ground than the people on the ground. when we start to have this top driven rule of engagement, youñ are indeed putting our young men and women in a very bad situation. if you're out in the middle of the night on a road in afghanistan and iraq and you got a shovel, you got a wheelbarrow and a couple of oblong looking device with wires coming out of it, i don't think you're out there planting fruit, but yet, our young men and women have to ask for clearance. look at any of these apache gun tapes and you will hear them calling back asking them to engage when they have eyes on the target and they clearly know what is happening. . .

>> we knew what they went through. you know about the four gentlemen who had plastic explosives here in york and wanted to blow a synagogue. we know about the men who got this from yemen and came back and shot soldiers.

we have the illegal immigrant in dallas. we had the fort dix 6. all of these things are happening right here, not to mention the christmas present that we almost got from my nigerian terrorist. we have got to understand that right here and right now, we need to develop the right type of rules of engagement to deal with this enemy on this battlefield which america clearly set in. because giving constitutional rights to a legal enemy combatants is not part of our american liberties. that is not a proper roe. [applause] last week, in west palm beach, fla., by heard eric holder to speak and i took an airsickness bag in case my stomach -- [laughter] one thing that he said was that we are a nation that is at war.

and then his next sentence he came back and started justify bringing khalid sheikh mohammed here. he said of the close guantanamo bay we close the number one recruiting tool. the guys that were shooting at me could care less about what you do with guantanamo we must understand that. that is another aspect of the rules of engagement that we need to have in this country. i think about the fact that right now the somali pirate, where is he? he is all lawyered up and wait to go to our system. think about the young man who just pled not guilty to the christmas terrorist attempt. those gentleman should be sent to guantanamo bay. [applause] they have to be understood -- it

has to be understood that they are illegal and the combatants. that is part of the domestic rules of engagement that we need to understand. had we take our legal system and applied to this new 21st century battle field? i want to also talk to you about something else as we head into this 2010 midterm election. there is a political battle that is going on as well in the united states of america. the set piece is conservative versus liberal but there is also an underlying aspect to that. there are irregulars on the political battlefield. it is called acorn. it is called seiu. it is called the new black panther party. all of these people who are seeking to undermine this political process, this electoral process we have here and we saw what happened when this new black panther party went to be brought up.

the electoral base of the united states of america is under attack which is part of our liberty. that is a key aspect of the rules of engagement. how will we deal with that? how will the deal with the fact that right now you have this thing called universal robert -- bader registration. -- voter registration. how're you going to deal with the fact that a representative out of illinois 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. how we engage that? how do we make sure that this republic and that is what it is is here for the next 200 years?

that is truly what we're up against. we're up against an enemy within and an enemy without. one of the things you have to realize is that the enemy that is within is using your constitutional liberties. anytime anyone is in a mosque on friday and they are preaching the overthrow of your constitutional government, it is not freedom of religion. that is not freedom of speech. that is sedition. 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 republic? i am proud to see this title of reclaiming american liberties because we're now starting to understand it is under attack. from this point, as you said, this campaign, what is our strategy to go forward? you are on the battlefield here

in the united states of america. it is about the future of your liberties. you have to get off the sidelines but we have to get have the right type of rules of engagement and make sure we fight these enemies. thank you very much. god bless you. [applause] >> we talked about the war on islamic extremism. the enemy is not al qaeda. it is the nations that sponsor terrorism. they are the ones without whom terrorism cannot threaten us and without the feeding, we cannot possibly win this war. one of the other things we have

going is the fact that the world has many moving parts. just because we are entirely focused, at this time, on the middle east, on islamic terrorism, on the threats we face immediately does not mean that there are a lot of other áhings we can afford to. the world as many moving parts. gordon chang will talk to us about this. he has lived in the far east for a long time. his writings have appeared in many newspapers and publications. he is a common -- is a columnist at forbes.com. let's talk a little bit about nuclear proliferation which seems to be a little bit of an issue these days. last week, china 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 achieve that goal? [applause] >> last week, china did announce that it would not support another round of sanctions on iran. this means that the five permanent members of the security council and germany are going to have to continue talking to the mullahs about their efforts to enrich uranium. i think we need to put this into context up to now, we have been talking about the militants, the terrorists but now we need to shift our focus to the actors in

