, what are the challenges facing the fleet? we could be your messenger working with fishing councils if we need to take conservatory measures if we are really starting to see depleted fish stocks. host: paul zukunft, thank you so much for being here and talking to our viewers. guest: ok. host: we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time for more of your phone calls. thank you for watching. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> congress is out this week, but parliament is in session. coming up live, the canadian minister of finance will present his country's budget report. watch live coverage from the canadian house of commons at 4:00 eastern. and at 8:00, diane sawyer on the future of journalism parian she will be interviewed in front of an audience of students and professional journalist at the national press club in washington live at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> the c-span video library is even more valuable for following congress. this c-span video library. find out more. read our blog and watch what

you want, when you want. >> the department of homeland security is watching -- marking its eighth anniversary this month. and there were talks about securing the country. tom ridge admitted that the color coded threat level system was ineffective. the current secretary said homegrown terrorism was an area of concern. michael chertoff also joined the event, moderated by andrea mitchell. this is one hour and a half. we continue that tradition today with the first three secretaries of the department of homeland

security. secretary-general of peloton know, michael chertoff, and tom ridge. -- secretary general janet the llateno, michael chertoff, and tom ridge. particular i am grateful to walter isaacson, president ceo of the aspen institute. i am thankful for his friendship and collaboration that brings us here today. as well as colleagues from the department of homeland security. we express our appreciation for their support in organizing our program in the students of georgetown university lecture fund to help support the staff host the event. finally, i would like to welcome ndrea mitchell, the moderator

of this even today. this event gives us an opportunity to reflect on the changes in our world since september 11, 2001, and the ways in which the united states government has responded to these changes. later this year we will observe the 10th anniversary of the attacks. in response, the homeland security agency was created. the creation of the department united 22 agencies from across the executive branch, making it the largest reorganization since harry truman consolidated the armed forces into the department of defense. last month, in her state of america's homeland security address, secretary napolitano said real security requires the engagement of the entire society with government, law- enforcement, the public and

private sector all playing their roles. the department of homeland security was created to serve as the catalyst and in the greater of the nation's efforts to promote our general welfare, and our universities recognize the role we play in this effort, whether in fostering public discourse through eden's like today's programs or by engaging in the kind of scholarship and research that can support the efforts of our nation or by educating the leaders of tomorrow who will contribute to peace efforts. it is in that spirit that we come together today. it is now my pleasure to introduce our moderate -- moderator for today's program, andrea mitchell. she is nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent host of a msnbc's "andrea mitchell reports." it is my honor to welcome andrea

mitchell. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you for bringing us here together today. in i want to acknowledge them and walter isaacson, the head of the aspen institute. he has some key members of congress here. senator mary leandro and also david price, the ranking member of homeland security. and peter king, the chairman of homeland security. welcome all, and other members of congress. think you all for coming.

-- thank you all for coming. i want to get immediately to the three secretaries. i am not sure whether all three of you have been together on a platform before in testimony or another venue. it is great to hear you -- have you here today. secretary of paul lozano is the third secretary and former governor of arizona has seen the challenges of every level of national service. in her second term she became the third secretary of homeland security and a leader on homeland security issues in the first woman to chair the national governors' association and the first female attorney general of arizona. michael chertoff was the second secretary of homeland security. also was assistant attorney general for the criminal division at the department of justice and judge on the third circuit court of appeals before

becoming secretary of homeland security. tom ridge is the former governor of pennsylvania. the first secretary of homeland security. the first director of office a month after 9/11. perhaps of the most -- perhaps the most challenging job of all. i was very struck by you look at your former colleagues, your predecessors, and you look at how relaxed they appeared well they were sharing coffee, and you said this is the future after being homeland security secretary. what keeps you up at night? what is your greatest fear that

we face as a nation and that you face in your job? is it the fact that 28 people were killed last week alone along the mexican border as part of the ongoing drug war, which some say it is the most frightening of the challenges facing the homeland right now. what is it that really faces you? i want to acknowledge that outgoing long-time homeland security specialist, j. harmon who has joined us and sitting next to walter. >> it will be interesting to hear from tom and michael, but i could say all of the above, because all of them touch upon the key roles of the department of homeland security.

rs off the key aspire wors terrorism in the english- speaking world. bin laden still at large. al qaeda has been constrained to a large degree in terms of its geography, but it is still its self serving as a core, and now there are many other all credit- related or type organizations around the world that seek to harm the request in the united states. the border with mexico is on quite that' we focus a bit. it is an area where we are assisting president calderon against these large and powerful drug cartels that excess over

the bridge from el paso, over the roads from laredo. that is a key struggle for us. that is a key issue we have. and i think part of what makes homeland security such a complex and challenging position is that it is almost easier to say what you do not worry about, then what you need to be worried about any given time. >> secretary chertoff, how has it changed since your tenure? >> i would say what janet just said approximates the kinds of things we were concerned about when i was secretary going back a couple of years.

i think there has been some evolution. a couple of years ago i would of said al qaeda and pakistan is the greatest threat. now what have allocated in the arabian peninsula. -- now we have al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. we are beginning to see these issues expand more and more. also, what is going on in mexico is becoming more and more troubling. partly as a consequence of having president called around being heroic in pursuing the cartels, but they are pushing back. we are seeing a much more widely distributed threat that would have been the case four or five years ago. the most known case would be homegrown terrorists. what we see now is an emphasis

on recruiting americans were residents in the u.s. to become operative spirit and i think that is challenging the model we use for security. >> secretary ridge, the homeland security department was created eight years ago today. do you think this combination, this hybrid combination, has been an effective tool? a lot of people have complained about the intelligence of the organization and by layering we have created more stovepipes, not fewer. but in the case of homeland security, despite all the complaints, looking back, do you think that this has come together into a coherent agency? >> i think we have to go back and take a snapshot of what

government look like right after 9/11. clearly the executive branch and congress were struggling with what is the best way to recalibrate and reconstitute this organization? the challenge around that is there were a lot of discussions as to what was appropriate to put in the agency. since that time, the one component that people still have some difficulty with is the federal emergency management agency and where it belongs. some of the challenges associated had to do more with leadership in the organization itself. i think the configuration of those entities was very appropriate. it is one of the things we discussed before we came out on the stage, how everything was evolving from that space. i remember they reorganize the department of defense after world war ii.

we were building this new agency at the same time we were trying to build the defense mechanisms to make america more secure. i started, michael followed, secretary napolitano still trying to do the business line integration. in the budgeting. still trying to make it a more efficient organization currently. so that is an ongoing process. the lingering challenge that the industry still has, and we all have different opinions as to what the real risk is, and that has evolved as well. the profile of the terrorists as we knew it right after 9/11, males from the arabian peninsula 18 to 35. that has really changed. the biggest challenge that the agency still has is the agency

is a consumer of information. it does not generate intelligence. all three of us have said everyone has a role to play in homeland security. everybody. but the agency can only act based on the information is given. i still think eight years later one of the big challenges is making sure the department of homeland security has enough information so that we can share with our partners in the private sector or government sector. i think it is still a bit of a challenge. >> how much of it is luck and how much of it is still? we have not had an attack since 9/11, get the christmas day bomber in 2009 basically was passengers being alert. the times square bombing was a

street vendor. the cargo being intercepted in terms of the printers had to do with saudi arabian intelligence tipping us off. the most recent example in texas might be the best example of home and working the way it was intended with a shipper notifying local officials in lubbock. >> the fact that you simply connect the dots is not accurate. there are lots of information, a cloud so to speak. you have to be able to discern patterns in the cloud and identify threats, and you have to have multiple layers of the

society to recognize the threat and pass it on. on a christmas day bomber it was the passengers who took him down. we have done a number of things in response to that to tighten up on airline security, and we're still doing a lot in that area. it remains a key concern. and when you talk about the times square bomber, talk about free citizen involvement. -- when you talk about the times square bomber, talk about citizen involvement. recognizes a vehicle has smoke coming from it that is not normally in the area and calls it in. with respect to the suit in

texas, i do not want to comment too much because it is still a pending matter, but again, an illustration of how when citizens are involved and opened the door and say this is not a government responsibility, a georgia responsibility to share information and recognized threats. -- it is a government responsibility to share information and recognize threat. >> when you look at the threats, michael chertoff, and we all think about airplane threats, what about something you feel the need to minimize when you suggest an airplane flight could kill 3000 people says if a bomb went into the buildings. a bomb may only killed 30 people. you have to start thinking about

priorities you suggested. have we ignored subways, tunnels, amtrak, because of the focus on airplane security? >> at a general level, this is about risk management. it is not about risk elimination. if you want someone to eliminate all the rest in life and you are asking for someone to get -- then you are asking for someone to give you a fantasy. there will have to be judgments made about where you put the money. what you look at is you to look at potential impacts and recognize that a catastrophic impact that could kill tens of thousands of people get more investment than something that would be tragic, but not only killed 10 people. i know it is not fashionable to make that distinction in numbers, but realistically you have to look up that difference.

i would also say the architecture of the response is different. i would say we have done quite a bit over the years in building security in the railway system. we have these three teams that we put out into the subways and trains stations. it is not the same fixed architecture do see at the airport because you cannot have magnetometers at every subway station, but it is various tools and people and technology. you have to use different types of messages for different types of threats. the one thing i want to add is defense. -- you have to use different types of methods for different types of threats. this will not be perfectly

addressed by intelligence. it will not be perfectly addressed by technology. you have to build a system that has multiple layers, so that if one fails another one can pick up the job. you also have to recognize human error is a part of the system. that is why multiple defense allows you to overcome human errors. and this is a process and not a single solution. >> when you talk about layers, we have taken off our shoes. then have the liquid, so now we cannot carry shampoo bottles. it seems we keep building layers. when we reach a point when we are not keeping one step ahead of the terrorists? secondly, should there be an attempt to look at previous threats and perhaps figure out that we do not need all of the things built into the system?

