that has been at the heart of this. i can think of nothing worse for transatlantic relations that you had this division >> are you concerned because of the budget cuts and all going on there right now? >> there are some realities that european governments are facing. it is a shared responsibility, a shared commitment. we cannot have free riding. secretary gates discussed this with his colleagues. one of the things that we have felt for some time is whether we need to get finance ministers into this conversation as well as defense ministers. what has been happening is that defense ministers are there, but we need a sense in which the whole government is involved. there will always be an issue

with economic pressures. it is important to keep focused on this issue. even as european governments grapple with it, there is a sincere effort to find a way forward. very good dialogue with our colleagues from you take -- from the uk with the reductions to make sure that they were thoughtful, but they complemented with others were doing, so that other countries can work better together. better cooperation, thinking about supporting, we have to be smarter about this and not lose sight of the common obligation. >> just one comment. one of the many jobs i have is to chair the defense ministers. it is really important that one of the effects of the thing called the list and treaty which created my job is the opportunity to collaborate

better in europe. that has led the bilateral agreement and initiatives, but also broader initiatives about using resources and a smarter way. there is no question that it is not just about looking at the money, it is saying what do we actually want to do, what should our role be, and how to do that. a number of conversations going transatlanticly. >> nato is participating in different operations, but it is not only a military and political organization. its political goals are acceptable, then military participation will be higher. participation in afghanistan, and now there is other regions as well. we're organizing with neighboring countries, common forces to participate in

afghanistan, and it is important, because it is participating in nato goals, and our original goals as well. so nato is very important for us as an instrument. and they're going to support of bosnia-herzegovina as much as possible. >> one minute left wartime. you get the final word. you tell me how you want to wrap up what we just said today. [laughter] when you hope to be in the you? >> of i hope it will make some -- the specific circumstance, havea is a place where we to prove that the nation's and the regions can work together. something special should be

advanced for bosnia-herzegovina. that is my message. >> thank you for joining us. [applause] in one moment, we'll have our wrapup of this wonderful panel. [applause] >> thank you. >> i think we should give our panelists another hand. they were great. i want to make one. bank -- 1 point that came out of

this panel to begin with, that the other panel ended with. i believe that the agreement we made at dayton and how we came to it, including the eventual use of military force briefly in bosnia, sort of set a template for how we would deal with other challenges and crises and opportunities throughout the administration for eight years. and i think the interplay of conflict in the region really is a microcosm of all was going on in the world in the 1990's and continues today. basically the world grows ever more independent -- independent in ways that are both positive and negative.

-- enter to defend it defendinterdependent -- inter depedent. many in this room would not have been able to find the balkans on the map. it is a metaphor for the positive aspects of the interdependent world. the fact we now feel some identity with all those people asking for personal and political liberty in the streets in egypt. that is a metaphor for that. i think it is also quite obvious what the negative implications of the independent world are. and i thought from the beginning the post-cold war

world would be a race between people building to -- building a positive and reducing the negatives, and those on the other side. and we had to find a way to work together that would bring about shared benefits, shared responsibilities, and a shared sense of community. now we did the best we could at dayton, but you heard them in the beginning here -- the principal effect of the dayton -- defects of the dayton accord is that it sought to project the distinct legitimate interest of the various ethnic groups and their accumulated an understandable fears by given the mall veto power over each other. -- by giving them all veto power over each other. compared dayton to the irish

peace agreement, where the parties themselves have come a very long way before. that is the other thing. they quit fighting, they quit killing each other, and boom, they had to immediately make an agreement. there was no let down and readjustment time. in the irish case, where they have been carrying on for 30 years, the people got out ahead of the politicians and told them to stop. and the politicians decided to stop and they created, instead of a negative sense of shared authority, a positive one. instead of giving each other veto power over the other, they created an agreement of majority rule, minority rights, shared political decision making, shared economic benefits, and a shared relationship with both of their near neighbors, the united

kingdom -- and the irish republic. what we all need to do is try to help them overcome the bill to ban the veto bias, and they are doing a good job on our own, but the rest of us have to help. i see this all the time in other places in the world, with the political system has survived in favor of stopping rather than empowering people to share a future together. i saw one more poll this last week just taken in israel showing that 65% of the israelis, including over 60% of the could party -- likud party,

could support a peace agreement that had at a palestinian site in west bank. basically, what we all know it would have to be. but the way the local system worse, for reasons having nothing to do with this, it is hard to produce a government that reflects that 65%. you see this all around the world. interestingly enough, the country that has gone the furthest to try to stop anything like this from happening is now harshly criticized during its election season for doing so. rwanda. in rwanda, where there was actually a complex set military action by the now-military president, who had a dominant role in setting up the new constitution and the new system, because it was in the minority

ethnic group, the tutsis, the principal victims of the rwandan genocide, he refused quite rightly to be the first president. but they are so allergic to what they want, if there bosnia, there comes a vote, that it is illegal to run to office on a let -- on ethnicity, and to talk about the the state claims of people based on their ethnic backgrounds. one lady came home and was subject to a rest and not allowed to run for president because she wanted to run on a platform that said an ethnically defined disagreements.

when they got on to their common futures, they went from a per capita income of $268, quadruple their income. the larger principle is unacceptable. that is why these two presidents talk about all the positive things they have talked about. but surely there has to be a will weigh in place word no one is prepared to do what rwanda has done, or where people want to be able to recognize both their separateness and their participation in a larger community. it's interesting, because the rwandans, they acknowledge their history, they have a gripping holocaust museum and the talk about it. it may be impossible to repeated. and later -- maybe they have and maybe they have not. my instinct is what the irish

try to do, or even what the lebanese try to do, which would work, which if everyone would leave them alone, but lebanon has a very complicated religious, ethnic, cultural landscape in which the sunni muslims get the prime appointments, and the shi'a is the speaker of the house, and allocated. and that is the way that they share power, but they try to create a system which is -- it is in your interest to get something done rather than in your interest to veto. we need to try to help that happen in the balkans, in law or in fact. the second point i would like to make, is that we spent a lot of time here talking about what governments can do. and i think that is important. but i also think that i should

take some bow to my wife in an ngo. one of the things we can do in a -- this context is to build a civil society and non- governmental contracts that will create a context in which leaders like these to can succeed. and in which the serbian president can take the lead in trying to promote reconciliation, in which a bosnia serb could survive politically doing the decent thing and say, let's figure out how to share the future together. i wanted to say that we wanted to try to do more help build civil side to help that. someone else in my family has all the influence and power now. [laughter] as a lot of the no, have this

global initiative that meets at the un every year. we have about $63 billion worth of commitments in the last six years. we have our first 2011 commitment, our nation's largest youth service organization, the biggest affiliate of america corp., with the support of the rockefeller brothers fund, has agreed to host a meeting of youth leaders and connect them to counterparts in the united states to share models and approaches for doing citizen service, in gauging the citizenry, supporting economic investment, and they are coming here to do that. and that is really important. we have to help build a civil society for doing positive things. one of the things that i have learned, i see it happen in america over and over again, if

you organize the politics and a certain way, even if people do not field the way, all the research shows that the people in bosnia-herzegovina, the people in croatia, the people in serbia, they think that their past ethnic fights are of almost no importance compared to creating a brighter economic future, educational opportunities for their children, to build a modern future representative of the young people in this room today. i am going to do what i can to help them with this project, and i urge all of you to think about what you can do. finally, let me say on the discussion that kathy and jim were having about the role of the united nations -- the united states and what christina said. we have the biggest consensus we have ever had within the american government for raising

the role of diplomacy, development, across the whole government. it is recognized as a board for national security by bob gates, the only time in my experience i can remember the defense secretary consistently advocating for bigger development budget for the state department. because he believes it. we've seen in the present administration that the economic agencies all recognize that this is important to america's ability to increase exports and our economic standing in the world, to do this kind of investment. and we've made almost no progress in congress. in fact, the last election signaled a big move the other way. madeleine albright and sandy and i were just talking about being worried to preserve the

development budget that we have. that is an irony of democratic politics. if you took a poll in u.s. the american people, and it has not changed in 30 years, how much of our budget we should spend on development assistance, they would say between 3% and 5%, no more. how much do you think it will spin? 10%, 15%, too much. what is the fact? we spend 1% or less. no matter how many times we say it, it does not register. so even though every member of the united states congress knows that they can safely vote for the assistant budget, they know that they will never be defeated for voting against one. for all of you who are americans, ask you to think about that. when you one to sustain the

effort in afghanistan, i agree with what peter galbraith said about meeting our partners, we have to prove our good faith that we are not just interested in doing what happened to them in the 1980's when we were only too happy to dance with them until the soviet union left, and then we left. and the only way you can stay after a war is over is to help people build a better future for their kids. and there is almost no support now -- you can say all you can about the current economic climate. the whole discretionary spending budget in the government is only 50% of the total. all the cost driving the deficit our health care and defense. mainly health care. and we should not do this. we should not back away from our responsibility to bosnia -- to bosnia, to croatia, to the future. but we need your help, all of you, to saying that to the

members of congress and making sure that the american people know that we do not spend nearly as much as they think. we should spend about 3% of our budget instead of the 1% the week to spend. but they think we spent 10%, so we are opposed consistently on this. the final thing i want to say is this. the balkans are both a hopeful and a cautionary tale of the modern world. everyone needs a sense of identity. we need to be able to define ourselves in boxes which enable us to feel tangible and to draw distinctions. man, woman, white, black, african-american, asian. old, young. student teachers, our minds

work through catheterization, and a blurring of the categories. -- categorization and the blurring of the categories. and nothing is more boring than the underlying humanity. all the research shows that we are now unemployed 5% the same in dna. -- 99.5% the same in dna. the ball and soir a good experience for me because here were people who are biologically and distinguishable who were of different religious faiths and cultural conditions, because of an accident of history or the ottoman empire stop, where the holy roman empire stock, or the islamic empire stopped. -- the slavic empire stopped. they could kill each other party

