some will recall that it was proposed a declaration in order

to preserve the provision in the constitution that only the congress can declare war. añi former head of the congressional committee told congress that that was an anachronism and need not be enforced. it raises theñi question. i wonder if you would discuss if there is any concern by the joint chiefs of staff to require a declaration before sending our men into harm's way, and if not, why not, and looking back, do you think that we have been an appropriate thing for the joint chiefs of staff to do? >> let me note that he is a fire -- private and not a real lawyer. >> if the congress would not -- let me note that he is a pilot and not a real lawyer.

>> they are indoctrinated. >> let me take a little different approach to that. i think what would be important to the joint chiefs of staff, implied by the declaration of war, is that you have the support of the american people, and we have learned time after time that if the american people are not behind your after, you are not going to have their support, and we're going to be a nation at war, and there are 2.4 million men and women at war. so i think that is the issue. i tell you, it did not, as an issue. if it had, i think it is an appropriate thing. we certainly had enough time in front of congress, if we were so inclined, which would have stood up. we would never have been prohibited. we never felt inhibited.

-- we would never have been inhibited. as time went on, and as conflict became less popular, there was an issue, of course, and i would say exacerbated by the vitriolic debate surrounding the 2004 elections, and i could go into more detail, but that got us off track a little bit. what was at the time of to early 2004, a fairly coherent effort by this country. >> and d, maybe you want to add something to that. -- andy. >> a declaration of war is a legal designation thatçó defines invoked, and two countries are in total war against each other, but if you had to have a declaration of war in order to defend the united states, we would not be able to defend

ourselves. in this war, we had a sweeping authorization for the use of military force, which as a matter of law, asñi every bit a declaration of war as we could have a declaration. >> i think that is why -- >> right, under the circumstances, congress could end the war tomorrow if they wanted to. >> let me just ask you one thing on that point, just as a former military lawyers, the obligation is to follow orders unless they believe they are illegal for some reason. the american military is not going to go out and intentionally kill civilians, and unless there is some reason to believe that it is illegal, 3aáñ go. >> first of all, i just want to thank you for reminding us that we haveñi a clear and present danger and that we, we, are at war.

the people. they are at war, so it is not just our government or our military out there. as far as the culture, çóbeing n the business,bi first of all want to assure you that the people in the theatrical business are not wintering, simpering, liberals. -- not whimpering simperingñi liberals. we have a group that i am involved with in los angeles and here in new york where i live, and we are growing in tremendous strides. we have at least 1500 in l.a., writers, directors, producers, and so on, who are really on our side and who have separated themselves from that community, and we are growing here, it isn't -- even as of last night. i was at a meeting.

but my question really is about ourçó readiness for what is ahed of us, not just the obvious, but iran. and what we do about it, ñiand w we are making statements of ujráu(port of israel, which is, to me, outrageous, absolutely that up and go to a foreign country and tell israel what they should be doing on arab land. this is the subject matter which is really my question -- sorry. >> let me try toñi help you outa little bit. >> the readiness about our military and our people to take on iran. now, we have afghanistan, we

have iraq, we have what have you, all of the place, but iran is a clear and present danger. just to leave it up to israel and show weakness towards supporting them is horrible. and do we have enough? the generalxd had mentioned, doe have enough military? financial support of the military? and more importantly, a very bad subject, nobody wants to address, especially the military, is a draft. i know the military does not want a draft because they have the kind of a soldier that in love right now, who is a volunteer, who has been trained, -- they have the kind of soldier that they love right now. >> let me help you out right

now. i am sorry. [applause] thank you, thank you. just in the interest of moving things along, let me just say that military readiness -- i will refer to the general. i think your question is broader than that, and i think it goes to the sean connery question. we may be ready for a lot of things. >> there are a lot of questions. let me just take the readiness issue. in some respects, we have never been more ready than we are today. this combat tested and hardened force. the active duty, gar, and reserve the of but it has some fragility with it, because we have been at war for so long -- the active duty, guards, and reserve. -- guard, and reserve.