the international system that can really hurt the united states and their allies. that, is other nations. we have been talking to the mullahs about their nuclear program since the dissidents in 2002 revealed the existence of secret iranian nuclear facilities including an underground enrichment plant. in the face of iranian intransigence, the u.n. security council has imposed a three sets of sanctions 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 the iranians. iran has a quantity of enriched uranium, and ridged to about 5% purity that if further enriched to 90%, would be sufficient for

the core of what nuclear weapon. according to obama's proposed deal, iran would take about 3/4 of its enriched uranium and ship it to russia and france. russia and france would further enriched uranium to about 20% purity and then turn it into fuel rods. these fuel rods would then be sent to iran. the iranians say they need 20% enriched uranium for a medical research reactor in the iranian capital. on october 1, iran accepted the deal. two days later, it reneged. the united states, europe, and the international atomic energy commission then gave iran to the end of december to accept the deal. in november, the united states was confident that china would take the same position on iran

as the other great powers. as usual, obamas top asia adviser on the national security council was wrong about beijing. beijing turned around and said no sanctions for they took sanctions off the table. iran has not been negotiating with the united states in good faith up to now and the chinese had just taken away one reason more for them to talk to us. we should have known that china would not back sanctions. in the middle of october, the chinese premier announced that china would strengthen its already robust commercial ties with iran thereby giving the iranians more means to resist international pressure. china, unfortunately, has become a rent number one supporter. beijing is now a sanctions buster. why are the people in beijing's supporting the iranians?

there are many reasons. analysts point to a few of them such as china wanted to secure access to iran's clean-burning gas, china wanted to compete with russia for influence in iran, china wanted to defend its principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, and of course, china wanted to support the mullahs because they don't want to see the theocracy collapse because that would give hope to the chinese people that they may be able to get rid of their own dictators. yes, these are reasons why china is supporting iran. we need to go deeper and to understand what china is really doing and what they are really doing is trying to undermine america's influence and role in the world. they are trying to make us look ineffectual and partly because they feel threatened by who we are, by the values that we stand

for. insecure, intolerance, and a secretive china feels it must change the liberal and democratic system that we lead. what is china doing? they are supporting every nuclear road fundamentally altering the structure of the international system. the chinese support by itself is not sufficient to explain what i call the her in paradox. -- the i ran paradox. -- the iran paradox. the united states is the strongest nation in history. iran is an unstable state that is corrupt. it has a stumbling economy and it is headed by an increasingly divided and unpopular government. despite this obvious disparity of power, despite everything else, mullahs are winning.

unbelievably, they are paying a penalty for doing so. what are the iranians succeeding against us? our principal problem is that we have our priorities wrong. yes, we are trying to stop the atomic ayatollahs but we are supporting this critical goal to a longer term objective, at least something we think should be longer term. that is integrating china into the international system. it would be great if china were responsible power and one day, i am sure it will be. but it is not one today and in today's washington, the obama administration, very much like its predecessor, is forgetting one critical factor -- before china helps us on the great issues of the day, before they can play a constructive role in the world, china must do more than just beginning a fundamental shift in its foreign policy.

it must complete the process of shedding its self-image as an outsider and ending its traditional role as an adversary of the existing global order. such a change inevitably occurs when a rising power matures but it only takes place after internal perceptions have shifted over time. the problem is that today, china is not quite ready to play its role as a responsible great power. incredibly, the united states is giving beijing be incentives to become even less responsible. therefore, we should not be surprised by beijing's aggressiveness because we are in a very real sense, the author of many of our problems with beijing. how did we contribute to this problem? we forgot every lesson we learned in the cold war about defending our values and of posing a totalitarianism. in the early 1990's, optimistic