-- kill each other and have no concern about whether their children live for died. that is at the root of have all the problems everywhere else that leads to violence. many years ago i read a book, two years ago, who wrote the " moral animal," about being ethical in impulse to each other. the book is called "nonzero." it is a game where you can win without someone else losing. we americans love 0 some games. that is the super bowl. or basketball, we will make them play seven, eight, 12 overtimes, whatever, there has to be a loser in order for there to be a winner. it is nice for sports. in the world that we need -- in

the world, we need more non- zero-sum games. they have had enough life experience and they have seen enough people die and they have learned enough that they believe they can share the future, and the only way they can win is that if it is a nine-zero-sum game. -- a non-zero-sum game. is the task that faces people everywhere. -- it is the test that faces people everywhere. i think the balkans will always be relevant and dayton will always be relevant, because it was the post-cold war world first, brave effort to prove that we can live in an environment in which we can all win.

i still hope we make it. i still think we have to prove it. thank you very much. [applause] >> next, a discussion on the internet privacy. then it does -- a tribute to the late senator edward kennedy. then we will have the latest on the situation in libya, including remarks by market offtake, u.s. officials, and the u.s. state department. to end this weekend, governors will talk about growing their state economies. education, and cybersecurity, as they gather for the winter meeting of the national governors' association. we will have live coverage throughout the weekend on c- span. >> sunday on "road to the white house," might cut of the with his new book, "possible government." he talks about president obama

and his possible run in 2012 as the gop field begins to take shape. watch sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> without taking it in your city for a conference on digital privacy. media bistro is a website founded in 1993 for people who wrote richard worked in media- related industries. you will hear some of the leading thinkers on the protection of personal data. they talk about imports of managing information coming user expectations, and potential regulation in the area of online privacy. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> just a reminder, there is wifi. the password is myn. hopefully it is working. now it is time for our keynote presentation. business week calls him the internet's ralph nader.

he teaches information privacy law at georgetown. we're so honored and pleased have martin here. >> thank you. thank everyone for being here. i am very much pleased to be able to speak with you about what i think is going to be one of the tough issues in washington in the coming years. and just to illustrate for you how significant the privacy issue has become, i want to tell you a quick story about the supreme court and privacy yesterday. one day, january 19, this is what was happening at the u.s. supreme court. they were hearing arguments in one case about whether or not corporations had a right of personal privacy. and the top justices were

debating this back-and-forth. but just before they heard arguments in the case, they announced a decision in another case about whether not the constitution protects the right of informational privacy. if that was not enough, my organization was scurrying about to prepare a brief and pilot for the court in a third case involving a new form of police stop, which is assembly a request for identification without any probable cause. three cases, one day, the u.s. supreme court all about privacy, and we're only halfway through january? i think we will have a very busy year. i want to tell you about my organization us at tech. we began in 1994 to focus on cutting head to privacy and civil liberties issues. and we take a little bit of credit for the launch of e- commerce, because the reason we

got started, the issue that we were focused on, was the availability of encryption, the key technique to make possible online commerce. back in the early 1990's, there were a lot of people concerned that if that privacy technology became too widely available, maybe people getting cage in criminal acts and other threats to public safety. but on balance, people realize that to allow users of the new communications technology to share information, to go online coming to make purchases, to download music, to buy books and whatever else they might choose to do required a secure technology that would protect their private information. and to safeguard the technology, we organized and launched the first internet position.

it was signed by 42 experts, but when put it on the internet, it a lot -- it attracted 42 -- 50,000 people. today, it is like a facebook group, but in the early 1990's, that is a lot of people. that campaign had a big impact and made encryption possible. we're going to talk today about the hot topics in the privacy world in 2011. i will focus on those that think will be of most interest to you, including the role of the fcc and the ftc, two of my favor washington acronyms, international privacy framework, and finally, we will be looking at the possibility of legislation, what to expect from the 112th congress. let's begin by talking a bid by do not track.

less than a year ago, hardly anyone had used this phrase, i do not try. people were familiar with do not call. here we are a year later, the federal trade commission lining up behind this proposal, members of congress backing it, privacy advocates seem to favor it, and many engineers are trying to figure out how to make it work. why is this particular proposal so popular? one reason is that there is just general and ease among the public about the new forms of interactive advertising. let's be honest about this. digital advertising is very different from the analog world. in the broadband world of mass communication, radios, television, and print media, people were able to get access to information, advertisers were able to reach their audience, but there was not a lot of collection of personal data

taking place. instead, it really was not possible in the analog world. all of that has changed and the advertising model has changed. much of it relies on the collection and use of that personal data. but it is this transformation in the technology which is also creating the privacy concerns. it is the reason also the proposals to regulate some of these activities, particularly the ones most intensive about data collection, currently have support behind them. but there is another part of this story as well. i mentioned do not called. do not call is generally understood to not only be in washington but also outside the nation's capital, one of the most successful government programs in a long time. believe me, if you are looking for a policy initiative in washington, you would like to begin with something that is generally viewed as successful.

do not call has been so successful that more people signed up for it then voted in their most recent presidential election for both candidates combined. that is pretty good. when you hear this phrase, do not track, you're hearing partly to public concern and partly that this is the reaction where congress has had some success. with all good stories, there is a bit of a back story. i will tell you the back story on do not call, and what it tells us what they do not track may be facing in the few years ahead. do not call took a lot hand to get it right. i remember the first hearing on the proposal. in fact, i was there, testifying in support of it back in 1990. i said, it was probably a good idea to give people the legal right to limit some of those

annoying telemarketing calls that they are getting a home during dinner time. they seem designed to arrive when you are sitting down to dinner. between 1990 and 2005 it took a lot of provision, a lot of government activity, the creation of new regulations and rules, so that eventually a person who actually did not want to receive one of those calls had a simple, easy to use, permanent opt out they would actually record and maintain their preference. if that sounds a bit familiar, it describes what i think will be necessary to make "do not track" work. if we're going have a meaningful opt-out for online advertising, one that satisfies users, it is going to have to reflect all the elements that made "do not call"

work. but that took 15 years. i do not think we have 15 years to wait on the "do not track" proposal. the other part of the proposal to be aware of is that this is only a small slice of the advertising industry, which for some of you here may be good news, for others it may be not such good news. i do not know. but there is clearly within the advertising world many different ways to reach the user community. the question is always come a which are the ways are most respectful of privacy and which are least likely to attract the interest of regulators in washington? i would like to suggest that the general guideline, those techniques that do not require the collection of a lot of personal data, they probably are the ones that are least likely to create problems. if we think about the on-line advertising industry more broadly, not just particularly the "do not track" proposals,

the best solution, the long term solution is the solution that you might hear more about as the year goes forward, it will actually involved regulation of the collection and use of the personal data. not simply the effort to put in place a "do not track" system. that is something to follow in 2011. let me say a few words about the federal trade commission and the federal communications commission. the united states is unusual in the privacy world. we've the about -- we are the only major country without a privacy agency. many countries around the world in europe and asia and latin america have actually established an office within their government, typically a big independent of the government, that has the responsibility to address public concerns about privacy.

physically some investigative powers, some enforcement powers, and primarily you might think of this office is being an advocate for the consumer or the internet user when privacy concerns come along. the united states for various reasons as they get established such an agency. i think the u.s. should probably do this. i heard someone say recently to remain as a high level of administration official, we do not want to be too bureaucratic, we don't want 150 people working in some office somewhere. and i thought to myself about all those folks in the airport's using the body scanners. i think the current count is 67,000. maybe if they let go of some of those people in the airport invading privacy and reallocate some of the office of furniture to the privacy office, we might have a better balance. we will see how that debate plays out.

in the absence of this privacy agency, what we have in the united states are different offices in washington trying to pick up different pieces of the privacy problem. the federal trade commission has responsibility typically to protect consumers. if you get a bad deal when you purchase a car, for example, or confirm the problems of identity that, which turns out to be one of the top concerns of american consumers over the last decade according to the ftc, the ftc can test a kid. the ftc can go after what i described as unfair or deceptive trade practices. interestingly, it has had a big impact on the internet economy simply by using that current authority. it wasn't so long ago, for example, that microsoft was proposing a single sign on for the internet called passport. the ftc took a look at that and said, maybe that is not so good.

maybe we need a distributive identity system. and microsoft backed off. and the big data broker, a choice. -- choicepoint, they became the target of an ftc investigation, change their business practices as well, and you may have heard about the ftc investigation involving twitter. they stand out there ready to act on business practices, they raised concerns for consumers involving the is unfair and deceptive trade practices. the fcc has been caught up over the last couple of years in an issue some of you might at heard about, i think it is called that neutrality. i don't know a person in washington that does not have an opinion on net neutrality. i know quite a few people who have a lot of opinions about neutrality, but we're not talking about that today.

sec, that may be good news. it gives them the upper -- for the fcc, they may be good news. they can focus on promoting privacy networks in in the distance. one of the issues now squarely before the fcc concerns google street you. -- streaked view -- street view , the cars they drive down the street that have the digital cameras on top, taking pictures of houses and office buildings, putting up stuff on the internet. there has been some discussion, some people sitting by the window, sunbathing or something, they are not too happy about it. they contact google to say take out my image, or my license plate. so why is the fcc interested in

street view? in addition to capturing these digital images, the vehicles were also capturing the wifi transmission's as they were driving through those commercial areas, and those residential areas. they might have gone by a wifi hot spot at mcdonnell's and starbucks, most likely advertised on the web, come check us out. but they also went by the wifi hott spots in their private homes, where people work connecting their desktops to the laptop in the kitchen. this is an interesting issue. it is one that the fcc will be looking at more closely this year. they have already announced an investigation. the federal trade commission concluded there there was not anything to investigate.