it has some fragility. recruiting and retention, morale. and we have the equipment. the issue is what is the will of the people, and when you look at iran, i would just take a stab at it. a very complex problem. -- i will just take a stab at it. for the first time in decades, there is a willingness of the people of iran to say enough of the ayatollahs. we know that they are very brutal, and they suppress it. whether or not military intervention will be required is an interesting thing. if it is military, my guess is that it will be those engaged in afghanistan, which means we have

some capability there. it will be up to the leadership what they want to do. let me just mention something about the draft. all of my statements to date -- if we find our military going in such a different direction than our society, if the military does not reflect society, then we have to think about the draft. i do not think it produces better soldiers, but it does produce other things that could ntry,çó and that leads to what i believe the guard and reserve are important. -- why i believe the guard and reserve are important. they keep us engage in ways that the active duty does not. -- they keep us engaged. >> this is not an issue of

military readiness. this is an issue of political will, because for 7.5 years, we have confronted essentially a threat which is existentialist to the international system, but which is existential -- a threat which is existential to the international system. stopping the mullahs isñi not considered practical. what is necessary is not considered practical. you have uncertainty, turbulence, and wars, and we are at one of those points were the international system is breaking down -- turbulence, and worse. the world is becoming more complex. that means in the next half decade, we could see a very different system, and all that we know about geopolitics could become obsolete, because, after all, we are living in the best

moment of history, but it could be followed by the worst. >> thank you. we want to try to get to everybody before the time is cut off. >> my question is for the colonel. it refers very much to what andy talked about any talk about the nazis -- what andy talked about about the nazis in florida. the bottom line is that my understanding of the geneva conventions would be that they do not apply to such people. and that is something that has never, i believe, been fully and properly explained, and this whole business of treating them as if they are criminals or whatever, would you please explain to the people here how we could actually legallyçó undr international law to deal with these bastards when we catch

them? -- how we could]nlñ actually ley under constitutional law deal with them? [laughter] [applause] >> you are absolutely right, and this comes back to educating people about what the geneva convention has in there. they are not protected under the geneva convention, and once again, it comes back to the benevolence we have in western society about what we seek to provide to them, but we have to be very careful about when tolerance becomes a 1-way street, it leads to cultural suicide, and that is where we are right now, because if we conuknue to go out and say, you know, we are going to read his miranda rights, and he goes to the court system, you will have more of that occurring. it is pavlov the in. if you continue to reward that type of bad behavior, we will continue to have more bad behavior -- it is pavlovian.

these are not isolated events, and a good commander, and i am sure that general will agree with me, he looks for warnings and starts to connect the dots. we have to do this with this enemy and realize that they do not deserve to have their day in court. they deserve to be taken off of the battlefield, and in some instances, if they can be locally tried by a military tribunal, i think that is one of the things that we should be doing, with our jag officers, to immediately bring them before and try them and expedite whatever the decision is. be careful about what is going to happen, because we turn that over to the afghans, corruption is rampant, and i cannot tell you how many times somebody got paid off, and a person detained or captioner, whatever, who was right back off on the streets -- and the person detained or captions -- capturedñi, whateve,

was right back on the streets. >> the commander in chief who is willing to make the decision to do it. yes, ma'am? >> hi, my name is francesca. i am a guest. thanks for calling on me. i am a candidate for a ph.d. at nyu, and so, i am combating constantly, and i was wondering if you could clarify, based on the doctors' discussion, -- the doctor's discussion, the difference between senator mccain's take çóon closing

guantanamo bay and our current president. that would help me out a lot. i am wondering if you could clarify it. >> let me go real fast, because i do not think there is a lot of difference between mr. mccain and president obama. i think mr. mccain is responsible personally for changing the law on torture to make it so unconstitutionally vague that we do not know what it is anymore. i think mr. mccain has answer for. if anybody wants to add anything to that? andy? >> they will use anything, but the position of mccain and obama as i understand it is that guantanamo bay causes terrorism, and we hear that is real causes terrorism, gtmo, israel, abu ghraib -- we hear that israel causes terrorism.

>> i think soft drinks cause it. >> causes this are things that make them think they can win. -- what causes this are things that make them think they can win. ñrwhat makes a difference is we stopped them from attacking, but if anybody thinks -- i convicted a guy, sitting in a nice civilian prison, after having a nice civilian trial, if you think those guys are not offended that he is in an american prison, just because he happened not to be in gtmo, that is suggesting of being completely divorced from the reality of who we are dealing with. >> thank you very much. we are going to try to get to the last two. >> hello, i am with a blog, if you could not tell from my tennis shoes, and i am also a

former marine. my question is mainly for the warriors. we were talking about how to identify the enemy, and last week, helen thomas, it was after the christmas bombing incidents, and they were talking with the counter-terrorism tsar, and the question was, why do they want to do this, and the answer was that there is this worse version of islam, and the question again was why, why would they warp a religion in order to attack us? what do you say to people who would jump through any mental troops and ordered to make us the bad guy? because her conclusion -- jump to any mental hoops? how do you answer people like that? >> you are the smartest guy here. >> we have got some legal advice here.