western analysts predicted that with the soviet union gone, we would enter a generally harmonious era. history had already ended. because history had ended, because we had reached the end point in the eve illusion of human societies, we engage the chinese with trade and with generous foreign policies. we gave china a seat at the top table because we believed that by ending it a leading role in world affairs, that the chinese would become responsible. as we know, the chinese, in fact, did not. our remedy for the failure of engaging in the past has been to promote more engagement in the future. as we continued unsuccessful policies, we created perverse incentives. the chinese engaged an unfriendly behavior so we reward them. they continued irresponsible

conduct, we reward them some corporate in these circumstances, why would they ever change? are generous but misguided policies could cause problems. beijing knowing it has gotten away with bad conduct in the past, will naturally think it can do so in the future. prior administrations, beginning with those headed by george h. w. bush, have been responsible for what i think or indulgent and counterproductive policies with regard to the chinese. the obama team has taken a bad approach and driven it to its logical, i would even say its logical conclusion would mean? in november, it was said that china is an essential player on the global issues that are on -- at the center of our agenda. economic recovery, climate change, energy, north korea, iran, non-corp. issues, success in afghanistan and pakistan and

arms control. on and none of these issues can we succeed without china's cooperation. in fact, we can succeed without china's cooperation but that is not the point. the point is that when beijing strategists hear these words, they naturally think they have a veto over american foreign policy. china having a veto over our policy may seem preposterous to you and me but that is not the way the chinese see it. the chinese think that we are in terminal decline and think they can do what they want. they are wrong. unfortunately, the obama administration has said and done things like hillary clinton saying that human rights are not important in our dialogue with china and the president himself refusing to see the dali lama that reinforce this impression of american fecklessness. we have to remember that the

chinese are coming off of their success of helping north korea get the bomb. the administration of george w. bush wanted to make china a part of the solution and agreed to accept china's leadership of the efforts to disarm north korea. beijing sponsored the six-party talks which began in 2003. the chinese were able to drag out the proceedings and give kim jong-il the opportunity to develop and test two nuclear weapons and perfect his long- range missiles. in other words, we allowed the chinese to give him the one thing he needed the most to make himself a real threat to the international community -- that this time. now, the chinese believe that they have succeeded with regard to north korea and are employing the same tactics with regards

to iran. and yet washington continues to let the chinese leaders by the nose. we, in fact, witnessed washington giving china the right to determine american policy. we saw that this month. at the same time, china ruled out the possibility of sanctions on iran hillary clinton that despite three months that there was a december deadline, turned around this week and said there was no deadline after all. washington opened the door to much more talking to the mullahs in useless conversation at a time when iran is about one year away from developing their first nuclear device. china is showing the iranians and indeed the rest of the world that the united states can accomplish its foreign policy objectives. on a critical issue, washington is allowing two two-bit roads.

who is going to fall on any policy matters? this morning i was asked to speak about the significance of washington being unable to thwart the national -- nuclear ambitions of north korea and iran. the answer is no one will listen to us anymore. throughout history when dominations have failed to lead, they have faltered soon afterwards. no country can leave the international system if it is ineffective over a period time. an international system that cannot defend its most vital interests against its weakest members cannot last. let me leave you with one thought -- north korea is not just about korea. iran is not just about iran.

north korea and iran is about our ability to lead, about our ability to insure stability in the international system and as we all know, at this critical period of time, the stakes could not be higher. the only international security system that works is the u.s. alliance system. it is ironic and a bit sad that it takes an australian journalist to see what american presidents cannot. at one time, it may have made sense for us to engage our adversaries and pursue multilateral solutions. unfortunately, those solutions have not worked. at this precarious time, it takes strong american leadership. we are the ultimate and sometimes the only guarantor of the international system. others understand this. it is time for washington to do

