in keeping with the threats that you've talked about to our sovereignty and our constitution. i would ask you to address what you make of that and what we should be doing about it. >> i take a very strong view of the provisions of the first amendment. to me, the notion that you can carve out exceptions to the prohibition of the establishment of religion or that you can pass new blasphemy laws are so clearly violating the constitution, it is hard to imagine that they could be taken seriously. it is a consequence of a belief in individual freedom that you are prepared to except statements by individuals that you find it personally

offensive, that you find politically offensive, because the effort to keep people keep their speech with then zones of reasonableness inevitably result in censorship. i did not have any sympathy for these ideas at all and i would hope that we do not succumb to these concepts in the united states. . . europe where we don't have the kinds of protections that we do. that restrictions on speech are gaining attraction. i think that would be a mistake. i think this is the, you know, the first amendment is the strongest statement of individual liberty we have in the constitution. i think in retrospect, it's too i think in retrospect, it's too bad there weren't things like that in the area of

economic freedom. certainly we have what we have. certainly we shouldn't seed those areas of freedom under the guise of not says, that' >> go ahead. >> do you regard the trial other serbian officials in the hague as a violation in of national sovereignty? >> i believe the trial in yugoslavia was a mistake,

because ultimately, when you have a situation like the breakup of the former yugoslavia, where heinous abuse of human rights and war crimes were committed, at the society where those crimes were committed ultimately has to deal with it. if it can make a decision, whether it is in bosnia or serbia itself, whether to bring criminal indictments against the people who perpetrated the crimes, or to do something else like self africa did when it created the truth and reconciliation commission to deal with the aftermath of apartheid. but when you take responsibility for dealing with these terrible acts, and remove them from the societies in the question, you are creating the possibility for the abuses to occur again.

and you're creating the potential for a feeling of victimization. i think the idea that people are not mature enough to deal with the problems that their officials created is a mistake. it is a very difficult question, but i do not think you encourage political maturation by involving the people in whose names these -- by absolving the people in whose names these crimes were committed from the responsibility of dealing with the crimes. i think society's have to work it out for themselves. i think others are entitled to judge those societies by how they work them out. but setting up a distant tribunal that is not directly involved with these societies themselves, i think would postpone a day of reckoning and help lay the basis for a future conflict.

>> i just wanted to say that in 2004, my unit in baghdad was tasked with providing additional security in abu ghraib. we lost soldiers. fellow soldiers did not come home because of that. last year, there was an attempt to get thousands more pictures released that have already been used in the prosecution. i remember europeans asking where was the signature? they wanted to subpoena powers. we knew that if something like that happened we would lose soldiers because of it. this scares the heck out of me. this is more dangerous, i think, than anything the enemy can throw at us overseas. i just want to know, is the

administration on a timeline for approaching that again? >> i do not know exactly what the administration's plan is, but i do not think there is any doubt that those who conceived the international criminal court saw one advantage of constraining the united states. under the doctrine of complementarity, if a nation deals with allegations of war crimes on its own, the i c c will not haing jurisdiction. -- will not have jurisdiction. we concluded in this country that our soldiers did not violate our articles of war, did not violate our word -- our rules of conduct. this would leave them open to prosecution in the icc.

what we concluded -- there were allegations filed because of the nato airplane -- the nato air campaign over serbia. the prosecutors did not reject those complaints out of hand. they eventually concluded, for a variety of non-substantive reasons, not to bring prosecution. but the court that we created, the security council, was examining the conduct of a nato offices pyrrhic even though every nato member is a member of a democracy and follows our laws and training on the rules of war. the implicit threat to the united states seems to me to be so real. this is why efforts to come back into the icc in whole or in part are something that we should resist.

yes, in the back. right here. >> thank you. i am from greensboro, north carolina. i have had the pleasure of the voting for senator helms three times. my question for you is regarding abu ghraib and also, most recently, guantanamo bay. closing guantanamo bay would pose a huge danger in the united states, especially bringing these terrorists to illinois. what are some alternatives you would suggest to the obama administration? >> i think the clearest, most logical alternative is to keep guantanamo bay open. it is not like when we, the bush administration, found itself in possession of the terrorist captured in afghanistan and around the world, it is not like

