times that even though my mortgages only $50,000. host: we will elave -- leave it there. guest: you are a perfect example of why there is so much debate on this issue. i have spoken to people who are magically on a flood zone who were not just a short time ago. congress members are vociferously it arguing this issue right now on capitol hill. i would encourage you to talk to your member of congress to get the requirements changed. in closing please make sure that you check your policy for your house your earthquake, and your flood. talk to your agent and mature you understand what is and what is not covered. if you have an event take

photographs or video the inside and outside of your house. take the pictures of sight because you'll forget over the claims process what happened. if you want to make sure to avoid everything you can avoid. >> ben mckay has been talking about national flood insurance program. thanks for being here. >> thank you, robert. >> thanks to everybody who participated. we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> good monday morning. thanks for watching c-span. here's a look at some live programming coming up. starting right now the commission on wartime contract in meeting. their focus is how the pentagon can save money when contract out work. that is live right now on our companion network c-span 2. on c-span we will be live at 12:30 eastern with a discussion on this equation in libya and the impact on the u.s. speakers include former as administration official, from the american enterprise institute. and later today, president obama will address the nation on libya, scheduled for 7:30 eastern. we will have live on c-span along with your phone calls. >> tonight, perspectives on the proposed deal between at&t and t-mobile. an antitrust attorney as long whipand the impact on the wireless

industry, what the deal faces in the justice department and the potential impact on consumers. ""the communicators" on c-span 2. the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, nonfiction books, american history. all available on television radio, online, and on social media networking sites. content any time through the c- span video library. we have the digital bus local content vehicle bringing resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable provided as a public service. >> apportioned from the annual women in the world summit. you'll hear from tina brown editor and chief of newsweek and the daily beast as well as

facebook's chief operating officer, cheryl sambar, among others. after the speeches, there's a panel of women from saudi arabia iraq, and iran, talking about women's rights in their countries. this portion is about an hour. >> don't wait, a jump on it. >> do its because it will be better tomorrow. -- do it because there is no tomorrow. >> thank you for that great warmup we heard. i am tina brown and i'm thrilled to welcome you all to the second

annual women in the world summit. [applause] we have assembled so many free- thinking people, social revolutions in areas dangerous rabble-rousers' in this appeared to night and for the next today's that i think we should take out a different insurance policy. the green room itself, major insurrections happening. what an enthralling time it is for us all to come together. these are revolutionary days. the amazing facts, exhilarating tax is that our tv screens are showing us in the middle east, women in the forefront of the fight against oppression affecting hundreds of millions in the region, not just oppression against women but oppression of the whole society. the role of women in the democracy movement is hammering home the point that the treatment of women in any society is a marker of civilization and its respect for the human dignity of every individual. it is the very measure of

democracy itself. over the next two and a half days we will hear from women from all over the world to tell you stories that you have never ever before. stories that will move you enraged you engage you, and cause you to marvel at some of the everyday challenge as they face and have overcome. once you get to know them, we guarantee you will want to stay connected to them, to augment their efforts in any way that you can with encouragement expertise, or contributions. there are so many people in this room who dedicate their time and talents to doing just that. all of them deserve our thanks. over the next two and a half days you will hear from secretary of state hillary clinton and her debut predecessors in conversation, madeleine albright and connolly's of rice. you'll hear from president clinton tonight and michele bachelet on saturday morning and

courageous activists removinmoving women's rights from rhetoric to reality. wonderful to be partners with such organization as vital global voices partnership women international, and they un foundation and our sponsors, without whom we could not be here. our founding partner hp, american express, coca-cola company, mobil goldman sacks 10,000 women, price waterhouse coopers the virgin foundation, delta, and david yurman. framing issues and covering the discussions, we brought together journalists and producing teams of newsweek and the daily beast.com. so many people attending the summit have advanced to the dignity and rights of women and some at great personal risk. let's celebrate them and all the women who cannot be here from all over the world.