>> first of all, i think now that i am flying quite a bit -- >> what does it feel like to be one of us again? [laughter] >> i get to deal with the great people working at t.s.a. with the new machines that have come out, i saw one official absolutely getting lambasted by of very unhappy commercial passenger. he was very cool, calm, and collected and took all the grief coming his way. that was a great lesson in patience and customer care. i said to yourself a favor, the next time somebody says that, say write your congressman. i am just doing what i have been advised and instructed to do based on instructions from the congress.

more seriously, one of the big challenges with commercial aviation, and we have talked about this internally as well is we are not quite to the risk- managed stage yet. the question becomes in our mind, as a country, do we want to treat everyone as a potential terrorist forever and ever? we have labored in a multiple agree with my i do colleagues is that you never want to see the point of failure. you want to get the actor before they act. presuming that does not happen, what you do with commercial aviation? i still think down the road hopefully with the support of congress they will take a more risk-manage the porch. i have asked many audience in we have tried it. are people prepared to give up their fingerprints to match up a

base and volunteer information so that in a risk-managed world we can conclude your probably not a terrorist. there is not a 100% guarantee, so i think in time the still has to revolve. -- evolve. president kennedy in 1962 said we're going to go to the moon and we got there in 1969. that was 11 years. apparently it is easier to go to the moon that come up with a piece of technology that would be less invasive. i think we still have a lot of work to do there. that is one area where we have not quite learned how to manage to the rest. i hope the next couple of years we do.

>> what would be wrong with advancing corporate -- biometrics and profiling? >> we do not profile. we do use a lot of intelligence. that tells us about passengers before they even get to the airport. that has been part of our process that actually began under you, michael, but we have really accelerated now. there is intelligence about passengers as they come in. within the airport itself, you will see some uniformed officers or come across people with trace detection equipment.

there will be others that you will not see the use techniques to look at tactics. they are trained in tactics and techniques to look at someone who may be anticipating an attack. by the time you get to a checkpoint, there have are ready been four or five layers in advance of you. the problem is we do not have a checkpoint of the future yet. an integrated checkpoint that would enable you to leave your shoes on, carry your water bottle, not have to unload your laptop from your briefcase or backpack. that technology just is not there. and we fund research, primarily at universities, to help us identify those technologies that will give us that ability. i am also with the national labs.

research and development overall across the federal government has been cut back dramatically. in the house budget as it currently stands. that is something that congress will want to take a look at. this kind of research has direct capability. and i want to follow up on one point that michael said. one of the reason we do this in aviation is because there is a connect to current intelligence about the desire to attack aviation. either by getting an explosive on a cargo plane or a passenger plane, and it does not matter which is which, although i think our adversaries would prefer a passenger plane. one of the reasons we do this is because it is the current threat.

the president's budget includes money for 12 more by kurt teams. they have multiple parts to them. >> we are talking about unionization. i believe of tsa, that is one of the issues right now. how would you about your weight -- evaluate?

>> like, i actually have the ability to travel quite a bit by air now. -- like tom, i actually have the ability to travel quite a bit by air now. i watched carefully to see what other people's experiences are. i have to say the vast majority to cooperate with officers. i think officers really try to be helpful. it is a very challenging job. the thing that is difficult for people to understand is your talking about millions of people that go through the checkpoints, and it is an area where the government interfaces with the public more than any other time other than tax time. clearly everyone would like to have a technological solution. the challenge has always been

food. if you want to have a machine that looks at water, it would be taking nine hours to get through. we do have a system of behavioral detection which works. these areas have one airport. they have a handful of flights compared to what we have. it is a different architecture. i am quite sure the current administration is very intent on developing the technology that will make this easier, as well as the other tools, but recognize that it is a triumph that we have not had a hijacking or bomb go off on an airplane since september 11 in this country. it is not from want of trying. predecessors' can tell you that you would be amazed at the amount of things that are picked up at the checkpoints that could be components of bombs. i remember there was a case a

couple of years ago where someone had wires and a big piece of cheese. in it may sound funny, but that is how you test the system. you did not put the bomb on, but you look to see where the warriors can be smuggled through the system. it is a very challenging environment, but they have been successful. >> to go from time to time various enterprises and journalists will try to tweak the system and have some nightly news report. >> no one here. >> no one here. i want the public to be assured everyone understands they're not perfect, but they go to work trying to do the best they can. tsa test themselves on a regular basis. you build in a redundant layer of security. they tested themselves all the

time. -- they test themselves all the time. i have been pulled aside for secondary screening dozens of times. they are doing the very best they can, but they do test the systems themselves. i think you need to know that. they're not sitting back and waiting for something to happen. even with the things they discovered they apply later on in you do not even know about it. >> how much progress are we making with the your tan -- european union on getting out of uniform standards so that we know the incoming flights have been a check to our satisfaction? >> how this is the jargon of a

.p.i. we share this with the advance of people boarding the flight so those names can be checked against a number of different data bases that we have. so that we even know before someone gets on a flight or is allowed to get on the flight what we are dealing with. the european union, which isbon es under the list entr treaty is in negotiations with the united states on a worldwide agreement with the united states. we are proceeding. this week begins the third round of negotiations, and we're getting to a common understanding of what a good agreement would require. again, we need to do it in such a fashion that real-time information is exchanged. it is exchanged in a format --

we're talking about millions of passengers per day. areae the biggesbusiness flight by a large margin. we need to manage the data that concerns about privacy are addressed. >> what is making progress mean in terms of real time getting an agreement? >> there is actually now an existing agreement. what we're doing now is renegotiating it to make it even better. when we say real time, we mean by that time a passenger places an order for a ticket information is exchanged. >> can i make a point here. it is very interesting, because this has been an evolutionary process. to the credits of it is not an r or d.

when i was in the white house and in the first couple months as secretary we begin discussions with the european union. we wanted that information. it took well over a year to get it, but we did not get it until the plane was in the air. at least we got the information. you probably remember but we turned a famous artist down that day. why you did not know is that same day there were a couple of other people we took off the plane and sent back to europe. we began to develop the relationship, but he said thanks for giving us to after the plane was airborne, but why not give board us before they the plane? there are lots of things that have evolved from that basic agreement. the threat warning system will come up one of these days.

which is very appropriate. the color-coded system. that is 3.0. the first thing that would happen is there without a press conference and say the threat tomorrow is greater than today. be a work and -- be alert and aware and walked off the stage. not terribly effective. the next thing was the color- coded system puritan and public communication one of the most important things the department can do was designed to tell the public that the president's homeland security counsel said the threat is greater. it is also designed to tell people specifically what you should do. that was 2.0. s secretary napolitano with ticket 3.0. take it to every party has tried to build

upon this and improve upon. that is very important. everyone needs to understand it is an evolutionary process and has been fairly positive. >> one thing that has not changed in eight years is you still have projects across the country. rather than the focus of the money primarily being in the greatest threat areas, what we do about with all the talk of earmarks, there is still a lot that is distributed across congressional districts? i want to ask you about that because your budget is still at stake. >> i actually have to say i think over time this became much improved, and there still remain urban legends about distribution of money that occurred in the first or second round that i do not think reflect the reality. and at the time i left, and i think it is still true, most of the money in the president's

budget, congress sometimes changes that, was dedicated to the higher risk areas, certainly new york got the most area -- money. ies.ad tears of cit generally speaking, we did not get a lot of earmarking. i think it has been an evolutionary process to build common sense for allocating the money in a way that is more or less reasonable. i do have to be fair, there are members when members of congress have it differ idea of what the risks are than the president's budget has. so the administration never -- may never be 100% confident with what comes out. >> getting back to the issue of

al qaeda. its al qaeda central no longer the chief threat that it was because of what ever we have been able to accomplish through other technology? are we talking about other things, especially as we see the revolutionary change. are we now facing a greater challenge because we no longer have central government relationships, intelligence relationships we have had for many years with egypt and others and now have to figure out what this new world will look like? >> i think one of the evolutions we have seen as and al qaeda itself. whereas 9/11 was a core al qaeda

activity in the genesis for the reason of the department, that attack,. core al qaeda has been constrained with a large amount of the activities has gone on. modern communications being what they are, thing still come out of there that can be to inspire to institute to let people know we're still here in the west is still the enemy. and we now have al qaeda in the other areas. we have these groups all over the world. then the other evolution i have seen really accelerate in my two years has been the so-called

home grown. the u.s. persons that for whatever reason, and we do not have a good understanding about what causes someone to do this, but they've become inspired to commit jihad. they may travel abroad and then come back, but that is a key concern for us moving forward. that is why it is so important that we have a security architecture that recognizes that everybody has a role. that is one of the reasons why we are taking national to the see something, say something campaign. to get across to citizens at large that everyone has a place in our security. that is why we have really tried to work more closely with the private sector and what they are doing to protect security. it is not just one group in one

place using one methodology. it is many different groups dispersed, and some individuals our small groups even with ain own country using lots of different methodologies. everything in this area evolves. >> if i could just speak to the point of what is going on in the middle east, which is commanding a lot of anttention. people say how you feel about all of the activity? i was asked about -- reminded about the french revolution. things are very much unfolding. on the positive side, for the first time there is an alternative meredith for progress in the middle east that is in dramatic distinction from that run by al qaeda, and it is a narrative about democracy and freedom. on the other hand, we do not

know how it will play out, because as regimes toppled, there will be a need for new government that is capable of delivering services to the people. at some point the garbage has to be picked up and jobs have to be created. it the new governments are not capable of doing that, opportunities will arise. i see the military coming back in or extreme is coming back in. this is an example of an area where the verdict is very much out. there is a real cause for optimism, but also cause for watching and waiting. this will have an impact on our security architecture. >> secretary ridge, what we're seeing in libya is an evolution for demolition, which is going to be more like somalia, a failed state, no central core likely to replace muammar gaddafi should he be ousted.