we rushed to the conclusion that we were going to bring them to guantanamo. it was a real hard question of what we were going to do with them. guantanamo was appealing because our lawyers felt that the constitution and interference by civilian courts would not apply. also was not in afghanistan or another country where we would not have clear control and jurisdiction over the people. but, that is not to say that anybody was enthusiastic about guantanamo bay. nor were they enthusiastic about the idea that some of these terrorists would have to be held indefinitely. as close as you can come to analogizing the geneva convention, under the geneva convention, a real prisoners of war can be held for the duration of the conflict. there were not alternatives. many people in the

administration, for years, thought of every alternative they could. that is why guantanamo bay was put there, and that is why it is still there. honestly, in a the obama administration, that is why it is still there, and i would bet, by the end of the obama administration, will still not be closed. the war on terrorism does not fit the conventions of a regular war in some respects. activity should not be subsumed under the criminal law paradigm. these are not bank robbers on steroids. they are people who are waging war on us, our allies, and our way of life, and they need to be treated in that context. i think it is fairly remarkable, the shift in american public opinion that we have seen. at the end of the bush administration, the media and political elites had beaten the administration into submission to close at guantanamo bay. it was one of the first acts

president barack obama undertook as president. just this morning, i saw a new cnn poll that showed that support for closing guantanamo bay is down to 30%. opposition to closing it is at 60%, way up from where it was, because people have seen at the base. they have made up their minds that guantanamo bay turned out to be the right decision. was it a perfect decision? no, of course not. but there wasn't any alternative. >> we will take this gentleman and then one other question. >> thank you. i believe that china and the united states are the only two nations that have successfully made a kinetic shootdown of a satellite in space. knowing how the central

satellite communications are, both to our defense and our economy, how can an international law the assist or hinder that the venture? >> it is perfectly permissible to use international planes for military personnel -- purposes. this is a misapplication of the customary law involving the ocean. where we need protection, for a whole host of reasons, our communication, information, infrastructure, our ability to use satellites for espionage purposes, to protect the united states and its friends and allies. i think having weapons in space to defend ourselves is not only

entirely legitimate, it is not anything we should compromise in the near future. i think that is why we were right during the bush administration to sideline these negotiations on a weapons in outer space. i think it would be a mistake for president barack obama to resume those of negotiations and, heaven forbid, if they come up with a in an outer space treaty, i hope the -- and hope the senate rejected -- i hope the senate rejects it. >> the house and senate occasionally pass legislation to hold united states contributions to the united nations when their actions are objectionable. inevitably, the state department comes back and says that these are its treaty obligations, that we are beholden to provide that

money. i would like to know your thoughts on withholding. is it useful? and is it an obligation that the u.s. is bound to patel? >> i do not think there is any question that holding -- that withholding contributions to the system has been effective in getting some small reforms. i think the problem is that it has not been effective enough. the argument that we are required to pay what has been assessed by the majority of the united nations, i think, is an argument that ultimately means that we have agreed to an international taxation. i do not think that is what we agreed to when ratifying the charter. i do not think that is really what the whole mechanism for funding of the united nations was really intended to do. the right now, under the helms-

biden legislation, we pay 22% of the contributions for most united nations agencies. let us say that the overthrow of saddam hussein had outraged the membership and they decided to show the disapproval of this action by, for one fiscal year, making the u.s. share of the un budget 99%. would we be obligated by treaty to pay a 99%? i think, just like joe biden, they would be headed to the weeds to avoid that conclusion. i think the answer is to get away from it the system of contribution entirely, and move toward a system that is totally voluntary funding by the united states. we would give money to programs

of that work and withhold our money from the many programs that do not work. i think that would actually improve the un system. i think right now the system creates an entitlement mentality that leads to poor performance. if the directors of programs and other members of the government knew that they had to show results without getting money, they it would have an incentive to show results. we should move to voluntary contributions and then a lot of view and the programs would not be funded. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> wijohn, thank you very much

for getting us off to an excellent start. thank you to the helms center for sponsoring this lecture series. we hope to have many more of them into the future. thank you to all of you for coming today. [applause] >> and up next, the afghan ambassador to the united states takes questions on their initiative to train future afghanistan leaders. following that, we will take a look at the obama administration's counterterrorism strategy. also, treasury secretary timothy

geithner and others discussed women in the finance. this week, on "america and the courts"," a moot court on whether non-american citizens can take advantage of american vaccine's. that will be today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on the twister, facebook, and youtube. you can sign up for our e-mails at c-span.org.