for passionate activist --, she brought back a photograph she visited in the condo. she said to me, "i want to say to people if you knew them, you would care." that is what we hope to show in the next days. let me introduce my resource coco's, each of them deeply committed to women and tapping for their rights. please welcome cheryl sandberg, chief operating officer of facebook. >> thank you. thank you, everyone, for being with us. i thought i would start tonight by talking about why i am here and why i think all of us are here. we are here because we believed gender equality is the issue of our era. nicholas and and sherrill said it best the 19th century issue was labor. and for our century is the oppression and injustice towards

girls. for some of us with the good fortune to be born into countries where we are equal citizens, we are here because we know that without good fortune comes not just the opportunity to help, but the responsibility to help others for some of us with the fortune of not being born into countries where we are equal citizens under the law where there's no real opportunity for women, we are here because we prevailed. we triumph over adversity and have stories to share to inspire others. a woman i met that i most admired in my life victory in this is a somali mothers born in cambodia. she does not know when. she was told by someone she does not know who is related to her into a brothel wednesday was 12 or 13. she lived there as a forced sex slave 10 years. seascapes. she did not go -- she escaped. she has dedicated herself day in

and day out to saving others from the same fate that seeing faced. we are here because we believe. we believe in ourselves and in our fellow human beings. we believe that justice will prevail over time because justice has to prevail over time. we are here and because we love. we love our daughters and our sons. we want this to be a better world for everyone, where everyone has an opportunity to live a life worth living. most of all, we are all here because we believe in action. we are not just going to spend two days together and your great stories and give each other rugs in the hall and listen, but we are going to find deep inside ourselves not just the conviction but the dedication to go home and do what we need to do to make the world a better place for all of us. thank you, tina. you are one of the only women in the world who would have the vision and leadership to bring us altogether. i think we are all really

grateful. [applause] >> i'm so lucky. our next coast is dr.guest is the managing director of the world bank. welcome. [applause] >> thank you. i'm from nigeria. my hero is louise. she is from a village in the republic of benin in west africa. she is a mother, a wife, and she is a worker. she also runs her family small farm. women like louise produce 80% of africa's food. women like her are the backbone

of africa. in kenya they are vital to its efforts to bring water to pour 15 million people. in my country of nigeria they are the ones who transform process and market the food. in ethiopia it was only last year that women for the first time in the country's history were finally given the right to owbnn land, a thousand women die to alberta every day in the developing world. more than a 33 million young girls are still not in school. i am here to say that women matter. i am also here to say that i know what it means to almost lose a child in childbirth. that is why i care personally so much for each and every woman who is going through childbirth in the developing world. equality for women is essential

for the world. this is just smart economics. that is what we say at the world bank where i work. that is why women like louise, the everyday women who go about their work without recognition or riches are my heroes. i'm so delighted to support tina and to support the summit that brings these heroes, these unsung heroes, and their stories into the spotlight. thank you, tina. [applause] .>> dr. judith roden, president of the rockefeller foundation. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. 'one s compassion for the people in her own community can ignite action all over the world. she founded spark which

represents the slum dwellers of mumbai. she realized that unless you are counted, you don't count. she organized slumdwellers to count themselves, to take a census then empower them to ask for services for sanitation and running water and all the things that everyone around the world has the opportunity and privilege and the right to have. she gave the world's poorest collective and powerful voice. her voice and that work has tripled across the world. she now heads a group a network of 20 such organizations called slumdwellers international. they work in 70 cities and have a network in 20 countries. they are responsible for providing housing to the thousands of families and household sanitation for hundreds of thousands more. she understands from this very simple beginning that you have to bring these great ideas to scale.

you need to engage the right partners. her ability or wisdom, her compassion have engaged world leaders just as she still today engages the mothers and children on the streets of mumbai. as we convened for this extraordinary summit, i salute sheila patel for not only alcee has done, but because most ec believes that she has only just begun she has only just lip the spark -- lit the spark. >> my dear friend and partner in the summit, mr. a stams. furstenburg. she will be at the u.n. tomorrow night. >> all women are my heroes because all women are strong.