but this is the way the washington works some more times. you have a couple of different cops on the beach. if one misses a problem, sometimes the other picks it up. also on google street view, all those privacy agencies have been looking at that issue as well. we have several countries that have concluded that that service probably violated national privacy laws and national wiretap laws. 2011, stay tuned on google street view. as long as we looked at the international perspective, it is worth trying to understand the relationship between the united states and the european union, particularly when we talk about privacy. as you know, the internet is global, commerce is global. not surprisingly, privacy is also global. companies in the united states

collect information on european consumers. government agencies in the united states as european travelers to provide him permission to these agencies to make determinations about whether or not they may pose a threat to the country. these two factors combined have made the europeans increasingly uneasy about the flow of personal data to the united states. as a consequence, there is increasing pressure being brought on the united states to update its privacy laws. essentially, to give european consumers and european citizens of bit more control over the collection and use of their data. this may sound like one of those issues that makes its way somewhere into an agenda for a trade meeting if people have a little bit of time left over at the end of the day when they're done discussing all the important issues and they get around to this privacy issue.

but almost the opposite is true. this is the issue that is beginning to dominate trade meetings. it is the issue debt rises to the top of this discussion. most recently, when the vice- president of the european commission met with secretary napolitano and the attorney general mr. holder, she expressed to them to a concern that the united states was not doing enough to safeguard privacy, not doing enough to update our privacy laws. i can assure you this is going to be a very big issue in 2011. it will focus on the adequacy of protection, of data being collected in the united states, it will focus on issues like rights and redress. there is a perception today that in this world of notice and choice, when people's

information is misused or when some privacy problem results, there's not much that happens in the united states. there is no compensation to consumers. not too often, a change in business practice. we will likely seek more pressure from the europeans to update privacy laws. i think there will be impacts will certainly on commercial practices. the stick a moment to talk about legislation. -- let's take a moment to talk about legislation. i mentioned at the outset, facebook has a remarkable relationships with privacy. am sure most of you saw the past few days that there was another privacy 181 facebook propose to make home addresses and mobile phone numbers publicly available to developers.

people were uncomfortable about that because it was not clear to the facebook user exactly what they were agreeing to or how the information was being collected and used. after a couple of days of discussion, facebook decided to pull back. there are two ways to read that. one way is, this is a good thing. facebook seems to be responsive to users when there is a privacy concern. they hear it, they act, they change their practice. that is the way things should work. there is another way to read this which is, how many times would users have to go through this? because if we look at the last several years with facebook and privacy, and we look at the cannes and the change in the terms of service, and we're looking at the change of privacy settings, the sense you get increasingly is that users are simply being worn down and that facebook pushes forward, test

the water, and it's a little push back, and waits a few days, and then marches on. from the privacy perspective, that is not a happy story. that is the story they pretty much ends over time with people having no privacy. on the storesency to say that this is great, people are being responsive, maybe we do not need the legislation. i can tell you that view in washington and certainly people following this issue for a while, it is very different. i think that view is increasingly that there is a need for legislation, and that the privacy of the user's needs to be respected. my organization at that -- my organization went to washington about practices and talk about their authority to investigate abuse of trade practices, and

when they decided to change this terms of service on users, there was simply unfair. if you sign up for product come you have a certain understanding on how your data will be used. you say, i am ok with that and i will sign up for that, and that is a bargain. and then the company says afterward, we have a good option. we would change things around. now we're going to start using your data in other ways. i think there is a reasonable argument that that is unfair. if people had known that at the outset, maybe they would have made a different decision. we get particularly upset around the change in the facebook privacy settings, which a thing most of you probably remember. what was going on with a change in the facebook privacy settings? facebook it set up an elaborate system for people to make choices about the various levels of privacy protection they wanted. it was essentially a grid.

facebook had different services, chats, wall display, so on. and then they said, you can have this available to everyone, available to friends, friends of friends, or some customers. it was more complicated than what i've just described. lots of people took the time to go to those privacy settings, to make their choices, the figure out what everything man, and i did not know that there was a way to customize a list, but ok, i'll try to take advantage of that. i did not know developers have access to this information or there'll as a way to turn off that feature. i'll take advantage of that, right? everyone having made these decisions, facebook decide subsequently to change it all up. ok, we're going to do something different. we will start partnering with web companies, for example. we will use some of these

authentication tools. our web-based partners, make your information available. a lot of very big changes. i am not saying that is a good thing for companies to be able to grow and offer new services. i am saying that it is unfair to users, particularly who are trying to protect their privacy, to be constantly has to reexamine the choices that they thought they had already made. that was the basis for our complaint to the federal trade commission. facebook and other companies are doing this simply should not be allowed to. fcc actually sat on that complaint. they have not announced a resolution. we've heard through various channels that it has certainly had an impact on facebook in the industry. people are more sensitive to that concern. and more respected, i think, of the decisions that users make.

but you have to ask yourself the question -- does this prove that our current non-self regulatory approach to privacy is working? or is it evidence that what we really need now is significant privacy legislation to protect the privacy internet -- the privacy needs of internet users? i think you can imagine where i might come down on that. i am injustices' -- i am interested to see how these issues play out. on the energy and commerce committee, the senior leadership has just been selected both on the republican and democratic sides, so there will be key players on a key committee, all of whom have expressed an interest in privacy. this is one of the interesting things to know about this topic. privacy is genuinely bipartisan.

people in washington can disagree about a lot of stuff, but when it comes to privacy, it seems to be one of those issues that bring people together. in 2011, we will probably see significant legislation begin to move in both the house and the senate. part of that because there is public support, part of it because there is a sense that it is overdue, part of that is that people will want to work on something other than net neutrality. privacy becomes a very attractive option for the folks who have done enough with net neutrality. ok, i have given you an overview. this is what to expect with privacy in the coming year. i think we will have a fascinating year. i think it will be likely to be one of the biggest years for privacy in quite some time. all the indicators are there, not just in the supreme court and congress and relationship with europe and evolution in technology, and no doubt many of

the things you're discussing here today, but also a growing sense that our laws need to be updated. we have waited a while to see how all this works out. but over time, interestingly, most privacy laws come about in response to new technology. we got privacy laws for the telephone because people were concerned that the private communications would be overheard. we got privacy laws for computer data bases, because people were concerned that a big brother government would create profiles on assistance. and i think that we will give privacy laws for the internet, because people value their personal information and want to be sure it is used for pre purposes. i want to leave you with this final thought. rigid for appropriate purses -- for appropriate purposes. i am fascinated by the relations

between privacy and one of the time seems to be competing interests. i call these the paradoxes of privacy. one of the biggest paradoxes of privacy is that people to fill a strongly about privacy protection are also some of the greatest advocates of freedom of expression. louis brandeis, for example, the author of the famous article on the rights to privacy that everyone talks about in most private talks, was a member of the supreme court to sell most wrongly about protecting the freedom of expression. there was in his mind no contradiction between these two powerful interest. how about privacy and open government? people say, well, privacy is a good thing, but we want government to be open, transparent, and accountable. and we agree absolutely. a lot of people talk about privacy has the right of individuals and transparency and openness has an obligation of

government. my organization is promoting privacy and working to keep government and decision making open, transparent, and accessible. let's take a hard one and the interesting one, the one to leave you with today. what about privacy and innovation? a lot of people saying, if we have privacy, that slows innovation. that is a regulatory burden that we need to avoid. we need to allow people to be free and creative and not looking over their shoulder at some regulator who might tell them that is something they cannot do. i like to suggest to you today that almost the opposite is true. i think that with smart regulation and 4-looking principles, that seek to promote businesses and services and innovation and protect

privacy, we can have some of the most brilliant insight and some of the most brilliant solution is possible. i know that is part because when we started our organization more than 15 years ago, that is what we were aiming for is driving me privacy technology available so that the internet could grow and become a secure platform for commerce and communication. i know this is true also when you think about the energy industry today and the auto industry and understand the important transformation taken place in transportation directly large fleet by regulatory commitment to move away from fossil fuels toward electric energy and other energy sources so that we can continue to have the benefits of new technologies. so that is my view. privacy is a board not only to protect fundamental rights, not only a key issue in 2011, but also the key to innovation and

future growth of the internet. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we have time for some questions. please identify yourself. >> one of the things that is challenging in the private discussion, the u.s. attempts a property right, this idea of our affirmation tends to be a lot of the rhetoric. -- our information. in europe, they appeared to take a human rights approach to. is it damaging for property rights? >> that is an excellent question. another way to understand that question is, if you have the right to vote, which is very important. but you do not want people to take their right to vote and start putting it up on each day, because that is not good for --

on e-bay, because that is not good for democratic government. different approaches can reach the same results. we can think about loss in the u.s. partly based around property notion, partly on human rights notions, that say that people should have control over their data. in europe, people should have control over their data. the end. -- the endpoint begins to look very similarly. it's a fascinating question. were markets for personal data already exist, i think people should have the right as a matter property to whatever benefits result from the sale. it may look more like copyright of my thinking is, if someone is selling my profile, don i have some interest in that value?

but i'm not necessarily say that we encourage those markets. where this market exists, they should be made fair. >> can you please step up to the microphone or summer and sure you identify yourself. >> sheila. why is there resistance to protecting students as consumers? >> you need to say a little more. >> why aren't the their information practice principles directed to that information? >> we've had these overlapping privacy laws in the united states. we do a lot of work with online commerce and you're probably familiar with the childrens' on- line privacy protection act.

it takes an affirmation on children 13 and under. some protection in colleges and universities on students. but for the most part, a lot of the information about minors is available. it lacks adequate protection and this is one of the areas where congress is likely to add. i testified at a hearing last year on coppa. when we worked on that law by the mid-1990s, it was before the emerging social network. what people were thinking about was the direct marketing. we did not want direct marketing and build big profiles on young kids. it seemed reasonable and it is right. but it anticipates the emergence of these data-rich areas for kids under the age of 18. it was a good argument for looking at that and updating it.