>> i think what we've seen in the middle east is repression a matter how they got there. those days are numbered probably globally, it because of the -- you take a look at egypt and you say where are the elements of self-government that exist in egypt today that they can build upon? there are not any. in libya there are not any. pretty much around ithe middle east it will take a while. one of the main concerns i have with the region right now is iran. it is by far the no. 1 terrorist area in terms of arms and ammunition around the middle east. you have to believe they are stirring the pot. you take a look at their and whatith has a lohezbollah has happened with leaven on and

take a look at in egypt the islamic brotherhood. so i think my colleagues could not agree with that more, there is so much uncertainty, and what we want to think about optimistically what can happen, one of the obstacles to the outcome we would all like to see would be the growing impact and influence of iran. it is pretty clear negotiations have not worked. while or influence is diminished in the region -- our influence has diminished in the region, there is a vacuum. while it may not result in direct attacks on the united states, clearly unrest in the middle east, our ally israel and generally what will happen when

some of these vacuums are filled by additional repressive leadership in the impact that has is a serious consequence for the united states. we have to be mindful of that. it is a terrorist state. they are promoting terrorism in the region. i think iran is a major problem that we have to pay more attention to. >> secretary napolitano, let's talk about integration for a moment. what is the difference between it illegal immigration and terrorism, if any? i think right now the question often raise is if someone can sneak across the border what prevents a terrorist from getting across the border? the united states has these huge land borders. it is physically and physically

impossible to have a border patrol agents sitting every 100 yards or so across each of the borders. when you are talking about risk management, when you're talking about controlling our borders and terrorism, one of the things you have to have is good intelligence. you have to be able to identify in get to the borders in the united states, who may be transported to mexico, canada or through the air trying to get into our country. then with respect to our borders themselves, we need to understand that we're never going to be in a position to steal those borders. too much traffic needs to be able to flow back and forth. they are a number one and number two trading partners.

control as much as possible what goes on between those ports. >> how good is the intelligence? >> i think the intelligence is good, but like any other intelligence, it is not perfect. the idea to pinpoint every single threat, even at the grand level, it is not realistic. that is the kind of thing you see on television. that is white it is an issue of layers and having the intelligence in layers and putting the assets on the border they give you a reasonable chance of intercepting and apprehending. the truth is it has worked. there has been over the past several years, a drop in the number of people who come into the country illegally at the ports of entry. some of that is attributable to the economy and some to

enforcement. i remember four or five years ago i was in arizona. you remember that, you were governor. there were hundreds of thousands of people that were running across the border every day, and because of the distance between the border in the town of yuma, they would blend into the town and it was very hard to intercept them. we put up fencing, which some people do not like. that dropped it down to a handful per day. depending on where you are on the border, you can use a series minimize the flow. >> is it true that most illegal immigration has to do with economic issues? >> no question. most people that come across the

border are not coming to do harm to the u.s. they are coming to work at jobs that either americans do not want to work or the wage is not attractive. that is why and 2007 we spent a lot of time trying to do comprehensive immigration reform, which came close to passing the senate and did not quite make it, but in the end it looked at putting a lot of border enforcement resources in, but also coming up with a temporary worker program in dealing with the illegal migrants better in the country are ready. -- that are in the country already. >> i do hope that sometime in the future we look at the beagle emigration -- illegal immigration. a comprehensive approach.

i know it is a third rail of contemporary politics right now, but at the end of the day there are couple of things i would suggest in this debate. do not think that everyone that for wants to the board shoul be an american citizen. i think we need to understand that. at some point in time, building a database that employers can use and be protected against potential sanctions and strong enforcement of businesses that hire people also the basic system. more enforcement and more technology. at some point in time i hope the congress accepts the responsibility. i can say this because i was there for 12 years and voted for amnesty. at some point in time you have to say we're not sending 12 million people home.

you can identify them, but you will not send them home, so let's find a way to legitimize them under the current system. in my opinion. [applause] >> as a two-time member and long-time member of congress as well, how do you persuade people like the governor of arizona and other republican voices to take another look at this? >> again there is a certain amount of empathy for all governors trying to deal with this issue. i think that issue slowly fades from the portfolio of concerns by governors if the federal government has a list of comprehensive solutions. >> the way the budget is funded may be an interesting and the test. it will constrain even on the ability to put increased

investment on enforcement. one thing that people are beginning to realize now, which i think those of us who have had executive jobs have known, is that they are hard choices, and you do have to make decisions that are not perfect in order to get things done, and in order to alleviate situations. it is part of the spirit for dealing with the budget challenges we face. there will be a recognition we will have to come up with a solution that takes into account enforcement, but also dealing with the immigration system overall and to be comprehensive about it. >> some of our members of congress i want to bring in. you can say having left office that it will not be perfect, but if you are secretary napolitano

in jamaica risk benefit analysis and decide what you can spend it cannot spend- -- and you make a risk benefit analysis and decide what you can spend on and what you cannot, and if there is an attack, she will be the one at the hearing. >> yes. [laughter] >> that is part of the responsibility that each of us has undertaken, is to lead this department to help build this department, to bring it together. i think each of us acknowledges the risk we take in excepting that position. i think if you make a decision and it turns out badly, in other words something that you thought would not happen actually does,

and it may be no one even made a mistake, it may just be one of these things that happens, but i think if you can demonstrate to the public through the congress or the public at large why you did what you did, and what the reasons for it were, i believe that the public itself has matured and is maturing in its recognition of what security is and what risks are. i would hope you could have that kind of dialogue, but again, when you leave the department of homeland security, you were sitting on the edge of your chair quite a bit of the time. >> i wanted to but in this down with one other issue out there. -- button this down with one other issue out there.

the role of the media's. when you have stories traveling home every day during the christmas traveling season about invasive technology and interviewing people randomly at airports about these things, how do we balance what we do and either help or hurt? it is not our role to be a partner of yours, but there are times when we sit on information at the request of government agencies. most recently that happened in pakistan with the incident and pakistan involving all of us. what is the appropriate relationship that also does not get in the way of national security? >> this is a daily struggle, because the media is there to cover news, and often times you

are in possession of information the media does not have and you cannot share. that means you cannot share it with the public. that is one of the parts of the job. one of the frustrating things about the media, however, present company excluded, is you need to cover something 24/7. that means covering conflict. in there is a constant drumbeat to pick a fight or say that person said this, how do you respond to that? that is the dynamic. as opposed to come up from our standpoint, the key function of the media is to get information out, a piece in italy when something has happened and people have been injured --

articularly when something has happened and people have been injured or if there is about to have happened. every morning as part of my daily brief i get the upcoming weather. i never paid much attention before, but you have to because you have to be alert to areas of the country that may be subject. right now we just finished a major winter storms. we're looking of flooding in the red river area. there are forest fires going on in texas, and you have to know all those things, so we make sure we are reaching out to governors and mayors and local emergency offices and they have the resources they need to deal with that. the media can be a great partner when you are trying to get information to people. that is how we've -- that is not

how media sees itself, but in the kinds of things we deal with, it is how we would like the media to be. >> with that i would like to bring the audience in. also acknowledge the help of the homeland security forum to help bring this together. our thanks to you as well. we have a wealth of knowledge here, our first and foremost from members of congress. we have a senator landrieu here, congressman kaine, congresswoman harman -- congressman king, congresswoman harman. >> it would be a great said way based on the last part exchange to ask my question. i thank all of you for being here and for being so

forthcoming in your thoughts and comments. 6.5 years ago, 1800 people were killed in a catastrophic infrastructure failing of the federal levee system in new orleans. not much has been talked about this morning about an important part of the department, which is fema, the federal emergency management agency. i would like to ask the secretary now serving, what are your thoughts on how fema has improved, and i like to ask the secretary chertoff what you found when you were there, what you are happy about that improve, and is it something that the country needs to continue to focus on? , senator, fema now -- they are doing great work. they are doing what i asked them to do, which is to lean forward,

to be proactive, to pre- position food and cots if we see something coming. it is easier than having to move material when you are in the middle of a storm or a hurricane or what have the of. we did that most recently -- there was a major storm that came out and ultimately covered 100 million americans. it was super bowl weekend. you might recall it. we were afraid that that storm was going to create a lot of ice, and when you have a lot of ice, you lose a lot of power. and that we would have major power outages in major cities across the united states. we pre-positioned a lot of things. fema is in that mode and they have expanded use of the social media to get information to people, to text.

the fema administrator twitters. one of the things we've learned in managing crises is what people look for is information and what they are supposed to do. the more we can get out that information and what they are supposed to do, the better off we are. >> i think that is all true. one of the great lessons of hurricane katrina is the importance of planning up front. as a consequence of that, all attitude of the fema department in terms of working with state and locals really shifted. a lot of detailed planning was launched in the gulf and a lot of other areas as well. that is the touchdown for effective response. touchstone for

effective response. social media is a great tool for getting information. we also set up -- i hope today is still up the system here -- and on-line almost a version of ebay, where people who needed resources could be matched with people in the private sector who had resources. a lot of this stuff has been deployed to bring fema into the 21st century. had a couple of pretty light hurricane seasons in the last couple of years, but i take your point that we should not be complacent about that, because it could very easily be in nasty season next summer, not that i wish that on you. to be avoided, but you are quite right. >> congressman price, then congressman king. >> let me rephrase the question

about the current threat environment, in terms of the balance that you and the department must constantly strike between responding to the last crisis and learning from the last crisis and anticipating the next one. i would like to ask the past secretaries how the current threat environment compares to what you were able, realistically, to project and anticipate. what has surprised you? what has followed the kind of projections that you were able to make? of course, ask all of you to reflect on what we might anticipate next, to extend our projections, you think, measure up to what we should look for in terms of intelligence anticipation. >> you know, people have asked me, do i miss being secretary, at a certain extent i would say yes.