but tonight i want to recognize the special moment, a special hero. her name is rebecca. i met rebecca two years ago. she came and visited me. she told me all toldher. she told -- she told me all about her how she had to flee her village. he told me about the village and community she created with other women and turned them into a village of artisans. i told her i have a village on the fourth floor. i took her to the design studio. and together we made some jewelry, which i showed in my fashion show and that i sell in my shop. rebecca and i will share the stage tomorrow. i want to thank tina for making this possible. i think this is creating so much

wonderful energy. i am humbled and happy to be here and i am happy to invite you all tomorrow night to the un to celebrate five other of my women heroes at the awards. thank you. >> we have one other co-host who wished to be here, a friend to all women and a friend to many of the women on the states. meryl streep was with us last year. but right now she's making a film in london about a woman who personified power margaret thatcher. sends us a message wishing us three days of inspiration and pour the way in which we can mend the world and she hopefully will be with us next year again. now i want to let my co-host takeover and introduce our next special guest. thank you. [applause] >> michael bloomberg has made

our beloved city a safer city, a greener city, a more educated city, and maybe even a hipper city. [laughter] he's a wonderful man, a great philanthropist. i am proud to introduce a man that i respect, admire, and love, michael bloomberg. [applause] >> good evening. thank you for those kind words. i'm sure barry is jealous. how come you are sitting by yourself? anyways. tina, i just want to congratulate you on the merger of newsweek with the daily beast. the result is a new endeavor that tina has named newbeast. actually, that is something on

discovery channel. [laughter] few people have done more than tina to shun the spotlight of women. in the current issue of newsweek when she took over as editor, profiles women all over the globe who are making a big difference and inspiring all of us to do better. i certainly see that in new york. our home is home to more than 4 million women as they make up half our population and i think it's fair to say they probably do more than half of the work. diana told me to say that. fortunately, i don't have to go far to get a woman's perspective at city hall. i can ask the three of my deputy mayors including pat harris, the first woman to occupy that position. or i can call a number of my commissioners, including the first female public schools chancellor of a major school system. or i can talk to anybody in our administration who really does

understand that we have to make sure that everybody is chosen slowly on merit. if you do that, half the people at least will be women. we have made a deliberate statement by this appointment but the real criteria is talent. of course when we face a tough issue, i need some really good advice,, i call on another woman and that is my 102-year-old mother. after being on this planet 102 years, you have a right to be an expert on just about any subject. those are the women in my world. there are so many more inspiring women in the world. during this summit you'll hear some of their incredible stories. many of these women are acting locally, but the impact is truly global. they are pioneers, they are revolutionaries, they are champions. we can all learn from them. that is why i'm so glad that tina is holding this event and why i am particularly excited that she is holding its pier in new york city. how appropriate, given what's

going on in the world right now, that the first discussion tonight centers on the courageous women making their voices heard in the middle east. this as an is called a good fire brands -- this acid is called "fire bran -- this session is called "fire brands." you are going to enjoy it. thank you, tina. >> i will never forget what i saw. mothers dragging their children along so they could witness history. girls were not shy about mixing with boys. standing shoulder to shoulder with them to fight for their cause. they helped with security day and night. march 6 2011 from benghazi,

libya. february 19, 2011, from cairo. it was amazing to see men and women together when we took to the streets. a lot of people were saying tahrir square was the future of egypt. men and women equal, fighting for freedom. and now we have to translate this into action and change. january 27, 2011 from a woman in tunisia. just look at how tunisian women stood side-by-side with tunisian men. they came out to the streets to protest in head scarves. they came out in miniskirts. it does not matter. they were there. march 5 2011, from a woman in