so, as well. thank you. [applause] >> thank you and as we go to your questions, ladies and gentlemen, make -- let me make a couple of quick points -- are you safer now than you were one year ago? we're approaching the anniversary of mr. obama's inauguration. let me suggest that he has taken three affirmative-action that have made you material laissez les bons temps rouler. these are not just things that have been -- that made you materially less-safe. he has banned the so-called enhanced interrogation methods by which a lot of information was garnered from terrorists and detainees. we know george tennant said that those enhanced interrogation techniques produced more valuable intelligence than the cia, the nsa, and the fbi

combined. by doing so, the president has left us with inferior and inadequate methods of garnering the sort of intelligence. we are also closing guantanamo bay. that is a political reason. there is no reason in american law. there is no international law to compel us to do so. we are doing so at considerable risk. we are now bringing terrorists into new york and into detroit for civilian trial. it will be a media circus. it will possibly endanger the city of new york and detroit themselves because that will become a magnet for attacks. are you safer now than -- are you say for now this day the war when your dog? i would submit, no. you can ask anyone a question and everyone will jump in with

their opinion, which are ncaa rules. >> this has been an honor and privilege to listen to this panel. there is some of the vision and experience. i have one question, particularly for general miers, maybe to colonel west. would you consider culture as a national priority? it seems our civilization, our media, our hearts, our educational system it has not been doing the job for what you are referring to as a realignment of our priorities. i think is a vast and a deep to subject a particularly as it might apply to military confidence and strategic planning. >> general miers?

>> let me see if i get this right. when you say culture, could you say another word or two? >> it was referred to that the last time we really knew who our enemies were and who we were was world war two. william manchester wrote a book where he credits the bravery of american soldiers to something that might strike as funny now but was very true them. he was talking about hollywood films. he was talking about popular culture i would include all of fine arts, the educational system. it to find the courage and focused on virtue. it focused on the good, the true, and the beautiful. today, our culture is self- destructive, anti-american, is undermining us as much as a fifth column. you might call it a jihad from

our own intellectual elite. [applause] >> it is striking when you watch movies done in the 1930's and 1940's and 1950's and listen to radio from then, it was a different time. many people think it is quite. i grew up in that time. i think there are lots of dangers. one danger i talk about as a military person is that your military is a relatively small part of members of this country. we are 2.4 million men and women in uniform. as opposed to 320 million in the country. that ratio will get smaller as the country grows.

you have to think about -- is the military going to become something that is not well- understood by the rest of america? i think that is a real danger. some of the initiatives that people have undertaken that are trying to get into school curriculums. what the united states military has meant to this country is an important issue. that is really important. cultures. -- there is a divergence of cultures. the larger the gap between values get, we are in grave danger for lots of reasons.

>> i think about when chris matthews, a comment he made after president barack obama spoke at west point, when he stated that the president went to the cap of the enemy. that should be something that is very disturbing because here you are standing before the young men and women that will go out and fight for our freedom and liberties and to have someone in the media say that he was in the cap of the enemy, that is the type of chasm that has been free of between our american culture and the men and women that are charged to defend it. there are two classes of people that are needed to sustain a society, those who teach it and those who defend it. if we continue to put down the military, if we continue to allow that chasm to grow, this culture, this thing we call america will fall. it has been called a paradoxical trinity. it talks about the will of the people, the will of the

government, and will the military. they all three have to come together. the overarching thing that is a problem here is that we are losing a sense of individual responsibility and accountability. when that starts to happen, you have an entity that comes in where everyone is a victim and no one is empowered for those of the type of culture problems we have to overcome. i think 2010 is an important year for that. >> i've learned from reading herb's book, the spontaneous duty to contribute to the state. we have lost that. in america, young people do not feel the duty or the obligation to serve. they don't feel as invested in our culture and our ways of life. i think that is a very big danger. >> this question is addressed to

antique mcgaugdy mcgaughey. ã[applause] >> [unintelligible] we will all raise a glass to you at lunch. you should take some pride in being booed by those folks. >> i don't want to take much time but i commenced a lawsuit to be reinstated because i was illegally fired. [applause] andy mccarthy's recitation as to

what happened to the three branches of government to ensure true balancing of the three branches and the issue of deciding who has decisiona; authority on security issues. he cited the fdr decision to let the supreme court know that he would ignore them. lincoln did the same thing when he ignored the supreme court when they ordered him to release a southern sympathizer. we have seen in the recent administration in the supreme court, the holding unconstitutional of the various bush administration decisions in the security area without any real hope for the future of how that will change so that the executive authority is again reinstated on security issues.