people i can trust and admire it particularly because of their hard work in those early years. when you are around the people -- around three people, there is a great cause associated with the -- arawn great people, and there is a great cause as the season -- associated with that -- and to not knowing. i cannot ask that question as -- i cannot answer the question as specifically as the incoming secretary, but from the relationships we lead, that has evolved into many different directions. the world for the department is a little bit more complicated than we initially thought it would be on september 12, 2001. you do have the emergence of another band of terrorists, you

have the homegrown terrorists, the lone wolf was found in -- we saw in texas. the portfolio of threats in my mind is a lot broader than we thought it would be. unfortunately, i don't see any narrowing of those threats. the internet continues to be a very effective tool to proselytize, to educate. whoever succeeds secretary of all tunnel is not -- secretary napolitano is not going to see a reduced threat. it may get larger. >> i would agree with. it has become much more widely distributed, and particularly the issue of homegrown terrorism. people who don't fit the popular image of what terrorists look like. jihad jane, colleen larose --

they don't fit the stereotypes. it puts more pressure on ordinary citizens to provide information. we focused on this a lot in 2007, 2008, and it has continued -- cybersecurity. we have seen some dramatic, publicized attacks. not terrorism some much as espionage, things of that sort. that is going to become an increasing area of concern for the department. >> how well equipped army, secretary to paul econo, to deal with the cyber threat -- secretary napolitano, to deal with the cyber threat? >> we have basically a whole segment devoted to acyber

we negotiated an agreement with the department of defense as to how we could use technologies available through the nsa at the nsa. we have homeland security persons at the nsa, and persons from our privacy of this with them, because there are legitimate concerns and we have to do this in the right way. cyber is an ever-evolving area. the problem with cyber is that by the time you are talking about something they are moving on to the next thing. it is a fast-moving field. probably none of us on this stage are as good at understanding it as someone who is 20 years old, someone who was brought up with a computer as a part of live. -- of life. if there are students in the

audience who have said a security interests, i would ask them to see me after this program. [laughter] >> you will have a long line. peter dang. -- peter king. >> you of all done an outstanding job. i'd like to comment more, andrea, on what you said about the media. i thought the media did a leading up to tsa was absolutely irresponsible. could there be improvements? yes, but leading up to thanksgiving, the most heavily trafficked day of the year, the whole system was going to be brought down, the stars suddenly dropped. -- stories suddenly dropped. it creates the wrong impression for the public, that the tsa is the enemy.

we have to be working together as one. maybe this is a loaded question for the secretaries, but how can the department do a better job of reminding people that we pakistan together and we should not allow any particular criticism -- we have to stand together and not allow any particular criticism to criticize the whole department? >> thank you in letting me go first. [laughter] peter, i think they're in the last eight years of the department -- during the last eight years of the department, that is something that communications folks have really been focused on. we just talked about this in terms of this being the new norm. was's, 1980's, the normal mutually assured destruction, the threat was unclear. this the new -- the threat was that nuclear.

our job and the job of congress and the media is to report -- not to pile on, not to exaggerate. hyperbola does not get anybody anywhere. to a certain extent, the media helps even though they are not consciously try to because of the globalization of communication. terrorist attack of some kind of an answer is reported on a regular basis -- a terrorist attack of some kind or another is reported on a regular basis. it is the job for the secretaries and the congress and all those associated to say, look, the threat is real, you bet. we have dealt with great threats in areas tree before. we had thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us, thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at other folks, and under that umbrella, with build a strong america, strongest economy, strong military.

let's remind everybody that the threat is real and we will be dealing with it for generations, but let's not be breathless about it, that professionals worry about it -- let professionals worry about it and let everybody else go about their jobs. it is important our region now that it is there, we're working on it, let's not be breathless about it, we are dealing with it. >> one thing i hope you take away from the conversation here is that it is important for the issue of homeland security, not just the department, but the issue as a whole be a non- partisan issue. we have always treated defense as non-partisan, and it is important that we avoid what some in the media do, to find wedges to drive between people. there can be disagreement about strategies and tactics, but

there should not be disagreement about motivations of people in the department, whatever the party, which is dedicated to the u.s. and dedicated to defending the country. that is an important part of the message we send it to the american public. >> segue to jane harman, who was always represented a bipartisan approach to homeland security in congress. incoming president of the wilson center. >> obviously, the press is perfect after a plug like that. yesterday was my last day in congress as a member of peter king's committee. i started 17 years, starting in the late 1990's, focus on the threats on our country and what to do about them. first of all, the wilson center is not partisan, and i want to commend all three secretaries for being bipartisan in the way they have treated their department and building on the record of the last.

2.0 to now 3.0. i think that is admirable, and something that the wilson center is focusing on -- mismanagement of the border, immigration, some of the other tough issues. en andfiliated with asp its homeland security strategy group. you are talking about homegrown terror and you gave examples where it the community of its citizens or in some cases law enforcement found these people and turned them in before they could harm us. obviously, communities turn in people, to. the somali folks who left ofneapolis an-- the knowledge them comes from parents and community members.

in northern virginia, five men at least traveled to pakistan intent on joining al qaeda. they were turned in by their relatives. "turned in" may be a loaded word, but they were reported by their relatives. not all tourists are muslims, but how important is it to bill -- not all terrorists are muslims, but how important is it to build bridges to the community to learn more about those among them who might seek to harm us? and what are you doing about it? how have you involved in our efforts to build bridges to the muslim community -- how have you evolves in your efforts to build bridges to the muslim community? >> i will go first again. i don't know what secretary napolitano is doing, but i suspect she is building on what

we did with president bush when we started and what secretary chertoff followed up. is about trust, it is about credibility, it is about being careful of the language we use to describe jihadists and extremists. sometimes for political reasons there has been hyperbole associated with the language and a tendency to think that if you are muslim you have been condemned. it is continuous outreach, recognizing, 1, that by and large, the terrorists willing to have come from that broader community -- terrorists we are dealing with have come from that broader community. that is a fact. but by and large, our responsibility is to reach out

, toembrace, as we've done build the level of trust and credibility were families in minnesota and northern virginia -- just like a man who went to the embassy to talk about the detroit bomber. that is the kind of information, one of the sources we need to get the actor before it happens. >> the fbi has efforts. we participate in those. we have a civil rights and civil liberties component within the department. they have an active outreach program. the muslim community, in terms of association, has reached out to us and invited us to colloquium and other meetings in their community and so forth. there is active bridge building going on, and it is important, because as tom said, it is

important to distinguish muslims and islamists terrorists. that small percentage is there, but it is not the muslim community at large. >> i would agree with that, and it is not just a matter of getting the assistance of the community and identifying people who are dangerous. that has happened, but it is also getting the community engaged in a counter-narrative of the extremists, who come in and, to be honest, record their. -- recruit there. it is important to give the community of filling up a stake in the venture of this country, -- feeling a stake in the venture of this country, the best antidote going forward. >> it is not just the federal government reaching out. city chiefs and the like -- a

lot of the big cities are doing their barry best to do that. -- their very best to do that. it is very important to stand up and be vocal, visible, consistent in condemnation of those who have hijacked their religion. i think we would like to see more of that. this relationship has to go both ways. we want to trust and a brace them because they are a source of information, but we need sustained advocacy on their part and condemnation of what they see going on, the very few people wept discredited the historic and very powerful religion -- who have discredited the historic and a very powerful religion. >> we don't have that much time, but people are lined up. >> i am a senior at the georgetown school of foreign service, and i'm completing scholarship with dhs, so thanks for helping me pay my tuition

and going to school here. [applause] the question is about national cybersecurity. particularly, it has been a stated goal of this department to expand and build upon our national cybersecurity work force. i'd like to ask, aside from offering the economic incentives, your thoughts on how we can provide the right cultural incentives to get more information security specialists, basically, hackers or those who have the capability, and to our government. the nation has the most talented and skilled hackers in the will, and that is a great resource to have going forward in the cybersecurity mission. unfortunately, it seems that many members of this community, in some cases, some of the best of them, remain distrustful and

wary of aggression because of the security concerns and regulation policy -- wary of the government because of what security concerns and regulation policies. i'm curious how can bridge the trust back and get more information security specialists -- bridge the trust gap and get more information security specialists, the best at what they do. >> we reach out directly. the office of personnel management has actually given the department higher authority to hire 1007 security specialists. -- 1000 cybersecurity specialists. that will be helpful. the problem we have got it exactly as you stated, that people who are really good -- they have not thought about working for the government. we do have -- we have recruited some very nationally known

hackers to be on the homeland security advisory committee. at present, there are actually hacker conventions. we are there. [laughter] >> everywhere. >> you see some of us -- no. to a larger point, and this goes beyond cyber, talking with young people about careers in public service. it is more than a year or two at a particular nonprofit or whenever. it is investing your life and talents working for the greater good, working in the government, which is where you can achieve that, and providing the opportunity to demonstrate that. you know what, your skills are needed to protect the country. your knowledge is needed, at your energy, what have you.

anything we can do to persuade young people that, you know what, this is a great way to invest your talent, is something that we're willing to do. in fact, i'm giving a series of lectures around the country this year at universities, and they are different subject matter, but they are also decided to introduce the department to university students as a place to have a career and a very rewarding want, actually. >> if i could add one word to that, it would be great if congress could take a look and revisit the roles and restrictions and regulations about engaging the private sector more intimately in developing partnerships with the federal government. i know from my own experience, even early on, when i tried to attract a very talented people to help me on an advisory board, the regulations associated with bringing in

private citizens, engage, smart, talented, experienced private citizens, to sit side-by-side with government to advance the broader interests of security and safety -- it is very, very difficult. the regs are written to the extent that we will not trust people in the private sector, because heaven forbid they might be financially and managed -- advantaged, even with the just general information. it isn't doggoned time -- is doggoned time that we realize that the world and experience and capability of the private sector ought to be brought into the federal government on a lot of issues, not just cybersecurity. the president spoke of a more efficient federal parliament in the state of the union. i hope our that process is to allow more people from the private sector to join the partnership. all of these regs art it treat

somebody who might be misguided. we have a lot of talented people in the federal government. [applause] >> thank you very much for your question. we only have about five minutes left. try to get to more questions of their -- questions there. >> i am a senior in the school of foreign service here. i'm for the taking madeleine albright's course -- currently taking madeleine albright's course and we had will play, in which i played you, madam secretary. [laughter] what are your objectives for afghanistan and pakistan, and are there specific policy changes you would see ports that -- towards that end? >> first of all, we have people in the department working on afghanistan, and one of the issues there is to translate

from a military presence to a civilian and to capacity build. i was there myself -- i spent new year's eve, actually. we are helping to build a customs department, because if they can create customs revenue, that is revenue they can use -- to create to fu -- to fund the government. that is very important. one of the objectives in afghanistan is to have a transition from military to civilian government. with respect to afghanistan and pakistan, obviously, a key objective is to work with the governments of both countries to identify al qaeda, al qaeda havens, and to work to eliminate those. >> good luck with your role playing by the message to all students is that you can get into foreign service and look