benghazi, libya. 15 women proud of being in protest. this is at a personal level for everyone that participated, it is an achievement. -- seeing women proud of being in protest. i think this will change us forever. [applause] >> [people speaking in a foreign language] [chanting in a foreign

language] >> [people chanting in a foreign language together] [applause] >> good evening. that was the wonderful show of iranian american activists giving a wonderful rendition from the recent uprisings from the middle east. i am delighted to be here to a host the first panel. as the mayor said, how wonderful it is to have our first panel with these women from the incredible energetic countries

that have finally decided that enough is enough and have done what everybody has been asking them to do, stand up for freedom, stand up and be counted, take to the streets and say that they will not live without their rights and longer. let me just introduce our distinguished panelists and then we will get to our conversation. right next me is an egyptian blogger and poet and has been doing that since we before the uprisings began. she is trying to find an end to the horrible practice of female genital mutilation as well as stand-up for women's rights in egypt and the rest of your region. next to her is suzanne, an iranian rights activist and founder of the 1 million signatures campaign and is working to put an end to gender- based discrimination in iran. she has won many awards for work. i am decided we will be able to talk with you.

next to her, who has just come from the region and knows what debt lag is. saudi arabia activist and writer. she has won several campaigns all women's rights in her area. she is very committed to pursuing that. it is not an easy task in saudi arabia. next to her is the founder of women for women international. an immigrant from iraq. she has an incredible history from her own background and what brought her to the united states and put her front and center of the international battle, for women's rights. so i want to start with you first because dahlia, we have all been energized by what happened in your country. before that it was tunisia. i had a fantastic time reporting from there. tahrir square has become really

the word for the uprisings. but you started before people started to take to the streets. what were you writing? what was your poetry and your blogging? >> i have been bloggindg since 2006 or the dream of someday having eaten to be a stable democracy. by liberal democracy i mean that it will rise to all including muslims and non-muslims, and men and women. i was looking for equality, for civil rights and individual rights. thank god i am seeing this happen now. >> what was it about that date, january 25 to, that put people into the streets? you had been blogging. one of the principals in egypt was the death of a young man in alexandria. >> that's right. wheat never thought it would

turn into something really big. we just came together and decided to go to the streets on january 25 to give the police are hard day. [laughter] danaher 25 is the anniversary of the police. we were angry towards them for their systematic use of torture and that treatment for people in general. -- january 25 isd the police anniversary. a young man was murdered by two police in alexandria. he said he was not a criminal poor they grabbed him from a cyber cafe and asked for his id. he told them that he was not a criminal and ask what they wanted from him and they beat him to death. this actually moved everyone, including cost bloggers and facebook people and people in the cyber world. we related to him and what happened to him in some way or

another and we decided to put an end to it. >> what is so fascinating is this young man was the tipping point eventually for what happened in egypt and his picture was on all the posters when we went to tahrir square. internees and before that it was a young man who set himself ablaze because of his economic distress -- in tunisia. what about iran? what is behind your 1 million signatures campaign? >> i want to give a little background. you probably know this, but maybe the audience does not. iranian women are very strong. quite a bit. they are more educated than their male counterparts, the young iranian women. we have female doctors lawyers, businesswomen university professors. we have achieved a lot socially, but in terms of their legal rights, their rights are not in line with their social gains. for example men are allowed to

practice polygamy. women may have guarded tip of their children. it's very hard for them to get a divorce. their testimony in court counts as half that of a man. in 2006 we started a campaign to try to address the disparity the difference. -- women have guardianship of their children. we realized that cultural awareness is important. we asked them to sign a petition so that they can be agents in their own fate and their own desire to create change. so we have been asking or changes in all laws that discriminated against women. >> was that something you did openly? 2006 was not as bad as 2009, but how were you able? to able its >> it was a-- how were