>> talking to the microphone if you would. >> i was just curious, you said with the sale of information, there should be some sort of recuperation. it would be entitled to some of the benefits of that. a searche use of engine or for use of the platform, isn't that recuperation? i think about pandora. i can pay to not have advertisements. i guess my question is, isn't that the benefits of selling your information? >> i think it is a very good point.

a lot of the internet models are based on the ability to occupy this in between space. and the way you get them into that space is by offering a free service. i think the best way to think of this is to try to limit the collection of personally identifiable information. someone is interested in a service or enters a search query. based on what they have expressed, we will give them some advertising or something that seems relevant. all of that can take place on internet users. but there are a lot of other uses. there is also basic fairness in trying to limit the personal information. i am not arguing against the model you just described.

>> how do you see the time line playing out in 2011 and beyond. i am very familiar with that coming from direct marketing. that is my first question. my second question, a d.c. it's affecting some of the more sensitive areas like pharmaceutical markets? >> how congress operates in this two-year cycle. they have two years to get legislation done. there is a little bit more to that story also.

members who have sponsored legislation in the previous congress or expressed support for legislation are likely following through in the current congress and pushing the proposals forward. in terms of the legislative calendar, you will see it in the next several months. i heard this morning that the senate commerce committee. i would not underestimate the possibility that a member would have support and my put it on another bilhah who try to get it passed. it could move pretty quickly.

we have not talked about updating the wiretap laws. it can move pretty quickly. the other question was about sensitive information. the medical information. one of the reasons it has become a hot topic is because so much information is going on line into electronic health networks. this is raising general concern about security, traditional secure -- concerns about privacy. and some of that might be commodified a bit. it might be fine if somebody does a general search query on the apartments in new york. the want -- it would otherwise

.equire a doctor's prescription it is also an issue in another supreme court case. there is the ability of states to get the practice of data mining, who they could get doctors to prescribe a competing product. that issue is going to be before the supreme court this year as well. >> thank you for being here today. [applause] he is going to be around during launch that we will have after the next speaker. i wanted to mention that there is a reception with a drink on the house after we are concluded today.

and the launch is going to be held across the hall at the usual spot. this is a gentleman that is sure to be hotly debated over sandwiches. he is the author of the cult of the amateur, how it is killing our culture. please welcome the man with an anti-socialist manifesto, andrew keene. [applause] >> i will time this.

thank you for inviting me. it is nice to be here. i am writing in but about all of this stuff on privacy and social networking. i am in the middle of it. he is writing the same book from another position. hopefully i can make some sense in the middle of this month. i think one thing that is missing from the so far, his presentation i thought was very valuable. everyone has been very interesting. it is what privacy is. we use this term automatically, but no is defining what it is. he wrote a very famous harvard law review piece.

he defined privacy as being let alone. one of the things that is missing, most of the discussion about all of this stuff is to historicize the moment we are in. the reason why is so influential is that it was written as a response to the nature of mass media in industrial society. he writes specifically about the right to be left alone against the industrial technologies. i think it is very important, this is something that we might disagree about. we agree on the historical

significance of the moment we are living in. we are on the brink or in the midst of the major historical change equivalent to the industrial revolution. we're back in 1890 all over again. there are management theorists that have been making this point about the knowledge or the information economy for 20 or 30 years. the digital revolution is the equivalent of the industrial revolution in terms of its significance. i think we have to understand that, when he says 2011 is going to be one of the biggest years for privacy, the reason for that is because the great revolution that has been brewing in the last five years.

it is beginning to reach a climax. not the climax, he never know when you have a full climax. sometimes it takes some time. the revolution is what is known as the social. i wrote a book in 2006 against went to a point though. i was arguing against user generated content and defending its mainstream media. the other thing that is bigger is the social. the social revolution. the very well-known venture capitalist defines the social as the third grade stage of this technological revolution. the first was the invention of the personal computer. the second was the invention of

the internet. he is not just theorizing, he is a venture capitalist, and he writes checks to support his position. he wrote a check for $250 million. to support his social funds. you're seeing the emergence of the social as the next big thing. i think if anything, it will make it a footnote. what does it mean? coming back to the prediction about 2011, it means whole business on the internet, hall networks are becoming social. and of them are allowing us to be let alone. the very nature of the internet is becoming social. that is why facebook is valued

at $50 billion. that is why they are terrified of facebook. it is shifting from a platform of data to a platform for people. the social is going to be huge in 2011. linkedin will go public, facebook might, zynga will probably go public. you are seeing the emergence of more and more social businesses, everything from these location services like foursquare and gowalla. to the onese lia talked about. every new business is social. everything is predicated around connecting people. the social is changing the very nature of life.

i don't want to put words in his mouth. he is quite capable of speaking for himself. but i think the other thing we are in agreement about is that the internet is becoming real life. the idea of the internet as a footnote to what we once called reality. it is no longer relevant. so when we talk about the social revolution on the internet, we are talking about the social revolution of real life. how you have a company that just raised $13 million. they are investing in social reading. all of the practices of the industrial age are being replaced by this cult of the social. this cult of sharing. this obsession with community. this idea that the more we

share, the better we are as a society and the better we are as individuals. i strongly disagree with that. i am not a legal theorist, i am a cultural critic. i am saying that this invaluable notion of being left alone, the premise of privacy theory is being lost a whiff of this cult of the social. the problem, and i think this is the core issue that we kind of are wandering around, we are missing the historical context. most people, and i would include many of the defenders of privacy, are failing to understand the structural shift of social and economic life. we are assuming that we still live in the industrial age, her the age of the individual

retiring into the private home of the house. they defended it so brilliantly on liberty. you get it as well. the idea that the very nature of our economic and social life is changing. we see the fragmentation. we see the increasing individual is asian of economic and social life. the irony of the social revolution is when you look at it, what we're seeing, the foundation of this social revolution is an increasing fragmentation of life. more and more isolation, more and more anxiety.

i strongly recommend you read a new but called alone together. a 15 year study. this very distinguished prof. shows that within this fetish, we are increasingly isolated. we are increasingly competitive. i have fallen into this trap of the cultural position that we are all becoming nasty. in digital narcissism. we are falling into this obsession with self-promotion. we just have to remind ourselves that we are going to behave in a more adult way. that is a simplified and a vulgar way of looking at it. ese platforms are real life. these are the very networks with which we live our lives.

one might think of as the most profound thinker and activists. he founded the first social media company, he was an investor in everything from twittered to face a vote. he is now the executive chairman. he is the most influential investors. he understands what is changing. he talks about as adding to the liquidity of the social age. most of you understand this problem. it is not about broadcasting what we had for breakfast. it is not about telling the world about our dog or our love lives. it is about self-promotion. so when the doctor says if we can reconcile social and that

-- social networking and privacy, i think he is misunderstanding the historical dimension. he is misunderstanding the idea that the age of that reflects technology rather than being caused by technology undermines the very idea of privacy. we have to live with the fragmentation, with the factors. we are becoming increasingly a free agent nation. the idea that we will be able to retire from the public world is, for most of us, no longer an option. that is the dilemma. that is the misunderstanding. i am not against mark, i am not saying that we should not fight for legislation, i am not saying

that you can't defend privacy, but you have to understand the broader structure of this change. it is not a footnote for the industrial revolution. it is the next industrial revolution. it is the way that we will live our lives in the twenty first century. andrew, who i think is a marvelous speaker, hot technology is moving so fast that the laws can keep up -- can't keep up. web 2.0, it died about three or four years ago. the social is the new thing. the social is the thing that is defining all internet businesses. all relations on the internet. what has to happen? ha what about a solution?

i think the culture of the amateur have the tendency to fall into a kind of nostalgia for a previous world that once existed but no longer existed. i understand we can't go back to the world of the 1960's and '70s, where there is always a very clear distinction between the public and the private. but we need to carve out a new private realm. let me mention a couple of areas where i think that we need to think through the implications of social media. one of them comes to this cult of free content that exists on the internet. it is all too easy for the defenders of privacy to idealize the consumer or the citizen. it is easy for peoplemark zuckerber -- people like mark

zuckerberg to say privacy is dead. for these social companies, and the social has become the default in economic terms because their products are free. this was touched on by someone earlier. what we need consumers to understand is that there are consequences for actions on the internet. nothing is for free. i got a wonderful quote for my book. when you have three companies, the very nature is premised on the sale of individual information. this is what consumers have to understand. talking about do not track,

these privacy settings. the reality of facebook and why it has such a remarkable valuation, why it continually is pushing on the consumer is that that is the nature of their business model. they give their technology, their service away for free. they made $2 billion in advertising last year. it is premised on the sale of advertising. the reason why advertisers are so attractive to facebook like flies to you-know-what, they can no more and more personal information about the consumer. what we need to do is remind the consumer that free content isn't really free.

that the challenge to face but in technological terms, it won't come from government. it is 10 years behind the world. the challenge to face but hopefully will not only come from services like reputation defender, but for paid content. just like i prefer to use apple mobile and pay so i don't get advertising reflecting the e- mail i send. the other thing we need to bear in mind, and this is the bigger issue. when it comes to thinking about what is going on, we need an on- digital liberty way of thinking. we need to understand that the comforts of the industrial age no longer exists. we need to understand the

bifurcation between the private and the public. between work and home. between the public and the private individual are being swept away. it has nothing to do with technology. we have to understand that technology is phenomenal. privacy is not being destroyed by facebook. it is not being destroyed a bylinkedi -- destroyed by linkedin or twitter. these are reflections of things that are much greater. the entrepreneurs are fast and they understand this is the new reality. i admire them for that. they are remarkably innovative. zuckerberg is innovative, perhaps the next steve jobs. i am all in favor of that.