forward to spending new year's eve in kabul. [laughter] it is a great life. >> school of foreign service, a georgetown university. did president bush hamper the national will by not seeking a congressional declaration of war against al qaeda, or would it have been counterproductive if he had done so. and what affect -- at his response then, what effect it has today? >> i think the president felt that getting a joint resolution passed with strong bipartisan support in both chambers live up to is primari -- his primary responsibility, to protect the united states. the congress acted very swiftly in a bipartisan manner in both of those chambers, and the president took that, as any

president would have done, as the appropriate responsibility to build the department and the optics of the security measures he felt were necessary to protect and defend the united states. >> i am co-chair for the commercial facilities sector. madam secretary, first and foremost, the changes that occurred in fema are absolutely wonderful. the private sector absolutely loves working with fugate and we hope you keep that. what is the role of the private sector in the rollout of fusion centers? , if you't know, tom started them, but what they are our state, local, federal entities, not only personal, but databases. the idea is to more quickly share information on a different levels of government, but also to receive information

back. up one of the things that happens in washington, d.c., is that there is a hold a country out there from which information needs to be -- a whole big country out that for which information needs to be garnered. there are also all hazards, and that is where infusion centers deal with, for example, public health. when we had h1n1, we employed to geton centers information about vaccines and availability and the like. is with critical infrastructure -- utilities, water, and so forth. as we look at infusion centers around the country, that is a relationship and capacity we are encouraging, part of the grant

credits we're giving, and something we look for when we travel. there are 72 other infusion centers. -- fusion centers. >> southwest emergency response network, a pilot under the leadership of secretary ridge. in terms of the recent attacks hemorrhaging critical infrastructure are broad and here, what you see as the role of engaging the private sector with street level, real-time information-sharing? >> i think one of the critical issues is how did you make information available in real time. there are structures that do that, various sectors and coordinated councils within a department. one of the challenges is to turn that around quickly and make sure information gets out. a lot of that, frankly, can be

done on-line. one of the obstacles is in the clearance process. the biggest complaint i have heard since i've left, in terms of people in the private sector saying they cannot get access to information, or some of the arcane requirements about getting clearance or who has to hold the clearance and would you do to maintain clarence. -- what you do to maintain clearance. simplifying the process would go some distance to making information available more quickly. >> i think we're just about out of time, and that will have to be the last question. i want to, again, thank the aspen institute, thank georgetown, school of foreign service. the conversation will continue, by the way. secretary brady and secretary chertoff or forget -- sprayed -- secretary rage and secretary chertoff are frequent guests.

secretary napolitano will be my guest today on msnbc -- make sure you show up. [laughter] the aspen institute will have its july program in aspen, july 27-30. the aspen institute is going to continue and even deeper conversation about this, in a wonderful venue, i might add. thanks to the walter isaacson, members of congress. i see john mclaughlin there, a former cia director, someone with great expertise. thanks to aspen, georgetown, the president, and all of you participating in a very lively conversation. [applause]

>> coming up in at under 25 minutes, we are going to hear from the commander of u.s. naval forces, europe and africa. he will have a military operations update from libya, a briefing from the uss mount

whitney. will get more on that fight that crashed in libya after an apparent equipment malfunction. both pilots are safe in american hands a search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, and the second crewmember, also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is safely in american hands. more on that coming up at noon from the pentagon, live on c- span. congress is out this week. we will take you to canada's parliament, now in session, and they will present the budget report could live coverage at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. at 8:00, abc news anchor diane sawyer on the future. she is interviewed -- on the future of journalism. she is interviewed by marvin kalb.

we will bring you comments "washington journal" viewers on u.s. involvement in it libya operations. story.com. dennis kucinich is quoted, "i'm raising the question as to whether or not it is an impeachable offense." "we have to clearly understand what this constitution is about." that is from dennis kucinich in an exclusive story. he has also been tweeting about this. this is a tweet from yesterday.

that was a sweet -- a tweet from dennis kucinich. this is "the new york times" on this story. it says that "president obama is facing criticism for not seeking congressional authorization."

a quote from president obama in 2007 with "the boston globe." he talks about a presidential constitutional authority to declare war. back then, he said "the president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." that is a quote from then senator obama in "the boston globe." it also talks about then senator joe biden.

he argued that the prison would not have authority under the constitution to bomb iranian nuclear sites without congressional authorization. "truman said it was enough that the united nations security council, new at the time, had granted permission." president obama, yesterday, in a letter to speaker boehner, outlined his decision. he said, "united states forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission to support of international efforts to protect civilians in prevent humanitarian disaster."

host: that is president obama's letter to speaker john boehner yesterday. we will get your thoughts on this. the thing the president needs to clarify the mission? does he need congressional approval? first, joining us on the phone is the middle east correspondent with "the los angeles times." where are you right now?

guest: in in tripoli. host: what is the latest on the ground? guest: in the capital, it's quiet and subdued. a few hours ago, however, there was sustain anti-aircraft fire and tracer fire and this guy -- trace of a fire in the sky. the loud noises of missile strikes in the distance. we were not sure what the targets were. according to government officials, targets included airports and harbors. they say they were civilian targets, but there's evidence they have military uses, as well. host: there have been reports in the paper and the associated press has been reporting, as well, that the no-fly zone has been extended to tripoli. is that correct? guest: i'm sort of in a bubble. i'm not sure.

it has been days that there have been no flights in and out of tripoli or anywhere in the country. what does it mean to say that the no-fly zone has been extended? i have a feeling it is just sort of a political way of describing the situation in order to show progress to the american people. host: what do you mean you are operating in a bubble? what is it like? guest: we're in a hotel and many of the journalists are not allowed to leave the hotel without minders. there are a lot of checkpoints everywhere. internet has been shut down. there's no internet, not even in the hotel. only via personal satellite connections can we connect to the internet. it's very hard to set up and it is slow and rather expensive. many parts of the country are cut off from all television --

from all telephone service, including rebel-held parts of the country. we are not able to get in touch with those areas, at all, unless they have a satellite connections. host: what are you watching for today? guest: i'm not sure what will happen today. everything is a little different. just waiting for the evening to fall and then go out and get a temperature of the city, if at all possible. more air strikes in more anti- aircraft fire and try to figure out what was hit in that time. host: what are you hearing from colonel gaddafi's regime? guest: his spokesmen are calling this a barbaric war that is illegal and immoral. they say that this is part of a conspiracy, a plot on the part of the western powers to steal libya's oil.

they say they want the powers to come here and see that they are not fighting -- that they're not killing civilians. host: what are the rebel forces asking for? guest: i did not hear the question. host: what are they rebel forces saying? guest: the rebel forces are on the other side of the country. from what i can see, the rebels are saying that the coalition air strike gives them the breathing space for them to regain the momentum that they have lost a couple weeks ago and possibly start moving on and if thatronghold falls, it's pretty much a straight shot to the capital. host: thank you very much for joining us on the phone. he is a middle east correspondent for "the los angeles times." thank you.

let's go to a democrat in delaware. we're talking about congress's role in attacks in libya. we'll go to an independent in maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a few things. i've been looking up the war powers resolution of 1973 and one of the stipulations -- obama has to describe the estimated scope and i do not think he has properly done that. him and admiral mike mullen are on different pages. we do not really know where the -- the opposition to gaddafi is.

we do not know what kind of government they will fall into afterwards. this is not a popular move. the head of the arab league has condemned this and says it has gone beyond what they ask for. i believe we still have one missing pilot. what authority do we have to do this? we have gone around congress and obama has said he will follow the un and not listen to our representatives and not even have a debate on this. i think that's a deplorable thing to do. if we're going to do this action in libya, why do we not do it in other countries in similar situations with autocratic dictator's? ast: let's go to ruth,

democrat in madison, ohio. caller: i'm very confused about the fact that every time this president does something, no matter what, that everybody in this country seems to stand up and oppose him, at least the people in congress, whether they are democrats or republicans. this man cannot do anything unless somebody opposes him. libya has been a problem for a long time. i know that a lot of young people do not remember how long they've been a problem. it is almost necessary, when the un says we really need to do something about this. you have all the rest of these coalition countries going in with us. we are not going in by ourselves shooting up libya. i get confused by the press and

the people not understanding what kind of threat this man poses. thank you very much for my time. host: this is from house speaker john boehner. he put out the statement on sunday, saying the u.s. has "a moral obligation to stand for those who seek freedom from oppression. the violence must stop. the president is the commander- in-chief, but the administration has the responsibility to define what the mission is and make clear how it will be accomplished before any further military commitments are made. the administration must do a better job of communicating to the american people and congress." we will go to michigan, jeff, an independent. you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for c-span.

i'm so proud this morning. i do not think any american president would stand there and watch a million people being tortured by this criminal. it just makes me angry as an e x-servicemen. i know the president did the right thing. he saved the lives of these innocent people. these people are not soldiers. these are just innocent people. what do kucinich and gingrich think the president of the united states stands for? host: "washington times" front- page, "hill falls silent as libya war rages."