>> the ambassador to afghanistan talked about training and new leaders. following that, he took questions from the audience. >> the floor is open. >> yes, please. sir. >> i am jim byrne. i am is a free-lance writer here in town. "the new york times" today, which i am sure the investor has am sure the ambassador has taken a labatt -- a look out, laid out several things we have done wrong in dealing with

afghanistan. how does that strike you when you read stuff like that? is it just plain wrong, or is it emphasized wrong? >> these are politically motivated articles. if you read the article, you will see that the majority of afghans and the u.s. citizens consider their to be political instability there. there is no evidence, except for political motivation, there is nothing else we can do. in a kandahar, there is the strong presence of military from many countries. if there was evidence of

wrongdoing, they would have come forward with it. for seven years of these allegations have been circulating. >> could you say something about the second part of his question, corruption in general? >> this is a serious challenge that we face. that is why in the past we have sought the assistance of the general fields and many others to help build the basic infrastructure of afghanistan. first, we are aware of the corruption and waste. second, we are trying to build institutions. we have a number of officials who have enhanced the authority and the mandate of the high office of those in charge of fighting corruption. it is going to take awhile to overcome that challenge. there is a lot of money flowing

through afghanistan from outside, from legitimate sources, from neighboring countries and others. unless we build the necessary institutions, we are not going to be able, just by removing one individual or pointing a finger, to end corruption. it is a serious challenge. there must be a demand by the afghan people that the government be strong and resolute in fighting this. corruption takes place on a small scale in the police force. that is the kind of corruption that affects the daily lives of afghans. we are working on it, and we will be dealing with that by building the necessary institutions, but prosecuting officials, but also, by improving the security system, especially the police force and others.

>> i wonder if i could call on in general fields. let me read-introduce him. he is the inspector general for afghan reconstruction. >> thank you. thank you, ambassador, for your speech, and congratulations on the progress you have made so far by way of the foundation. i applaud all of these elements and the contents with which this foundation has been put in place. i have about two minutes to give a bit of background on what it is it that i do. i am working with the government of afghanistan to work out our respective strategic interests. the united states has invested quite a bit of money in

afghanistan over the past eight years. we first began to significantly invest in afghanistan way back in 2002. that investment has multiplied many dimensions since then. right now, for this fiscal year , the investment on reconstruction alone in afghanistan is $51 billion. this is in addition to the billions of dollars that we spend in support of the military operations. when i say $51 billion, that is exclusively reconstruction. of that, at $26 billion has gone to the security sector, standing

up the afghanistan national army and the afghanistan police. about $15 billion has gone toward development across the board. there are issues such as narcotics in afghanistan but we also addressed. all of that is rolled up into this $51 billion. my job is to, in line with the comments made by the ambassador in regards to corruption, my job, as i report directly to the congress of the united states, my job is to ensure that the $51 billion that the united states has invested is being used for the purposes for which it was made available by the american taxpayer, so that we can help said tayeb jawad and others,

like this foundation, to carry out what needs to be done it to advance afghanistan and the people. i have had the privilege to work with ambassador jawad, president karzai, the ministers of the government of afghanistan, the leaders of afghanistan fit, and certainly with our own government of the united states, and with other participating nations. this is a partnership that we are in support of. we are going to continue our mission to the best that we can, to ensure that every taxpayer dollar that is spent, and every dollar being put forth by the international community, is being used for the benefit of the people of afghanistan. thank you. >> mouches thank you. -- thank you very much.

[applause] >> i just arrived from afghanistan two days ago. i am very touched by what you have mentioned about this program. my deep appreciation. i have a question with two parts. you've spoken a lot about education. if you look to the scholarship programs, for instance the fulbright scholarship, each year millions of people have a chance to come and study in the united states.

in the last few years, nothing has changed. there is a huge misunderstanding in the united states about what happened in afghanistan. there is a policy that u.s. money cannot be spent on education for afghanistan's pinpointed -- for afghans. general appealed spoke about $51 billion -- general fields spoke about $51 billion. outside of our borders --

[unintelligible] >> i agree with you that there is a need to enhance the number of fulbright scholarships from which afghans could benefit. we also need to focus on long- term, for year scholarships -- 4-year scholarships. the budget has been reduced, but there is still room to bring afghans into that program. the administration needs to offer financial incentives or penalties for those who come but