i think it is a mistake of thinking of technology as the enemy. i think it is wrong to think of anything as the enemy in this privacy debate. it is too big an issue. it is to historical. -- too historical. in the same way that louie stood back saying we need to close the newspapers. we have to understand this new reality. we have to understand that we live on the network. we have to understand that there will be 50 billion devices connecting us. we have to understand that everything from refrigerators to cars, they will all the networks. -- be networked. it is the beginning of the

social revolution, not the end of it. unless we grasp that and make sense of what is going on, we as individuals and legislators like the government in washington d.c., we are always going to be five, 10, 15 years behind the technology. behind facebook and behind twitter. by the time we wake up to reality of a networked world, where everything we do on the network is observable by others, it will be too late. let me make one clear point. i am not resurrecting orwell. there is no big brother here. i don't see facebook as big brother. the big brother here is all of

us. the reality that he warned us about, he was right. the dystopia in the industrial age was something like 1984 which makes his work such a masterpiece. we are not living in the age of 94 anymore. there is no central authority, no fascism. there is just us on the network, using these technologies to broadcast and promote ourselves. not just because we are narcissistic. that is the way of life. that is how we will be living in the twenty first century. we are living at a time of enormous historical change. lucky, perhaps, to be living in such remarkable times.

we also need to understand that we have a responsibility. just as there was a responsibility to carve out the private and the industrial age. we need to rethink the private in the industrial age. that is a. thank you. -- that is it. thank you. [applause] >> that was 23 minutes, you are right on. how does anybody want to step up and ask? i have a question for you. are you on facebook? >> this was the old trap that i fell into. i wrote a book that was a critique of logging. it annoyed my critics. i like a sweater. for those of you that want to

follow me, i am not shy to tell people that. it is my way of promoting myself. as publishers become less and less -- i will probably be promoting my own ideas, selling my own books and speeches. i am example of what analysts call a super node. a wanna be super node. i'm not shy. i don't really like facebook because it is annoying and i can't work it out. i like letter. -- twitter. if you're going to do a property, you have to be on social media and understanding. i can meet interesting people at some ideas and self-promotion. we are living in the new world of a reputation attention the

economy. the reputation economy, martin davis of microsoft is brilliant on this. the new value is attention, it is not money. i do not think that social media is evil although it is troubling in some ways. it is essential. those of you who are not on twitter or facebook, you need to get on a very much otherwise, you might need to go to washington, d.c. and think that we're still dealing with a web 2.0. [laughter] it's the most archaic place. >> marc was saying that it is about 10 years behind? no, it is 20 years. >> how you survive? >> he said facebook.

my follow-up with you being on facebook. i am trying to keep the separation between my personal life and my public persona, to brand myself. should i give up? amide dating myself by trying to do debt -- am i dating myself by trying to do that? >> i think that we have to be pretty clever. who is the woman at nyu, wrote a nice piece in the "new york times," said that facebook is a novel that we are all writing. it is more than just a metaphor. we are inventing ourselves on the internet. our activities on the internet increasingly are our real, complex identities. the kids who are going on facebook -- particularly

facebook -- are figuring out that there are things you can and cannot reveal. the fictional side is perhaps a form of self protection. but the idea of the old industrial economy between public and private life has been gone away. it is been shattered. it is much more complex and challenging. we cannot escape the public realm by going home and night from our 9-5 job. we now work all the time, and we work on the internet. our identities -- facebook is a good example. most of us are on facebook for both public and private reason. most of us because we work and because we have friends. increasingly, that distinction is one that is impossible -- they are the same thing. work unfortunately is becoming live. the irony of this digital

reputation on the economy is that work is pleasure. google has pioneered that. and someone like zuckerberg is a classic example of this new world in which all that he does his work and he loves it. >> i am on facebook, it is a branding issues, but i do not use it that much. i think it is spooky. i think it is sharing too much. but i was going answer your question, one theory about how we can create that private realm coming out of our community is the limited liability persona. just like we create llcs, achen link to us but they are hidden. we could actually not have one

name that we use, but added be legitimate. >> of blakely. >> my response to that, to people like kalia, the anti-mark zuckerberg, he is ahead in terms of business and art is for facebook. it is not justice marshall rigid social media company, it is the future business, and he is right. it has been valued at $50 billion as a next generation business. the real question is, why would facebook do? i'm sure his next book will be basically covering that. but just to come back to kalia, she is incredibly sophisticated. she lived this life. chinos and she is figuring out how to protect our identities. she is the equivalent of mark in a cultural sense. but the most people, the most

in this sembroiled great transformative regular bridget revolution, they are not able to grasp the sophistication of what kalia is up to. the challenge hopefully is as a reputation defender, who is the repetition defender person here? i am talking to michael, the founder, a brilliant guy. hopefully reputation defender will become the balance to facebook, that we need technologically -- technology companies like that that takes her word mainstream and enables non-silicon valley people to figure out -- coming get back to louis brandeis, incredibly relevant, how to be let alone if we choose to be left alone? >> i next speaker -- harnett

speaker now right now, i hope there was not a smack down between new to. to do one quick question. defined creepy. >> here's the creek -- here she comes. this is getting good. >> more social webs that link together. if the people that play water polo in high school are different from the people that i paid -- play water polo in college as opposed to my work community, my religious community, and have different -- i am different when i'm with different groups of people. facebook merges everyone together and says here is kalia. it is not like that i hide.

they are not private from each other, but they're quite frankly people in my digital identity community don't want me going on and on about conferences. to me, it all like the different worlds and different personas in different places? >> i am going to get into the last word here. we're going into lunch time. i suspect you can find each other than. >> she brings up a good point. many of the roads in this discussion lead back to mark zuckerberg. for those of you interested in him, i strongly encourage you to read david kirkpatrick's book. it had been criticized for being sympathetic to facebook and i do not think it is.

jeff interviews zuckerberg for his upcoming book as well. zuckerberg said famously to kirkpatrick, after couple of glasses of wine may be, you have one identity. kalia makes the point that she has many identities and we all do. that danger of facebook, and the reason why zuckerberg so that, is because it is a platform place. just the way that google wanted to be the center of one debate, facebook was to be the center of the social world. we have one identity there. sucker berwyn on -- zuckerberg so that, anyone who does not is immoral, unethical. kalia makes very clear that we have many identities. in the digital age, our

identities are increasingly complex because of the disappearance of the strict academy between the public and private. what we need to do very clearly as a community is say to mark zuckerberg, no, we do not have one identity. you are certainly not going to comment. you are a player in this world, but the idea of a single company, a single idea of owning the ecosystem is a catastrophe. thank you. >> nets, a tribute to the late senator edward kennedy. then we will have the latest on the political unrest and violence in libya, including remarks by gaddafi. then forms from the winter meeting on job growth. >> this weekend, the former chief of the cia obama unit on continuing the war against the

u.s.. on afterwards, the health industry and american culture in "never say die." look for the complete schedule at our website. to get our schedules e-mail the direct it to you, sign up for our alert. to end this weekend, programs on the civil war, including the use of espionage between the north and south and its effect on the war's outcome, and the role of women providing care for soldiers and maintaining the home front. if we will combine the scene looks set president ford's 1975 china trip. american history tv on c-span3. >> the late senator edward kennedy was honored last month but it martin luther king center in atlanta with its greatness a war. excepting that was his widow, victoria.

she talked about his legislative accomplishments and how he helped to perpetuate the legacy of the late civil rights leader. speaking first as martin luther king the third, who shares his own recollections. this event was held on the 28th of entering of the federal holiday. it is but 25 minutes. >> i had a personal reason for the respect to fate proved for senator kennedy. had a wonderful opportunity in 1974 to work as a senate page -- actually work for all the

senators, but i tried as much as i could work for senator kennedy. during that time, i remember the closeness that the kennedy staff had. it was like a family atmosphere. the senator always was concerned about each and every person, whether you are a secretary or someone who might be in his chief of staff, or someone like the lowly pages, the ones who did all the errands for the senators. it was an incredible experience that i will never forget. the softball games that we use to protect them. i also got to see more and more of the human side of that legend. i truly came to understand why

he was loved by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. as well as his family and friends. in addition to being one of the most productive in addis states centers in american it -- united states senators in american history, he was an extremely kind, compassionate, and caring human being. over and over and over again, as was demonstrated, i was always amazed that the senator, having lost two brothers, and yet as the kennedy clan continue to grow even today, were growing, that the center always had time -- that the senate there had time for each member of that huge family.

and still have time for every constituent. i do not know how he did it. i have friends who also had that same experience. the senator always responded. i will never forget how he responded, and not just how, and what, the way, the met that he responded in. very powerful. as you might imagine, it is very difficult for any -- i will not say it is very difficult. is difficult for some elected officials. i am so thankful i do not have to do that stuff anymore. i have served in this community for seven or eight years.

and politics, a wonderful opportunity, but sometimes it is thankless. some we used a light, some we still do not like. i want to encourage younger women and men to into the political arena. we need the leadership. but senator kennedy always had a powerful sense of empathy that he shared with the poor and oppressed. always concerned. he was a strong supporter of my daughter and his leaderships in civil-rights, and he was a dear and trusted friend and that you, valued adviser to my mother. he served on the king center's board of advisers, always supporting her in efforts, and

sharing that -- chairing the national committee for full employment. mrs. kennedy, we all know the call of your husband the land of the senate. and with good reason. widget we all know that they call your husband the lion of the center. no one else spoke out as he did not for the downtrodden of our nation. [applause] senator kennedy was instrumental of all the progress of legislation that was passed during his long tenure. the was the author of more than 300 laws, addressing reforms in civil rights, deployment and education, education, sciences against apartheid, the child care, welfare, a, and the full range of health-care issues.