"congress is not in session this week. they're back in their districts and in their home states working, talking with constituents." jim, republican, go ahead. caller: good morning. muslims have been slaughtering christians in darfur for years. we never went in there to save people. the bottom line is the law was broken. you need to go to congress before you wage war. truman did it, johnson did it, and bush did it. three of the previous four were democrats. you could argue bush was a democrat, too. he spent like a democrat and he started an unsustainable social program like a democrat.

and now we have obama, who ignores the constitution at every turn. i think impeachment should be started. host: jim, i want to get your reaction to "the washington post" editorial. they say it is legal. they write this -- "from hostage rescues to humanitarian relief to enforcement of no-fly zones." "presidents have ordered forces

without prior congressional authorization. president obama did not need a vote of congress. this could change, however, if the operation mutates into something longer and more ambitious, as wars are often want -- often wont to do." host: jim, what do think? caller: i guess i think, at this time, when we are going through unbelievable government debt and we are trying to go through a debate in congress right now to limit our spending and we cannot

even agree on one% or 2% spending cuts and we just lost the $20 million f-15 yesterday. if you are going to do that in libya, why didn't you do it in darfur? we could probably list of eight other countries but we do not have the money to do it. he's just following the strategy to try to bankrupt our country and get us into a more socialistic-communistic country. host: terry is a democrat in delaware. good morning. caller: good morning. the article that you just read spells it all out. all the talk by dennis kucinich and palin is just talk in politics.

the president does not need congressional approval to commit u.s. military forces for 60 days, especially if it is limited. remember, this is not a unilateral action. this is in response to the u.n. resolution. host: do you think it would do the president well if he were to clarify this mission more with members of congress, maybe in a joint session of congress, and to the american people? guest: -- caller: i do not think it would hurt. naturally, in terms of playing politics, it would probably be inadvisable thing to do. i am assuming, however, that he did not plan to commit u.s. military forces beyond the 60 days. host: president obama, on a trip to latin america, made a stop yesterday in chile. at a joint news conference with their leader, he addressed the situation in libya and talked

about the military. >> i could not be prouder of the manner in which the u.s. military has performed over the last several days. it's a testament to the men and women in uniform. when they are given a mission, they execute and do an outstanding job. obviously, our military is obviously very stretched. it carries large burdens all around the world. whenever possible, for us to be able to get international cooperation, not just in terms of words, but also in terms of planes, pilots, and resources, that is something we should actively seek and embrace. it relieves the burden on our military and on u.s. taxpayers to fulfil what is an international mission. host: we will go to morgan county, tennessee. an independent. congress's role attack in libya.

what do you think? caller: i'm wondering who is president he is. the united states or the entire world? he should be at home, instead of in brazil and in other countries. host: ben what date -- ben, what they think about this debate? caller: i think they should and teach him -- should impeach him. host: good morning. caller: it seems to me they are harboring a lot of hatred. they are crying that he is spending too much money. first one thing and then something else. it's disgusting the way they talk about him like he is nothing. it makes me so angry. the woman stole my thunder early on. why didn't they complain when he was -- for the last 10 years.

i did not hear all this impeachment talk. thank you very much. host: one caller mentioned that one of the firefighters -- one of the fighter pilots has been lost. here is the ap. we will keep you updated on that. roberts, a democrat, in wisconsin. you are next caller:. caller: i am for obama. i was in the korean war. i get sick of when i hear these people calling. they cannot stand a black man in

office. he's far better. i wish he would have taken a trip to sweden. the only thing i disagree with obama on -- one of the three houppelande the iraq war to put halliburton's oil field over there. host: "the new york times" decision to gos into libya. "the arab league is sending mixed messages." the editorial goes on to say, "we hope president obama sticks

to its mission." they said "there's no perfect formula for military intervention and it must be used sparingly." "the new york times" says it should not be used in yemen or bahrain. ohio.go to caller: i'm a muslim american, a republican, and i'm not a fan of

president obama. he did what i think. remember, the middle east is a very confusing place. all this passive aggressive congressman and senators -- they need to know what they're talking about. obama did a great thing. it's in our national interest to stabilize the middle east. libya is a special case. i'm not saying we need to attack all other countries. gaddafi is a terrorist. he killed our citizens in lockerbie. god bless america. host: "the washington times" editorial this morning, "president obama, mission creep ." "they point to the united nations mandate." by comparison, george bush's

administration, president obama was to criticizing, had an even stronger resolution and the two of the time to get congressional buy-in, as well. questions remain about the scope in libya and long-term consequences." we will go to hollywood, florida. theresa, an independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i did not wivotes for president obama -- vote for president obama. i wish i had. he did exactly what he said he was going to do. he went in with the allied forces. i come from a strong military background and i believe this is not an unnecessary war. this is a war that we have to go against, because of terrorism. this is one of the press

presents -- this is one of the best presidents. i'm 54 years old. this president has decided to wait to make sure that our men are secure. i think he has done the right thing, as well as securing our borders all the way through the united states. host: the democratic line, federal way, washington. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe that gingrich and kucinich are taking the opportunity for sound bite politics to take advantage of a situation when they should be praying for the families and the men who are out putting their lives on a line right now, instead of worrying about taking

advantage of any little ploy >> just an update on the fighter pilots in libya. >> he is the commander of joint task force policy don. it is to provide operational and technical and national response to the unrest in libya and to enforce the u.n. security council resolution 1973.

>> thank you and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is afternoon here. this is the uss mount whitney operating in the mediterranean sea. let me take a moment to address the aircraft that went down. it has been in the news in the last hours. late last night, central european time, u.s. air force crew members ejected from their aircraft after and equipment malfunction in eastern libya. both members ejected and are sick. one crew member was recovered by coalition forces. the other crew member was recovered by the people of libya. he was treated with dignity and respect and is now in the care of the united states. the f-15 was to conduct an airstrike against the regime

gaddafi but tax. military operations are increasingly dangerous and i am proud of our members who endanger their lives they in indio. international -- their lives a day in and day out. yesterday, you heard from general carter ham. he brief you on how coalition forces are working together to encourage ending the hostilities. i would like to discuss what airforce odyssey don has achieved today and have these operations have affected the

environment. first, let me talk about the countries that have come together to defend the libyan people. there's coalition representation from allied navies. there are 13 nations either here or moving toward this direction. together, we have formed a partnership to support international responses to this crisis. today, our coalition has multiple ships and submarines highlighted by the french aircraft carrier charles de gaulle, which had their virginity to visit yesterday, at aircraft carrier garibaldi, and the amphibious assault ship. there is numbers coalition land

and sea-based and aviation reconnaissance. here at mount whitney, we are coordinating closely as we conduct the operation. let me briefly recap what we have done today. on march 18, the coalition forces became -- began a graduated sequence campaign against the government of libya to establish a no-fly zone to protect the libyan citizens. following the operation since -- following the operations in benghazi, a no-fly zone was

established and opened the door for international and non- governmental organizations for humanitarian assistance efforts. we continue to monitor our efforts. it is my judgment, however, despite our successes to date, gaddafi and his forces are not yet in compliance of the resolution. due to come -- due to the continued actions against the civilian population. i will now take your questions. >> this is bob burns from "the associated press." to have a question about the mission as it has been described by president obama and others, particularly how it applies where reports on the ground work conditions for civilians are growing increasingly dire. libyan forces are in the city

and fighting is going on there. how can you distinguish between rebels and civilians and government forces? >> that is a great question. as with a together our operations, our plants, first of all, protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure is the number one priority for us. we work very carefully. for july, the coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow -- fortunately, the coalition brings the other wide array of capabilities that allow us to work carefully. we are aware of the difficulties of that situation. we are aware of what we believe the intelligence situation in the city is. under the security council

resolution mandate that we have, we will continue to do operations that we believe will effective. be affecte >> are you saying that air power alone will work effectively to protect civilians? >> i think your question was -- you are a little bit light, week -- i think your question is that air power alone will effectively protect civilians in that situation. the security council resolution has given us a mission using the no fly zone, using those powers in the security council

resolution and expanded things. i will not comment on future operations or future operational designs may be. right now, we are filling the no-fly zone and that is our primary goal. >> david martin with "cbs." there is a report, a british report, that, during the rescue of one of the f-15 pilots, the marine osprey opened fire and actually killed five villagers. i would like to rescue of that report is true. also, yesterday, and general ham may point of saying that there was no official communication with the rebel forces during this operation.

was there any communication with the rebel forces in the recovery of these airmen? >> let me answer your second question first. and had no communication with any foreign body of the rebel force during the recovery operations. the first question u.s. was was there any collateral damage during the recovery operations. anytime we have an air craft malfunction did we lose the aircraft, there will be an investigation. i'm not prepared to talk about that investigation and what it mayor may not revealed. i will say that the recovery mission, from my perspective, was executed as i would have expected it to be given the circumstances.

>> you cannot even say if you opened fire? >> what i will say is that we are doing an investigation. we are only hours away from having that incident occur. we are in the middle of a major operation out here. this investigation will take time. but it will be looked at very carefully by the components as we go forward. i have ongoing operations during this campaign , so we will focus on that. >> when you anticipate handing over command of this operation to the allies? is it possible that you would assume command under a nato offense? there is also reports that ended up they tried to put an airplane in the sky and that was shot down. do you know anything about that? >> let me first talk about the

transition of the coalition to another command and control structure. that also is open letter 5 -- that is also something that i am not focusing on here. what i can assure you is that the coalition will be prepared to transition it to whatever command-and-control relationships is decided by the leadership of the nations involved and will insure that there will not be a break in the coverage or the capabilities that we provide to enforce the security council resolution. i have no knowledge of the second question, about the gaddafi'sjet -- about jet that you're talking about.

i am not focusing on whereabouts are the actions of colonel gaddafi. i am focusing on the protection of civilians in bolivia. >> based on what you know now, how soon would to be ready -- civilians in libya. >> based on what to know now, how soon would you be ready to hand over command. we have been hearing about this for days. >> like i said, the structure shelby made by the political leadership of the nation's -- shall be made by the political leadership of the nation's. this is not difficult for us. largely, as a round of coalition, with a similar procedures that we operate together, exercise together, and

speak a similar language. we have similar procedures. in that part, i do not think anyone should be too concerned about it. >> this is david cloud with "l.a. times." what is your understanding of the situation on the ground? are you aware of forces loyal to colonel gaddafi carrying out attacks on civilians? also, your coalition aircraft is performing strikes to prevent that? >> my intelligence tells me that there are gaddafi forces in mizrata in violation of the security council resolution construct. i will not talk about future operations. but i am aware of it. we are considering all options

as we look across the entire country of libya. this country is just about the size of alaska. the forces of gaddafi are a fairly significant land force. the no-fly zone is in place. it is effective. we have diminished his ability from an air defense and an air force perspective to the point where i am comfortable with the no-fly zone. we will continue to pursue all actions necessary to make them comply with the security council resolution 1973. >> as of now, there has not been a tactical air strikes in mizrata? i am not asking about future operations. i am asking about past operations. >> there are tactical air strike

operations throughout the coastal areas, military targets throughout libya. >> thank you. >> nbc news. there were reports that the duffy forces are dug into the city. and that armed rebel forces are attacking the gaddafi forces and being repelled by their overwhelming air power. at the same time, we were told that marine harrier jets dropped bombs on gaddafi military positions around aljabia. is that the u.s. coalition forces providing military assistance? will coalition forces in no way prevent rebels from carrying out

armed attacks on gaddafi forces? >> that is a great question. and i view it this way. i think our president was very clear when he laid out the contract in his speech on 18 march of what his expectations were. one of those is the regime forces of the duffy have to stop advancing. they have to pull back from various locations. they have not done that. in benghazi, we have basically forced him out of that area. i apply that have a standard tool operations that are occurring.