you able to do that? >> because we had a peaceful approach. we were denied an area to hold our inaugural meeting and were denied spaces to hold our meetings even the ones we held in our homes. our members started getting arrested on the metros and the parks. we were trying to get people to sign the petition. >> did you get a million? >> we have not gotten to a million. it has taken us a long time, but we have done creative things nonetheless. >> what is at the beginning is crucial, because everybody looks at iran and many of these countries and knows that women are oppressed. paradoxically, iran and other countries, women do have much more access to schools jobs, many of the other things they had than before the islamic revolution because those

traditional families never let their women out of the house when it was a mixed society and when it was a much more secular society. now they have no more excuses to keep their women at home because it is an islamic society. paradoxically, women have achieved more educational rights in that way. but it is the legal rights that is so vital that they need to regain. i use that because i want to go to you. women really don't even have those rights that they do even in iran. as bad as it is all women in iran, is much worse in saudi arabia. you cannot drive. you can barely work. things are changing. but in many areas of business, it is still not allowed. i want to play video that you took, i think. did you take this video? it is about you and your friends driving. >> yes it was my sister-in-law taking the pictures and i was

driving for the woman's day in 2008. >> i want to play this just so that you see this and you realize this little piece of video was a massive act of defiance. >> [speaking in a foreign language] >> if you were not able to see the subtitles, it basically was what you said it was.

that she was driving with resistor on international women's day. that is a massive act of defiance. where were you? >> i was in dthe eastern province. >> i remember in 1990 when we were all gathered there before the post gulf war. -- before the first gulf war. a lady who had a shop, she called me in november for the war started, woke me up in my hotel room and said to please report what we have just done. she and her friends --it makes me want to cry when i speak about it --she and her friends were driving in the parking lot of a supermarket in riyadh. that was 20 years ago. they did that back then. each and every one of them got severely penalized and their

families of really penalized. their husbands and brothers and relatives who were working or fired or worse. it was a terrible situation. that tiny act of driving in the parking lot, not outside on the street. did anything happen to you? >> not in the city. this was the desert area. it is legal to drive outside the city. there was no problem. i thought they would go after me but they did not. the saudi government is getting smarter. they do not want to get these ideas promoted and become more well known. >> as you watched in saudi arabia and see all the protests happening all over your part of the world with many women taking part, whether its next door across the causeway in bahrain or whether it is egypt or tunisia or wherever it is happening, is that ever going to happen in your homeland?

>> it is happening. unfortunately, it is not getting enough coverage because it is in saudi arabia. it is happening mostly in the eastern province. the majority are shia. today i just received information there were clashes and some people got injured. we are a quiet area. tomorrow is a big day for saudi arabia. they have already started a campaign on their facebook and the day is tomorrow. people, they don't know if it's gone to happen in riyadh, the capital. i think that would affect the rest of the country. if it is only in our area, then -- and it is based in shi'ites' going with iran because they have influence. i want to say something about iran and saudi arabia. this twisting is really bad for women and everybody in iran. but this is one side of the corner of the other side is saudi arabia, but it is the darker side.

we live in a very dark area. nobody knows about us. our stories have never been heard because we are very strong in terms of oil we support the west with oil. and it is the homeland of islam. the influence of saudi arabia, even outside, for me, for example, i cannot be in any media outside because saudi arabia can stop any interview from happening. they are very powerful. >> let me quickly ask -- we are going to talk about the power of social media when i come around. but i want to ask you -- the king has just come from a long time abroad. he gave $36 billion immediately to theirvarious people to preempt any type of the uprising. many people say that they like their king and it's ok for them

and that they're not like egypt or tunisia or about to go rushing into the public square, they say. if what are the facts about saudi arabia? our people impatient or do they accept the snail's pace of social reform? >> the king is a different man but i always say if you only have one decent man with an army of corrupted men? he cannot change that much. we have 70% of the graduates today are females. most of the jobs are reserved for men, so the women don't have jobs. they are suffering from unemployment. we have agreed among the rich people. they always tried to hire the cheapest labor. the big people from asia.