[applause] he was without doubt the most dedicated champion of health care reform for all americans in this entire week in the united states senate. that is why this historic health care bill fell was enacted last year is here today. it was appropriate that we are honoring him during this 25th anniversary of the king holiday. as you also heard, he was a primary sponsor of the king holiday in the senate. his remarkable most of casing skills and his knowledge of procedures, customs, and relationships with other senators were critical for the enactment of the king holiday.

in fact, ambassador young's daughter andrea young served as senator kennedy's floor manager of the king holiday bill when the opposition tried and failed to stop it with a gun -- filibuster. even during the difficult years when is a local opponents dominated congress and/or the white house, senator kennedy worked tirelessly to protect the most vulnerable people of our society from the ravages of social neglect. it is worth remembering with all the discussions about bipartisanship in the media these days, that senator kennedy said a high standard in this regard. although he remained firmly committed to his progressive

condition -- convictions, he always negotiated in good faith and with great skill. not for his phenomenal negotiating skills, many in important law would not have been enacted. we certainly need that spirit in congress today. i very much doubt that we would have health care reform on the books today if not for senator kennedy's long years of advocacy and his courageous endorsement of the then- candidate and now president barack obama. what i have said here tonight really gets scratching at the surface, just barely, of the many contributions of this great, great man, senator edward kennedy.

so i want to rescue to stand and join me in saluting this great american leader who did so much for america and to perpetuate martin luther king's legacy and teachings. that ask you to join me in welcoming to the podium his beloved wife and partner and co- worker in the great causes of our time, mrs. victoria reggie kennedy. [applause] >> we have the video first. >> the sea has always been a metaphor of life. it is constantly involved in, shaking -- involving, a shaping,

and changing aspect of life. that devotion to the sea is both enriching and enhancing. i grew up in a family that wanted to achieve in the sense of making a difference in people's lives. >> i know that ted kennedy has always been unbelievably sensitive to the accomplishments of his brothers. they were his inspiration. he was picking up where his two brothers had left off. jetting sustained by their memory of our crisis years together, i shall try to carry forward that special commitment to justice, to excellence, to courage that distinguished their lives. >> he championed the cause of those who had been left out, the

poor, the elderly, our children, and those without education. >> were bought up to believe that to those to whom much has been given, much is required. he really feel a moral obligation to do everything possible to make this world a better place. >> i've heard some of the kennedys say on many occasions that health care is not a privilege, it is a right. >> as long as i have a voice in the united states senate, it is going to be for that democratic platform plank that provides a decent quality health care to all americans east and west. [applause] >> because of ted kennedy, people are able to do things today and reach for the american dream in ways that they never imagined. >> it gives the opportunity for

the best of our young people to serve in the community. >> national service should be part of the everyday life of every american. >> he committed to legislation to take this to a scale to make it possible for young people of our country to serve our country. >> he deeply believed in service. even as the united states senator, he read every tuesday at a local school in washington, d.c. >> in spite of all the progress, senator kennedy what tell us that we still have a great deal -- would still tell us that we have a great deal further to go. >> president kennedy that al word that the torture been passed to a new generation of americans. he was right, it had passed to his youngest brother. the battles of the 1960's to the

battles of today, he has carried that torch, lighting the way for all who share his american ideals. >> we will break the old gridlock and make health care what it always should be an american, up fundamental right for of all, not just an expensive privilege for the few. >> government can function for the common man. >> as i like it, i am strengthened by family, and french ships. so many of you have been with me in the happiest days and the hardest days. together we have known success and seems setbacks. victory and defeat. but we have your lost our belief which we have never lost our belief that we are all called to a better country and the new world. and i pledge to you -- i pledge

to you that i will be there next january on the floor of the united states senate. [applause] [applause] >>. to present this year is award -- here to present this year's award, please welcome to the stage door and martin luther king jr., mrs. i'm drinking, and

we're going to present this to ms. victoria reggie kennedy. and of course, the pastor andrew young. give a big round of applause, will you? >> let me take the microphone. morehouse college would not have the medical school if senator kennedy had not deftly crafted this one-sentence amendment that put $10 million up to create a medical school. it was defined in such a way

that it could only go to more house. we want to thank him for that. >> well. thank you. to martin luther king iii, to elder bernice king, to andrea king, to ambassador andrew young, to all of you, thank you

on behalf of teddy, thank you on behalf of our family, thank you from the bottom of my heart. i am deeply moved. and to been in cherry, congratulations on this -- ben and jerry, congratulations on this well deserved recognition. on behalf of teddy, thank you. i also want to say to all of the house does here -- alphas here, that i have just for you this evening. [applause] thank you. thank you. i am privileged to be here on

the birthday of a man i so admirer, to except an award given to the man i love -- to accept awards given to the man i love. no tribute would move teddy more, for my husband's heroes or his brothers in life and his brother in spirit, dr. martin luther king jr.. edward kennedy's maiden speech as a young united states senator was a demand to make real the ideal of america and secure the civil rights of every american. nearly a half century later, the last page of his life was a call to complete the journey.

here are edward kennedy's words in december, 2008. "we have elected a 44th president who by virtue of his race could have been owned by the first 15 presidents of the united states. we judged him, as dr. martin luther king said, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character and his capacity for leadership. for america, this is not just a culmination but a new beginning ." by that december, dr. king had been gone for four decades, but for teddy, he was always a touch-tone and a beacon to light the way. as he is for countless millions today, at home and around the

globe. so we now observe the 25th anniversary that is both a celebration and a summons. and i know in the long struggle for this national holiday, edward kennedy was so proud to lead alongside at korena scott kaine. -- coretta scot king. she was a friend and counselor, dr. king's wife, but she was a forced for right in her own life. this is her day, too. [applause] but it also belongs to all americans. my husband saw it that way, as a time not merely to mark the memory of dr. martin luther king but even more to advance the march of dr. martin luther king towards a pledge as old as the

revolution and the civil war, that all of us are created equal. in his first term and the senate, edward kennedy wrote bigotry of the past out of our emigration laws. he vote for civil rights and voting rights, for fair housing and fair employment, for education and equal access to health care. in all his time in public life, he was proud to speak for those who had no voice and to fight on, even when it was out of fashion, to make sure that no one was left without help or hope. he was a sponsor of the sanctions that brought down the mighty walls of apartheid in south africa. [applause]

yes, and he was so proud of that. on affirmative action, on the rights of the majority to our women and the minority who are of different ethnicity, ability, or sexual orientation, he sought to fill dr. king's vision that we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. and that, as both men knew, was true not alone for our own country but everywhere on earth. martin luther king jr. had faith that we could break the chain reaction of evil, of hate begetting hat. edward m. kennedy saw an america where we could contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone can make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity. on this day, let us rededicate

ourselves to what is best in our country. surely we know it when we live it, as these two men lived not just for themselves but for others. one of them told us, "i have a dream." the other affirmed, "the dream shall never die." [applause] in the name of that dream, but with a full and grateful heart, with a sense of the humility that he would feel tonight, on behalf of my husband, i accept this salute to greatness award which, above all else, expresses the legacy of the greatest visionary our nation has ever known, dr. martin luther king jr. thank you. [applause]

>> next, the latest on the political unrest and violence in libya, including remarks from muammar gaddafi, u.s. officials, and state department. after that, another chance to see the tribute to the late senator edward kennedy. >> i think our system of government is breaking down. i think the system of checks and balances we have in our system are not operating properly. >> winslow miller has written

two essays in the pentagon labyrinth. >> congress has three essential key powers, the power to go to war, the power of purse, the power to investigate. the first two powers, to go to war and of the purse, are meaningless if congress does not exercise the power to investigate, and it is not doing that. >> see the rest of the interview sunday night on c-span. this weekend, governors will talk on that how to grow their states' economies, education, and the cyber security as they gather for the annual winter meeting of the governors' association. we will have live coverage through the weekend on c-span. we begin with remarks by the libyan leader. he told a crowd of his supporters massed in central tripoli's where to fight back against protesters and defend the nation.

he spoke to more than 1000 of his supporters who had gathered to hear his remarks. news reports say an anti- government protests were held during the day in were met by gunfire. here's a portion of his remarks, courtesy of al-jazeera network. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> to be liars. reply to the mass media, the media of lies. the mass media. the mass lies. these are the great people of libya. you are the fruits of the revolution. you are the enthusiastic future of the revolution. you see pride and dignity in revolution. you see history and glory in revolution. it is the resolution -- the revolution that gave birth to --

it is the revelation that set up memorials. i am among the population. we will continue to fight. we will defeat them. we will die here on the deer soil of libya. -- dear soil of libya. we will defeat any former -- in our attempt as we defeated the italians. this is the formidable force, invisible force -- the invincible force. life without dignity is worthless. life without green banners hoisted is useless. it is the life of pride,

dignity, and victory. the flag flying and wasted. you, the youth, a comfortable at any place in the square. that, st., stay up all night. live a life of dignity to -- dance, sing, stay up all night. live a life of dignity. dance and sing. joy and rejoice. >> at a u.n. meeting in geneva, diplomats unanimously condemned libya and recommended the country's suspension from the

u.n.'s top human-rights body. the action was taken during a daylong session. during that session, all of the libyan diplomats publicly expected to the opposition. here is a 50 minute portion. >> president and distinguished members of the human rights council, ladies and gentlemen, i commend the initiative of this council to hold a special session on the situation of human rights in libya. the gravity of the situation and the violence, repression of the uprising in that country demands urgent attention. as the secretary general of the united nations noted, the nature and scale up attacks on civilians are egregious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. ions of international humanitarian and human rights

law. he condemned them without qualification an he condemned them without qualification and stated that those responsible for brutally shedding the blood of innocents should be punished. let me remind this council that after the 2005 summit, world leaders unanimously agreed that each individual state as the response ability to protect its population from crimes against humanity and other international crimes. humanity and other international crimes. this responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes including the incitement to appropriate and that should -- are appropriate and necessary means. it protects its population from serious international crime. the international community has the responsibility to step in by taking protected action in a collective, timely, and decisive manner. in an emergency session this

week, the security council highlighted the need to hold the responsibility to protect, to provide humanitarian assistance, to allow human rights monitoring and to assure accountability. my office is prepared to respond to these needs as a matter of highest urgency. as we meet today, the protesters who are exercising their rights to freedom of assembly, have denounced the bill to ways of their government. they continue to challenge its rule at great peril to themselves and their families. they have appealed to the united nations and the international community for protection. we owe them our solidarity and protection from violence. we must heed their aspirations for freedom, dignity, and irresponsible government. far from being manipulated by external forces, their protest

is a display of people power and an exercise of democracy that commands international respect and support. the international community has repeatedly urged, cannot be too -- repeatedly urged muammar gaddafi to resist violence. he called on his supporters to get out of their homes, filled the streets against the protesters, and attacked them -- and attack them. the reports are hard to verify. but one thing is painfully clear. in present and continuing reaches in international law and the crackdown of peaceful demonstrations is escalating alarmingly with reported mass killings, arbitrary arrests, detention, and torture.