i wonder if you would comment on how we will turn that slippery slope around so that security is again a responsibility of the executive authority. >> i don't think you do it through the courts. ♪part of what has changed for te country is the 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. the judiciary is there essentially as a bulwark for americans, to protect americans against said he set an arbitrary actions by their government. unfortunately, the courts have become a forum that sees itself

as standing somehow above and outside our constitution, a forum for all of the world to come and make its case against the united states. that was not the idea. i don't think you can talk them out of that. you can't ignore them. it would require a very strong president who was willing to do that like fdr did in 1942. fdr did that and felt confident doing it because the reason hamilton thought the courts or the least dangerous branch is because they cannot enforce their own orders. i don't want to say that courts are debating society. we'll practice before courts. i have abundant respect for courts and judges in their proper roles. their role is never supposed to be the national security of the united states for their role was never supposed to be a number of things they have now intruded in.

until the other two branches say no, we're not going to honor the rulings that get made in places where the constitution and the framers did not assign responsibility to the courts, then we continue to go down the cycle. i don't think you can rely on the courts to turn it around for it it requires the other two branches to say stop. >> general myers, i would like to ask you about the joint chiefs of staff. at the beginning of the iraq war, ron paul proposed the declaration of war in order to preserve the provisions in the constitution that only the congress can declare war henry hyde, the head of the judicial committee said that was an anachronism and need not be in force.

who would have standing to oppose the executives? could you discuss whether there's any concern by the joint chiefs of staff to require a declaration of war before sending our men into harm's way and if not, why not and looking back now, do you think that would have been an appropriate thing for the joint chiefs of staff to do? >> let me just note that he is a fire pot -- a fighter pilot and not a lawyer. he is a real person [laughter] >> who would stand up to the american people if the congress did not enforce the constitution? >> let me take a different approach to this. what would be important to the joint chiefs of staff and implied by the declaration of war would be to be support -- to

support the american people. if the american people are not behind your efforts, you will not have their support we will be a nation of war and 2.4 million people will be at war. i think that is the issue. it did not come up as an issue. if it had, i think it is an appropriate thing. we had enough time in front of congress that if we were so inclined, we would have stood up and say what we needed to say. we never felt inhibited. as time went on, and conflict became less popular, there was an issue, of course. it was exacerbated by the vitriolic debate surrounding the 2004 elections.

that got us off track a little bit about what was, at the time, of too early 2004, a fairly coherent effort. >> it has never been below of cannot be at war unless there is a declaration of war. a declaration of war is a legal designation that defines a number of things that you can do once bill lot of work is in vote and two countries are deemed to be at war with each other. if you have 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 have a sweeping authorization for the use of military force which, as a matter of law, is every bit as much a declaration of war as we can have. >congress could end the war

tomorrow if they wanted to. >> let me add just one more thing. a former military lawyers said the military is to follow orders unless they feel those orders are illegal for some reason. the american military will not go out and kill american cynicismcitizens. >> i want to thank you for reminding us that we have a clear and present danger. and that we are at war, the people. it is not just our government or military out there. as far as the culture, being in the business, i want to assure you that the people in the theatrical business are not

always bring, simpering liberals. >> really? how can you possibly prove that? >> we are moving. we have a group that i am involved with in los angeles and new york, where i live. we are growing in tremendous strides. we have at least 1500 in los angeles, writers, directors, producers, who are on our side. they have separated themselves from that community. we are growing here even as of last night. my question really is about our readiness for what is ahead of us. it is not just the obvious but iran and what we do about it and how we are making statements of