if colonel gaddafi would meet that requirement, stop all attacks against citizens and withdraw from places that we told him to withdraw, as the less water, electricity, and guess applies in all areas and allow humanitarian assistance, then the fighting would stop. >> bloomberg news. can you give the public a sense of the isr aircraft flying over libya right now to enforce the no-fly zone. >> again, i will let you view -- i will not give you our isr. we have assets into the theater

which include some of the ones you mentioned as we prepare the environment to ensure we can properly enforce the no-fly zone, the conditions mandated by security resolution 1970. >> to what extent are allied attacks focused on the 32nd and ninth special brigades of colonel gaddafi, his best conventional units, apparently? what is your assessment bernau on whether they have been debated sufficiently to stop attacks? do they need to be attacked some more? >> i think your question is well articulated in that the 32nd brigade, we have recognized, is a premier force for colonel gaddafi. we have been watching that closely.

initially, it had been widely arrayed around tripoli and in defense of tripoli. it appears that some of that force has moved into other areas to reinforce places that were being pressurized by the coalition. however, i can tell you that we will continue to watch carefully the their positions. we will taper operations which includes ensuring they comply with the u.n. security council resolution mandate. >> vs just watching them? >> we are not watching them. we are conducting a wide range of operations across libya. i will not talk about the specifics of those.

certainly, the 32nd grade is considered in the calculation of how we spend -- of how we expend the no-fly zone. >> politico. can you give us your assessment of libyan air forces? how many fixed-winged helmet helicopters headed destroyed? how many are you willing to let stand? are we tried to destroy as much of that capability as possible? >> when we began this,-mission was that his air force was not -- my estimation was that his air force was not significant to world standards. he had a lot of equipment that

was aged. he was deploying a technical airforce, a helicopter force in the order of several dozen, rather than in large numbers. then we began the coalition strikes. one of our objectives was to grade the effectiveness of those air force assets. we have not seen any significant movement of those forces. it is a good indication that our air structure very effective. i am completely confident that they're forced of colonel gaddafi -- that the air force of colonel gaddafi -- if there is

anything that we did not see or were not able to influence by our initial campaign, we would be able to manage that. >> "the christian science monitor." use said that there has been no official communications with rebel forces on the ground. i was wondering if you could talk about the an official communications and what they have involved. >> i have not had any official or official communications with who you referred to as opposition forces. our communication has been with coalition forces to enforce the u.n. security council resolution. >> in the past, there has been leafleting with direction.

to what extent are gaddafi forces considered or surrendered to not sustain an attack? >> this type of operation, a key component is information operations. we are executing some information operations with information be made available to gaddafi forces. that is all i will say about that at this time. >> chris lords from cnn. edu mentioned that the down - crewman was "treated with

dignity." how do know that? >> i have not gone through a debriefing with that downed pilot yet. he is in u.s. custody and he is safe. his injuries were minor. i understand that the libyan people who treated him with respect injured him medical care -- with respect provided him with medical care. that is the extent of my knowledge on the situation. >> "the wall street journal." we were told yesterday that there was a shift in focus from the first day of heavy strikes to more of an overwatch. would it be fair to characterize activity today as stepping back

up strikes on ground forces? >> let me answer your first catarrqatar.ut the ta they are in the process of moving their forces in this direction to join the coalition. they are working with the french. they are operating from a long way than there used to operating. if all things will work the way i think they will, there will be up and flying with the coalition by the weekend. in the second question, we started out with a large missile campaign and then we went to the no-fly zone. i talked about that in mind opening remarks. in any type of military campaign like this where you have

, the initialorce phases of a campaign have to be able to produce an environment where armed forces can operate in what we call air superiority. that is why you would see the first day or so of where we fired 100 -- that cannot think of the exact number -- i think it is 161 tomahawk missiles from coalition ships. they were aimed at preparing that battle space so that the no-fly zone could be set up. the coalition was forming in the early first few hours of that. as coalition forces floated, we initially established what i call a smaller no-fly zone primarily centered over

benghazi because that was their center focus from the beginning. the battle space for that no-fly zone has now been expanded and it requires the coalition to be well coordinated to manage the fuel and the resupply of the forces to maintain the no-fly zone. has the capability of the coalition grows, -- as the capability of the coaching goes, we will be able to provide support to what you would call ground forces and what we would call a non-sensitive targeting, looking at the disposition of those gaddafi forces that are not complying with the security council resolution and able to produce more of an effect. i think that is how i would characterize the coming hours and days. >> last question.

>> "wired." there will be command in the metrician enforcing the weapons embargo -- in the mediterranean and forcing the weapons embargo. >> i think that the question and if i have been told about the proposals from animal studies -- can you please repeat it? >> what will be your role about the nato force just announced to help enforce the arms embargo and contributing in some fashion to the no-fly zone? >> i understand the question now. as i was introduced, i have three rules here in europe. i have naval forces africa, best

naval forces europe, and the africa role is task force commander odyssey dawn. on monday will have, i am jfc navals. if nato has a role in this, i innot tell you highow will play that. that is for the council. however, i do have a staff in naples and i enabled to provide staff as necessary.

>> we ran out of quarters. [laughter] do we stillkylear, r have you? >> yes. >> i will send it back to you for any closing remarks you would like to make. >> i appreciate you taking the time. you have a lot of great folks at your from a lot of countries who are interested in making sure that this u.n. security council resolution is done right. thank you for taking the time today. i really appreciate your interest in the coalition

effort. this is a coalition effort. there are a lot of folks out here, a lot of countries doing some amazing work. i am proud of what they are accomplishing. thank you again. >> thank you, sir. >> as you may have heard in the comments, the two pilots from the downed f-15 fighter downed yesterday late in the afternoon are set back in american hands. here's what our schedule looks like here on c-span in the coming hours. later today, the canadian minister of finance will present his country's budget. we will bring you live coverage from the house of commons at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. at 8:00 p.m., abc world news anchor diane sawyer talks about the future of journalism. she is interviewed in front of an audience of students at the national press club in washington.

that is 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tonight, on c-span 2, a discussion on the history of senate rules and procedures. you will hear from former senate majority leader trent lott. there will talk about the efforts to chase the filibuster and secret hold and reminisce on past proceedings in the senate. >> i kept trying to figure out what are the rules here? they do not make any sense. i have enrolled background. what are the rules in the senate? he said there are only two, and exhaustion and unanimous consent. >> what's the woodrow wilson panel on senate reform tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> egyptian voters went to the

polls on saturday and approved constitutional changes that set the country on a pass for parliamentary and presidential elections later this year. one of the political movements and that egypt is the close of brotherhood. tha panel discussion was hostedo look at the role of that group in the future of egypt and what it might mean for international politics. their discussion is about 90 minutes. >> i want to welcome you to the experts breakfast meeting. we will discuss the muslim brotherhood, its ideology, its goals, its strength in egypt and around the world and the challenges posed to u.s. foreign policy. is the muslim brotherhood

secular, heterogeneous? that is -- doesn't issue violence? has it decried al qaeda? these are the questions that were provided to congress recently. i'll attend these events with an open mind. >this meeting is to provide a thoughtful yet civil conversation about the developments and challenges and crises we face. we are honored to have with us today representatives from the u.s. government from the diplomatic corps with and tanks in town and other people from the policy community. most viewed farda shah for the defense of democracy created just after 9/11 to do research on terrorism and the ideologies and the regime and movements of

organizations that drive terrorism and help develop policies to defend america and the west than those who have declared themselves as enemies those who support do not agree on everything. they do agree on at least three fundamental principles no one should be denied basic rights including minority rights, women's rights and religious freedom. free and space nations have the right to defend themselves and an obligation to defend one another and terrorism, the deliberate use of violence against civilians to achieve political objectives is always wrong and must never be condoned. we note that this event is on the record. our moderator this morning is my colleague dr. jonathan vice president for the research. the fdd. he's the author of several notable books among them hamas

versus fata, the struggle for palestine and he's the co-author of the newly published palestinian polls for policy makers can learn from palestinian social he served as a counterterrorism analyst the u.s. department of the treasury, he will send a doctorate from king's college london and he documented the history of the united states congress and its efforts to combat terrorism. let me remind everybody of c-span here please turn off your cellphone or at least put them on vibrate and i will now turn the microphone over to jon who will introduce the speakers again. thank you and welcome. thank you. and think to everybody for coming today. >> we are of course what facing profound change across the middle east. i think the initial conversations we've had here at fdd have been prompted by the changes that we have seen in egypt, the fall of hosni marrec began the discussion of what

extent the muslim brotherhood could possibly take power in egypt but egypt is not the only country we are watching from home bought rain where the muslim brotherhood is watching eagerly with it is to be some reaction from another muslim brotherhood groups seek to gain power and then of course even in yen to become yemen we are giving the collapse of the government and the rise of the party. so we are seeing not only the traditional muslim brotherhood in egypt but the potential branches taking power across the broad middle east and so we brought several experts in today to talk about egypt and the global muslim brotherhood and what we might be able to expect in the future and certainly what we should be looking at in terms of the u.s. foreign policy. so, to my right is the senior

fellow here, he is a former specialist at the director of operations and author of three books including the forthcoming god man and a ballot box. pardon me, pardon me. he has worked at the american enterprise institute and the project for the new american center and publishes about everywhere from "the new york times" and "washington post" and weekly standard. he was educated at johns hopkins university of edinburgh and the american university in cairo and princeton. then we've got tom joselyn who is also a senior fellow here at fdd. he's the director of the center for law and counterterrorism and the senior editor of the journal. in 2006, began an extensive review of 10,000 pages of classified documents from guantanamo bay and he's created a database and since published more than 100 articles on current and former guantanamo

detainees. tom is also the author of iran's proxy war against america, a monograph published in 2007 by the claremont institute that details the sponsorship of the sunni terror networks and recently, put together a tremendous white paper on the muslim brotherhood for the senior legislators and it's been circulating around capitol hill and we are now in the process of turning that into a monograph and we hope our discussions can perhaps influence that final product. then finally to my far right is lorenzo. he held a fellowship at harvard university kennedy school, u.s. institute of peace and the fletcher school of law and diplomacy. a native of mullen italy he holds a law degree from the university of montreal school and a doctorate of congressional relations from the school of law the policy. he is the author of the new muslim brotherhood in the west published by columbia university press in the fall of 2010. so that's the panel for today.