tanks, helicopters, and military aircraft have reportedly been used indiscriminately to attack the protesters. according to some sources, thousands may have been killed or injured. let me reiterate that the state has an obligation to protect the rights to life, liberty, and security of people under their jurisdiction. a protection of civilian should always be the paramount consideration in maintaining order and the rule of law. the libyan leader must stop the violence now. libya is a member of the human rights council and pledged to respect human rights. libya is also a participant in human rights covenant on civil and political rights. it has the obligation to protect and implement rights and freedoms as enshrine it in human rights policy.

under international law, any official at any level ordering or carrying out atrocities and a tax can be held criminally accountable. widespread and systematic attacks against a civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity. witnesses in and out of libya consistently described horrifying scenes. libyan forces are firing at protesters and bystanders, sealing off neighborhoods, and shifting from rooftops. they also blocked ambulances so that the injured and dead are left on the street. reports from hospitals indicate that most of the victims have been shot in the head, chest, or neck, suggesting arbitrary and summary execution. doctors relate that they are

struggling to cope and are running out of blood supplies and medicine to treat the wounded. images of unfair by a -- un verifiable origen indicate the taking of mass graves. killings have also been carried out by foreign spiders who were and continue to -- fighters who were and continue to be brought into the country and our equipped with guns provided by the government. my office has received reports that some libyans are turning on immigrants suspecting them of fighting for the libyan government. at the same time, there are reports that the authorities have suggested that certain foreign nationals have been primarily is possible for initiating the unrest, thereby

encouraging the attacks on foreigners. the freedom of movement of those wishing to leave the country should be fully respected and protected. libyan up artists -- libyan authorities must allow the humanitarian workers and medical supplies into the country. they must insure that the legitimate demands of the protesters are addressed and that the fundamental human rights of the population not fully respected and promoted. excellencies, libya's neighbors have a particular responsibility to exert utmost vigilance to protect the vulnerable. i am concern for the safety and well-being of refugees crossing into neighboring countries, particularly tunisia, egypt, italy, and malta.

i urge libya's neighbors to open their borders and ensure that refugees are treated humanely. nydia's political partners and allies are uniquely -- libya's political partners are uniquely positioned to offer assistance. more needs to be done. i am encourage all international actors to take necessary measures to stop the bloodshed. i have also called for an independent and impartial investigation to investigate the violent suppression of protests in the country. but let us be clear. today's shopping and with the situation is the director -- ou shocking situation is the

direct outcome of the use of power by the current ruler. order must be attained in order to be meaningful. there can be no doubt about the need for action by this council now. the human rights council and its mechanisms should step in a vigorously to help end violence in libya and hold those perpetrating the atrocities accountable. also should use all means available to compel the libyan government to respect the human rights and he did -- and heed the will of its people. violations of international humanitarian law deserve no less. thank you, mr. president. >> the commissioner has a

statement. i now have the pleasure to give the floor to the chair. on behalf of all special procedures. you have the floor. >> mr. president, that done high commissioner for human rights, -- madame high commissioner for human rights, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, the committee on special procedures has requested me to deliver the following statement on behalf of the special procedures holders on the human rights council. we, the 41 holders of special

procedures of the council mechanism to protect human rights, and damp ,-- incondemn, -- condemn, in the strongest cards, the suppression of the people of libya and -- who are in the strongest -- we have received numerous reports of excessive and disproportionate use of force against protesters, including the use of live ammunition and military planes. we have elected -- we have heard serious allegations of torture, ill treatment, and the attention of individuals, including human rights defenders, lawyers, and journalists.

several hundred people have died. many others have been arrested. the human suffering continues to rise. there have been disturbing account of women and children among the victims. there have been reports that authorities have been listed mercenaries from other countries to support the crackdown on demonstrators in the cities. the government has been targeting the people he has been mandated to serve and protect. special procedures have stated that actions taken by the libyan authorities are legitimate and unlawful under international law. the use of force is never an option and cannot be justified in dealing with peaceful demonstrations. the actw -three. -- the acts being reported

include torture and forced disappearances. they violate nydia's obligations byder the him and rights- -- late libya -- violate libya's obligations under the human rights treaties. we urge the authorities to ensure access to immediate medical care to avoid further deaths. we also urge the authorities to release all of these arbitrarily

detained people. we call upon the authority to insure that the people are able to express their legitimate grievances through public and peaceful demonstrations without fear of being killed, injured, arrested, or subjected to other human rights violations. the government must respect its human-rights obligations. mr. president, if proved that the alleged attacks or restricted by the authorities were committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against the people of libya, these could amount to crimes against humanity. those responsible must be held accountable. we have also noted with concern the use of provocative language in a recent statement made by

the libyan president. inciting violence will only lead to an escalation of the situation and to further violations. it is important that the authorities realized that they may be prosecuted by international criminal justice mechanisms or through universal jurisdictions. we endorse the call made by the united nations high commissioner for human rights for an international inquiry into the violence. the international community should act without delay to make its responsibility to protect civilians from serious human rights violations and reality for the people in libya. we, the mandate-holders, are willing to contribute to such an inquiry. it appears the government is also attempting to restrict the dissemination of information on the atrocities being committed

by cutting off telephone communications, internet, access, and restricting media coverage. we called on authorities to ensure that journalists can work securely and really to inform the public locally and globally about what is happening in libya. all communications, including the internet, remain open and accessible to the public. these special procedures want to emphasize the wide failures to protect human rights throughout the country. for years, those defending human rights, including journalists, doctors, and lawyers, have not had the space they need to do their important work without fear of reprisals. him ride the vendors and others have been tortured, -- human

rights defenders and others have been tortured. underlying human rights issues will need to be quickly addressed, in particular the widespread denial of economic and social rights that have been -- that has been witness over the years. libyans are entitled to take part in policy and decision making, to claim their right to work without discrimination, and to an adequate standard of living. it is --it not a teammate -- not made law, the situation will not be improved. there are structures that need to go on unabated. reforms must be based on respect for the rule of law and the principles of non-

discrimination and the qualities enshrine it in the the declaration of human rights and other human rights instruments. mr. president, as we have stated on previous occasions with regard to other situations, as mandates holders, we stand ready to provide the necessary help to the council. we want to insist on insuring that all human rights in libya are protected. ofhave not had the benefit seeing firsthand the situation in the country. we call on the authorities to extend invitations for those who wish to conduct visits, including technical assessment missions. special procedures welcomes the opportunity of this special session to address important

immediate issues in relation to the human rights situation in the country. this will lead to immediate out -- it action to bring about an end to human-rights violations and the protection of all rights of men, women, and children. >> thank you. i would like to thank mr. del prado for his statement. as you know, at this time, the practice is to give the floor to the country of concern. i should now like to give it floor to hungary on behalf of the european union. >> thank you, mr. president. i have the honor to speak on behalf of the european union.

we have a former republic of yugoslavia and potential candidates albania, armenia, and others aligned themselves with this declaration. the whole world has been following the events unfolding in libya. the use of live ammunition and heavy weaponry against peaceful demonstrators exercising the right of freedom of assembly. the right -- the violent suppression of civilians is -- the blocking of the internet and

telecommunication networks undermines the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. access is not guaranteed for human rights monitors and humanitarian agencies. silent to has been the human rights emergency in libya. the situation has been underlined by the eu, the africa union, the arab league, and a wide range of international actors, as well as the high commissioner of human rights. we are pleased to see that many regional organizations condemn in small terms -- in strong terms, the crimes committed against the demonstrators. it was made clear that the state has an obligation to protect the

rights to life, liberty, and security of the people. we support this position and to underline that each individual state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. a group of special procedure mandate holders from the human rights council issued a joint statement on the 22nd of february calling for a stop to the massacre and warning that gross violations in the past few days could amount to crimes against humanity. it also welcomed the call made by the high commissioner of human rights for an international inquiry into the island's -- into the violence. the secretary-general expressed the concern over the latest developments.