disrespect and non-support of israel which is coming to me, outrageous, absolutely outrageous that we would put that up and go to foreign countries and tell israel what they should be doing. the readiness about our military and our people to take on iran -- xwe have afghanistan, we have iraq, we have what have you all of the place. iran is obviously a clear and present danger. to leave it up to israel and opened show weakness toward supporting them is horrible. do we have enough -- it was

mentioned that we have not enough military, financial support of the military and, more importantly, and a draft. i know the military does not want a draft because they have the kind of soldier that they love right now who was a volunteer, who has been trained. >> let's try to move things along. let me help you out a little bit. military readiness -- i'm sorry. [applause] thank you. let me just say that military readiness -- your question is broader than that. what are you prepared to do?

we may be ready for many things. i don't think we're prepared to do anything. >> there are many questions in your question. let me take the readiness issues. in some respects, we have never been more ready than we are today. we have that, this combat-tested and hardened force. we have been at war for so long and that has impacted families and military members. we are losing some good may degrade nco's and officers in the army and that will hurt us going forward. having said that, recruiting retention, morale is generally very good. currently, we have the equipment. the issue is what is the will of

the people? when you look at iran, it is a complex problem. it looks like now, maybe for the first time in decades, that there is an onus on the people of iran to say enough of the ayatollahs. how far that will go, we don't know. we know they are brutal and a suppressed as much as they can. we will see where that goes. military intervention will be required. it is military, my guess is that it would be those forces that are not currently engaged in iraq and afghanistan. it would be unable and air which means we have some capability there. it would be up to the current military and political leadership as to what they want to do. let me mention something about the draft. in all my statements today, i have said i don't favor the draft for the time i would favor a draft is if we find our

military going in such a different direction that our society -- that the military does not reflect society, then you have to think about the equalizer might be the draft. i don't think it produces better soldiers but it produces other consequences that could be important to this country. at least to why believe the guard and reserve report because they are out there and these thousands of former east throughout our country and they have day jobs plus the military judge and they keep was connected in ways that the active-duty actually doesn't. that is a general comment about the draft. >> this is not an issue of military readiness. this is an issue of political will. for 7.5 years, we have confronted a threat which is existential to the international system. we are at one of those times where we have not demonstrated the political will for a number of reasons. essentially, what you have is a period where it is necessary to

stopping mullhas is not practical. what is necessary is usually not considered practical part you have on certainty, turbulence, and worse. we're at a point where the international system is breaking down in part because we are not willing to enforce it. also because the world is becoming more complex and a number of other reasons. that means in the next half decade, we will see a very different system. all that we know about geopolitics at caller: calle coe obsolete. we're living in the best moment history but it could be followed by the worst. >> thank you very much. >> my question is for colonel west. this is about the nazis being caught in florida and dealt with

by fdr. it is about the state of illegal enemy combatants. this is about the way we treat terrorists and their affiliate's when we catch them. my understanding of the geneva conventions would be that they do not apply to such people. >> they don't. >> that is something that has never been fully and properly and explained. this business of treating them as if they are criminals actually --lies in how the military captured them. how could we deal with these bastards under international law, when we catch them? [applause] >> don't sugar coated. [laughter] you remind me why i like to be around a british army so much. you are absolutely right. that comes back to educating the people about what the geneva convention has in there.

the ledger is caught in the battlefield are not protected under the geneva convention. it comes back to the benevolence we have in western society about what we seek to provide to them. we have to be very careful when intolerance becomes a one-way street, it leads to cultural suicide. that is where we are right now. if we continue to go out and say this guy shot a syringe into his underwear but we will read him his miranda rights, you will have more of that occurring. it is pavlovian. if you continue to reward that kind of bad behavior, you'll get more bad behavior. we are being studied. these are not isolated event. a good commander, and i'm sure that general myers will agree with me, they start to connect the dots.