the way this will go is we will ask each one of our panelists beginning with lorenzo to speak for about five minutes to cover some of the fox they have the muslim brotherhood and its recent rise in the middle east and some thoughts they have about what we are seeing after everyone is done we will open this up to a broad discussion, and i would ask now to just remind you that when you do have a question simply turn your life like this and i will make sure you get a microphone as it is being recorded. with that again think you very much for being here and welcome. we will start with lorenzo. stat thank you, jonathan. it's good to be here. thank you all for coming. let us start with the latest development. we had an important referendum on saturday and according to most analysis the results for the brotherhood. the yes vote for the

constitution will lead to a vote within the next six months and that will according to most analysts be the only to established forces. now, whether the egyptian vote for yes is more of an emotional desire for the immediate change of whether they favor the brotherhood that's the table. i would argue the former rather than the latter. but despite that there's no question the brotherhood activists and victory on saturday will be playing an important role in the egyptian political life and future elections that is fair to say. and i think the brotherhood understood the dynamics within according to the people i've talked to, their campaign for the vote didn't focus on the two big cities where you walk around

most of the slogans you see composters milward si were for the pro-democracy forces and the no vote but the brother of focus on the provinces and pro-democracy forces that are prominent in "the new york times" and during the last are not that prominent so that is telling and how the brotherhood knows exactly what its constituency is and where its strength lies. i said the brotherhood will have a larger role. let's try to play devil's advocate and see what could be the problem the brotherhood will face with six months from now. the problem in the sea in the brotherhood as an almighty monolithic force is that it doesn't take into consideration some that do exist in the brotherhood. it's unfair also to overplay

them but it's not questionable there are some divisions inside of the brotherhood and that for a long time the glue that at them together is the mubarak sentiment, but as things progress it is not unreasonable, i'm not saying it isn't likely that it's unreasonable to think that they will develop in different ways and i think the first big difference is the generational that exist and i would decide the brotherhood in the three generations. we have the old guard, the people who suffered persecution under the 60's people who were in jail, and there are the 60's, 70's and 80's last bush, it's the still control the organization. we have a second guard which is the people who become members of

the brotherhood in the 70's. they joined during the university in the 70's and the brotherhood and donelson for the persecution of the 60's and they speak the language of human rights and democracy and of course the debate on how genuine the stock is is never ending but at least they do talk of the game what put it like that. then we have the third generation, 20 something, thirtysomething to some degree. and this generation also weighs more in line with the most part at least the second generation. so there are flips. some of them are simply power struggles and personal. the criticism is the first generation doesn't allow the second and even more the third generation to play a role in the

group. they are tactical. we saw the differences between the third generation that wanted to participate in the protest movement and the first generation that at least at the beginning was very reluctant to do so. and i think to some degree there are ideological. as i said, the second and third to innovations take approaches that at least publicly are different from most of the first generation. .. on key positions, the position of cops and women, and whether

laws should be vetted by a certain body of experts, on this issue, the issue of the first generation, we're the ones who dominated. this is probably going to play out in different ways. it is not unreasonable to see a certain split. the first generation control the levers of power, but there is some discontent in the second and third generations. i was trying to make a million transition, but i cannot to the second point. it is about the global moslem brotherhood. there is a lot of talk about this and not a lot of clarity about it. it. whether it is an organization or not, what is the muslim brotherhood globally? i think it is fair to say that there is a body that does exist

but that body doesn't really have the control over the activities of the different options, branches, call them what you will. i think it is fair to say that in some 70 or 80 countries throughout the world including the west, including the united states we have organizations that place their origins and have personal financial organizational and mostly i would say ideological ties to the muslim brother head in egypt and other countries. most of these organizations operate independently. there's no question that there is coordination. there is constant coronation we see it in different activities where groups toe the same line. they work on the same issues. they have the same talking points. nevertheless each one is better position to understand the local dynamics or the local

environment according to the local dynamics and achieve their goals. there is a global vision that is very similar but it would be unrealistic to think that they brotherhood in yemen would have the same tactics and goals of the brotherhood offshoot in sweden. the reality is completely different. this network i think is looking at least to turkey has a very very important model. there is no question that the akp it has become at least publicly sort of the model for a lot of these organizations. we see that is pretty much brotherhood particularly and indonesia and egypt given the developments. what are the reasons for their success and they are claiming that the way they want to turn

tunisia and egypt and other countries pretty much follow the turkish model, that is at least the public. that is feasible to some degree. we might want to do that but i think there are significant differences when people talk about applying the turkish model to egypt for example. i think there are significant differences that make me a bit skeptical. the first one is the enormous difference between the egyptian and turkish society and the turkish experience with democracy and secularism which has not been existing in egypt and the second is that the akp despite all of its flaws and unquestionably -- is never at fault in the '90s and the way, moved away from the old guard. the egyptian muslim brotherhood is not done that. we are still in a way 15 or 20

years behind the turkish revolution. so that i think where he see the big difference between egypt and turkey. i am probably pass my five minutes so i will stop there. >> thank you. i come at it from a little bit of a different perspective. i come at this as a terrorism analyst who basically builds biographies of terrorist. that is generally how i approach things. one of the things i notice very early on in my research which has been very intensive for more than a decade now is that you see over and over and over again the roots of terrorist to trace back the brotherhood and that goes right to senior al qaeda leadership. that goes right through many of the participants in the 9/11 plot. i can give you down to details one by one who was actually a muslim brotherhood member -- member prayed to becoming involved in 9/11 and that is not

specific. is across the whole swath of the modern terrorist problem we face is a very good reason for that which is that the muslim brotherhood and its founding was very specific about embracing the notion that muslims should love death more than a love life and the common refrain above the brotherhood leadership believes to this day. if you think of the power that idea back in november of 2009 when major nut don went on a shooting spree at fort hood this powerpoint presentation surface in one of the things on the slide is a muslim should love death more than life. that echoed immediately to what hossanah bonnier began saying all the way back 80 years ago and that is really a constant i would say in which the way the brotherhood approaches things. in the west it is interesting. this is not a due discussion about the brotherhood and whether not the brotherhood is

something that can be approached and engaged in a diplomatic way. it is a discussion we have had many times and i want to give you one quick example of what i think is very illuminating from that perspective which was back in the early 1990s that wes was looking at trying to see if we had a partner in the muslim world that we could reach out to in this happened in the u.s. and throughout european countries is sort of an intermediary with the muslim world and one of the characters many in the west settled on was a guy named to robbie. he was a very prominent figure in the international brotherhood movement, one of the most powerful movements. he got invited and went and saw pope john paul ii in rome. he got on a private plane and flew there. he had tight security. he was embraced and invited here to washington and talk before congress and talk to many think-tanks here. he was very eloquent and a guy who spoke in western terms. he spoke about democracy and spoke about women's rights and spoke about trying to embrace a new approach for the

brotherhood's ideals and as all of this is going on at the same time you sitting down and shaking hands with pope john paul ii pope john paul ii he is asked of the number one bin laden and he returned to ms. terrorist incubator where the modern al qaeda as we know it first came and was born. that i would say is very stark example of what you are dealing with here and what you have to careful in terms of understanding so it is you are dealing with in these movements and you are dealing with in the brotherhood. a lot of the brothers internationally and agree with lorenzo that there are definitely fissures within the brotherhood movement both internationally and with that in different branches but you have to be mindful of who actually is controlling the power of the organization and the old guard, the first guard in egypt is the one who is controlling the organization there. so let's talk for second about the old guard and egypt. this is sort of the model that has renounced violence. well, is very clear if you actually read and just try and

bring in as much as their writings in discourse as you can come he can see very clearly that is a tactical position. they renounced violence in egypt itself because they basically had their heads begin numerous times by them a mark -- mubarak regime. the idea that they have renounced violence as a whole or jihad as a whole is completely false and there is a lot of ways you can show that is false. first and foremost the egyptian muslim brotherhood is one of the principle sponsors and principle backers of hamas, which of course is one of the premier suicide bombings organizations on the planet so when somebody says to me that they are non-violent the first thing thing i say is our suicide law makes non-violent? of course they are not. when you look at their discourse on iraq, they have pledged their support for terrorists in iraq and said it is perfectly justifiable to go there and blow up american soldiers but then they actually when you look at what the brothers say, and it includes civilians in iraq as you know to them who is the

truer civilian? they are all part of the military complex of a justify suicide bombings in iraq. when you go to afghanistan they justify suicide bombings there. it goes on and on and on so when we talk about the brotherhood renouncing violence we are talking about a limited tactical area where they have done so. meanwhile their ideology and sort of what they are pushing for overall and have pushed for since 1928 is incredibly similar if not wholly the same as al qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups. to go through the ranks extensively i spent the last several months in the last 10 years doing and looking at what they believe in there is really no difference in terms of the long-term strategy of what they want to do. are their short-term tactical disagreements? zawahiri has written a critique in the brotherhood to participate in democratic elections but if you know so here he is criticized a lot of people publicly because he has maintained is also violent jihadist brand.

he criticized the iranians publicly. he sent his daughter there for connections to other words you have to be careful how you deal with these public rhetoric on these issues and all that is to say there are many more common similarities between the brotherhood's ideology and what the global jihad is movements all about and the idea that non-violent is both false based on its own rhetoric, false in terms of its functions and faucet in terms of how it finances jobs organizations and something you have to approach very carefully i would say. this isn't to say there aren't elements within the brotherhood who are different or disagree. i'm sure there are as any human organization can tell you. is cliff said at the beginning even ftd is not a model and their people here that disagree on various issues. al qaeda when he came to 9/11 there were disagreements in the military committee so you have to put the disagreements and context in terms of who is wielding power and the ultimate thing for mayville to test for