arab states condemned in strong terms the crimes committed against the peaceful demonstrators. the president of the european council made it clear that the horrible crimes unacceptable and must not remain without consequences. on behalf of the european union, we contend the aggression against peaceful demonstrationo. she also emphasized the demands of people for reform must be addressed in a meaningful dialogue. the foreign ministers also called for an immediate end to the use of force against protesters. the eu urges libya to fulfil its obligations to international

law. the european union is also deeply concerned about the fate of citizens up the united states stuck in libya. we urge libya to cooperate in protecting the citizens of other countries including assisting their evacuation, if necessary. the human rights council cannot remain silent in the face of shocking events such as those taking place now in libya. we have the responsibility to act in order to stop human rights violations and take steps to remedy the plight of victims. mentorship in the council carries duties and obligations. under the resolution upper 251, members elected to the council should uphold the high standards

in the promotion and protection of human rights in this context , the european union would like to record a resolution. 2/3 of the members present and voting may extend the resolution. we have to act now. the number of victim is growing -- the victim's is growing day by day. we challenge the international community to act on behalf of victims. we welcome the u.n. security council libya must protect its obligation and to hold those responsible for attacks. the european union also believes that independent, impartial, and

credit all -- and credible investigations are necessary. we stress that those responsible for the aggression and violence against civilians will be held accountable. it is also our obligation on the ground. they should know that the international community is ready to act decisively toward them. mr. president, in view of the above, member states of the european union have called for a special session of the human rights council in libya. 56 countries in all regions of the world called for that special session. they have also played a role in encouraging the council to take immediate action. we welcome their reports and their delegations.

this sends a strong message about the need to take meaningful action in response to the urgent human rights situation. the council must act and must act urgently. we have decided to adopt a solution on the situation of human rights in libya. it is our hope that it will enjoy universal supporthot with. >> i of the floor to iraq of the arab group. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> i am making this statement on behalf of the arab community. on the twenty second of february, the arab group has been keeping a careful eye on the recent the elements -- developments in the libyan cities. especially reports of heavy fighting in the city's and the serious humanitarian situation affecting the libyan people. as well as the pressure on demonstrators. the crimes committed against the demonstrators and protesters who are operating peacefully, these actions are taking place in a large number of libyan cities. we denounce attacks of violence directed against civilians. unacceptable acts of violence

that can never be justified. the use of foreign mercenaries, live munitions, and artillery are also being directed against the demonstrators. all of this constitutes a serious violations of human rights. the arab group called upon the libyan authorities to immediately stop the acts of violence in all forms and to take up a national dialogue. that they respond to the legitimate demands to respect the rights of freedom of demonstration, freedom of expression, and to stop the bloodshed and protect the territorial integrity of libyan citizens. and the group calls upon the libyan authorities to lift all

prohibitions and restrictions of the media and to guarantee access from means of communication to telephone networks and ensure that emergency medical assistance is provided to victims. the serious allegations of participation of foreign nationals taking part in the violence against libyans, these allegations must be verified. but we call upon the authorities to ensure a level of protection to all nationals of arab countries and other foreigners living in libya. and to ensure that those that wish to leave the country can do so safely. the arab group emphasized the need to make aspirations of

people to reform, democratic change, and justice. this is a legitimate demand that must be respected. mr. president, the arab group if you invite me the member states, her family countries -- and friendly countries, international organizations to provide humanitarian assistance in an arrogant way to the libyan people, at this crucial stage of their history, finally, we about our heads in memory of the murderers -- martyrs, the innocent victims', the wounded. not to mention the enormous physical damage to public and

private property. >> thank you, i'd give the floor to pakistan. >> thank you, mr. president. i have the honor to make this statement on behalf of the member states. consistent with the statement made by the general, the members a stake in the human rights council that we strongly condemn the use of force against civilians resulting in the death or injury of a large number of people. we also express and offered condolences to the family of the victims. the member states: the authorities to immediately cease violence against innocent people and underscore the need to address the man's peacefully and through dialogue and

concordance with the true spirit. the program of action calls upon all members to enlarge the scope of political participation for liberties and social the access -- social justice. it is therefore incumbent on the libyan authorities to respect and a pulled these obligations. mr. president -- and uphold these obligations. it is a time of awakening. the time for reckoning. muslims will no longer be denied their rights. justice and the rule of law must prevail. not just in western societies, but across the world. recent developments have alleged

that islam is incompatible with democracy. our books states, the muslims conduct of affairs by mutual confrontation and keeping open for the welfare of others. and those who stand up for their rights and defend themselves are without blame. the blame is on those that depressed people. -- oppress people. similarly, islam places great emphasis on the rights of human beings. opened the door to social reforms and create an environment of security and safety so that people are able to enjoy their basic rights and freedoms.

the muslim awakening has emphatically stated that the world will no longer acceptable standards and hypocrisy in international orders. democracy, freedom, and justice are rights that cannot be promoted to serve the interests of some and not all. the international community will have to pay attention to the voices of the muslim world and. they will no longer tolerate the inequalities and justice. most importantly, muslims will no longer tolerate denial of their rights in any part of the world. in conclusion, mr. president, it is expected that the libyans will heed the voice of the national community and resort to a peaceful means to resort to the ongoing crisis.

the interleaf must come to the libyan people. -- a and relief must come to the libyan people. the rules of the game have changed. i think you, mr. president. >> i give the floor to nigeria on behalf of the african group. >> mr. president, i have the ho nor to make the statement on behalf of the african group. the african group is convinced of the responsibility for protection of human rights. to serve on the situation in libya, see the opportunity.

but to address the issue of the mandates. at this juncture, we submit that the african group is no less concerned about the situation in libya that in any other country in the region. in fact, a number of african leaders were the first and initiative -- to take initiatives. also, the african security council came out with a communique that clearly condemned the situation. it is obvious, mr. president, [unintelligible]

action was taken by the security council to dispatch a mission to libya to assess the situation on the ground. mr. president, consistent with the agreement, the african group sees the need for libyan authorities and the good people of libya not to relent and their efforts. on this occasion, we wish well to all those that have sustained injury. we want the authorities to guarantee not only the protection and security of the civilians, but to ensure assistance is provided to the population in the.

it is important to state clearly by the african group that we totally condemn the amount and created -- the amalgam created. it puts africans living in the country in an insecure and difficult situation. the group is convinced that an open dialogue will remain and they can find a solution. we ultimately strive for the aspirations of the encroachment for enduring democracy. in conclusion, mr. president, we anticipate that the authorities will be called by the

international community. we would like to add that we remain united. [unintelligible] on that, that is our decision in this regard. i thank you. >> thank you. >> [speaking foreign language] >> thank you, mr. president.

we like to speak the -- think the council for calling this meeting. -- or we would like to thank the council for calling this meeting. my country is watching with concern the tragic events unfolding in libya. particularly the use of aerial bombardment, the heavy weaponry and mercenaries leading to victims being created. we condemn the use of the disproportionate violence against the people, this constitutes a violation of human rights. we support the libyan brothers

calling an end to the repression and human rights violations and killings. it protect civilians, guaranteeing their right to peaceful demonstration and expressed their views. we recall that the prime responsibility of any state is to guarantee the freedom of citizens and the rights to life and security. concerns were voiced at the international level. there are legitimate aspirations to peace, freedom, and dignity we must call on the libyan authorities to ensure

stability for the country, putting an end to the use of any form of weaponry. secondly, we must insurer of the necessary level of protection in. that leads to conflict among nationals of the country. third, we must protect civilians in respect for international human rights. we call upon the libyan government to abide by its commitment to protect the population into easy access for international organizations to ensure the necessary aid. the reports that described a lack of various forms of humanitarian aid to the wounded.

the right to peaceful assembly, the freedom of the press must be respected. and all constraints on the media and telecommunications must be lifted. those responsible for attacks on civilians must be brought to justice. my country calls upon all member states, all observer states, international organizations and agencies, as well as the community at large to protect the libyan people. there is also a national independent inquiry to investigate possible crimes against humanity. the country expresses its solidarity.

and we hope that they would be able to merge from this crisis with minimal loss of life. >> i would like to inform you that the list of speakers is now closed and i will give the floor to france. >> thank you, sir. we echo the statements made by hungry. we are delighted that you have decided to take up the situation in libya. the extremely serious situation and the scale of human rights violations requires this. information that was echoed said the civilian population [unintelligible] the libyan authorities are systematically repressing their

own population. and almost all states have rejected these unbearable signs of violence. dealing with these atrocious acts, the council will, to expectations of a mandate. it unambiguously condemns the violations currently being perpetrated in libya which could be similar to crimes against humanity. there can be no impunity for those committed and responsible for violations of human rights. all possible options need to be looked at. we should remind the authorities that is their responsibility to protect all citizens on the territory. that news must be able to be

held without obstacle. -- victims must be able to be helped without obstacle. with unconditional respect for fundamental freedoms, people are arbitrarily taken into detention. the independent inquiry as soon as possible in order to establish the facts and see who is responsible. we asked the general assembly to meet as soon as possible to take a position on the suspension of the human rights council. the very words of the libyan leadership leaves us in no doubt that in havana -- libya is manifestly no longer going to be a member of the council.

mr. president, council today has historic responsibility facing it. france called upon the member states to give support to the ambitious and bold resolutions submitted to them. it is a message that we must send to the libyan leadership, the same time, a message of support to the libyan people. and thank you. >> the secretary general is urging the security council to take concrete action to protect civilians in libya. warning that any delay will mean a loss of life. the secretary general plans to discuss the libyan crisis with president obama. he spoke briefly with reporters today. >> and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

as you know, i am part of the security council on peace and security issues in africa. we have an extraordinary thing in the u.n. security council. a truly historic moment. the ambassador delivered an impassioned plea for our help. the message was simple and direct. now it's time for decisive action. this is a historic turning point. and the nature of community must rise to the occasion. ladies gentlemen, and the situation -- we have received the reports of violent clashes with high casualties. we have also heard reports of systematic violations of human rights.

these include indiscriminate killings, shootings of peaceful demonstrators. the detention and torture of the opposition and the use of mercenaries, a dangerous impediment of humanitarian workers. let me also note that we are experiencing a crisis of refugees displaced. the report that 22,000 people have fled tunisia and another 15,000 have gone to egypt. -- the from egypt. they are unable to leave for safety. many of those crossing the border