÷be careful about what will happen possibly in afghanistan because as we turn that prison over to the afghans, corruption is rampant. i cannot tell you how many times somebody got paid off and the person that you detainer captured was right back out on the streets. we have to take the enemy off the battlefield. as long as they continue to want to fight is, they stay locked up. that is what we have to believe in as a people. >> the legal system we have now, we can do all that. it takes a commander in chief who is willing to make the decision to do it. >> thank you for calling on me.

i'm a candidate for a ph.d. my leanings are more -- it is my doctorate at nyu so i am combating constantly. i was wondering if you could clarify dr. linden's discussion and the difference between senator mccain's take on closing down guantanamo bay and our current president. that would help me out a lot. i was wondering if you could clarify that. >> let me go real fast because i don't think there's a lot of distance between john mccain and president obama. i think senator mccain is personally responsible for

changing along torture to make it so unconstitutionally vague that we do not know what it is anymore. mr. mccain has a lot to answer for per. >> they will use anything protection ally. both positions are that guantanamo bay cause of terrorism. we hear that is real cause of terrorism, a guantanamo, israel, abu ghraib, israel, [laughter] but what causes terrorism is islamist ideology and successful attacks. that makes them think they can win. what we are trying to do is to hope they don't jump inúwith the real bad guys. what makes a difference is that

we stop them from attacking. if anybody thinks -- i convicted a guy who is 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 because he happens not to be in guantanamo bay, that is suggestive of completely being divorced from the reality of who we are dealing with. >> we will try to get the last two -- yes, sir? >> i am a former marine. [applause] my question is mainly for the warriors. we were talking about identifying the enemy. it was after the christmas bombing incidents and the question was why do they want to do this?

there is a warped version of islam that is motivating them. hewhat do you say to people who will jump to any mental groups to make us the bad guy? the conclusion was that they are fighting a war to be isolated, not a war against us. how do you after people like that? >> the smartest guy here as the smartest question. >> maybe i will take the fifth. >> they have to increase their understanding of what is going on. >> had you explain to people? >> hopefully, there are other voices that are rational and can

explain it in ways ways >> let me say this -- i don't care about being popular per the first thing you have to do is study and understand who you're up against. you must realize that this is not a religion that you're fighting against. you are fighting against a steel-political structure. it is something that has been doing this since 622 hd, 1388 years. you can see many examples of this in history. you want to ask people in constantinople and why it is called is done both. you need to read and then you

can really understand that this is not a perversion. they are doing exactly what the koran says. [applause] we have said this all through this morning, so corporate until you get principal leadership in the united states of america that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail. we will never clearly define who this enemy is and then understand their goals and objectives which is on any jihadist web site and, with the proper goals and objectives to secure western civilization. thank you. [applause] >> last question. >> following the near-fatal christmas day incident over detroit, it was reported that there were 540,000 people on the

confirmed or suspected terrorist list kept by the national counter risen -- counter- terrorism center but only 1% were on the no-fly celeslist. can you shed some light on why the rest of us should sit next to a suspected terrorist and not even know it and why they are not all on that no-fly list? [applause] >> let me say one thing -- if you read the white house report that came up a week ago last tuesday, in terms of what led up to that attack, if you read it, there is a paragraph that shows that there is an enormous, a very heavy bias against putting someone on the no-fly list in my book, it should be really easy to put someone on there and really hard to get off. [applause] >> why shouldn't they all be on there?

>> because we are operating under a philosophy of every organism on the planet earth as an american waiting to happen. that is the way that the people who make the laws they. notwithstanding that we are now in a secured environment, the war is not just asymmetric but we're dealing with un-uniformed alien combatants soap your suspicion level should be higher and the fourth amendment to allow you to do more even if you assume the fourth amendment applies because it only prevents you from doing unreasonable searches. you would think we would be up here but unfortunately, with political correctness, we're down here. but no big there is any other explanation. >> anybody else?

>> ladies and gentlemen, i am getting a lot. thank you very much [applause] -- i am getting the hook. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> "washington journal" is next with today's news and your phone calls. we get to the national press club live it 1:00 p.m. eastern. at 2: 30 p.m. eastern, live coverage of a senate hearing on financial regulation.