that is -- they bring people from asia. that is why we have unemployment. the main issue is we have no rights. we cannot express our opinions. we have nothing for our young men and women, and where to go. we don't have theaters or send us. we don't have places where people can gather to enjoy and times. -- we don't have theaters or cinemas. the only place you have to go is shopping malls. that is not enough for people. so nothing will change unless you improve the human right situation in saudi arabia. >> last but not least. everybody knows her for the incredible work she does through her organization, women for women international. 300,000 women around the world helped through that organization to emerge from situations. your personal story is

unbelievably compelling. your father when you were 11 became sadaam hussein's personal pilots in iraq. you grew up in a very bizarre situation there. you were forced to leave by your mother who thought she would be helping you or put you into an arranged marriage. tell. how that -- tell us how that turned out. >> my narrative tells the story of iraqi women as well. my mother's generation graduated from college at 68 -- in 1968 when that generation was wearing miniskirts or knee high skirts, there were strong women. my mother was a strong woman and always told me you have to be strong and independent. she said you never have to cook or clean because no man should expect you to do that just because you are obama. so she was very strong and was very adamant that i should be a strong woman. all of a sudden she asked me to

accept an arranged marriage. therehe is from a secular, educated family also going into this tradition. they both are parallel to which other. in my mother's case the reason she asked me to accept the arranged marriage was it was the only medium for merck to get me out of being very close to sadaam hussein at that time. -- it was the only medium for her. so we had to be part of our own suppression to get out of that spirit that is very much the story of my mother. >> i wanted to ask, do you have hoped for the women of iraq today? >> even 20 years later, the women of iraq have a reverse

situation. my mother's generation is still working and wearing their knee high skirts and their daughters are the ones much more traditional, much more religious. they are getting married at a much younger age because of the economic situation and because of the social situation. it is a country that went backward and not forward. right after the invasion of iraq women were very excited there they were like now we're going to have equality and justice. they are surprised that they were not fully included in iraq. the governing council, there were only three women out of 25 at first. now there are more women in the parliament. that is an accomplishment. we are one of the few countries that women have equal citizenship rights. most of the arab countries the women do not have equal citizenship. if i marry a non-para or non- iraqi, my kids did not have that

same citizenship -- if i marry and non-arab or non-iraqi. this tells us the story boards happening today. when women are in the streets and going side-by-side with men asking for change is not a unique moment. women in algeria in 1960's and women in iraq. >> and in iran. >> the moment they are told as and when happened to the egyptian women on international women's day, to go back home. we are always told that there the moment we stand still and say, no we want the following rights, political representation economic security. out of 128 countries surveyed about their treatment -- economic treatment of women only 23 women equally.

and we want equal family law rights. iraq got something and they did not get a lot. >> you mentioned egypt and the constitutional commission does not have any women on it. that seems very controversial. >> we have seen women standing side-by-side men. in this revolution. i claimed we were marching stronger than men. even the women who did not get out of their houses in the streets, they are the same women who sent their sons. they thought by sending, they might get killed. what i am seeing now tells me that the future parliaments rights in egypt is not really going to change. >> when i was there i asked people if they left the square let's say it mubarak steps down and they left the square, they

say what we have proved is and we will never leave the square. the minute they do something we don't like, we can always go back out again. why are people not going out in the streets again to protest? >> women have done this already but the protesters at standing with them the day before told them to go back home. it was talking to everyone. they said it's not time to talk about your rights. we had constitutional amendments about some article in the constitution has been amended already, but no one cares to amend the articles that are geared to women like article no. 11, for example. this article says it coleman cannot do household activities like cleaning and taking care of the children and her outside of the house job then she should leave the outside job. -- if a woman cannot do the

house activities and the outside job then she should leave the outside job. i know the groups in egypt they have told us it is not time now but democracy will never happen without women's rights. -- without women's rights being achieved first. [applause] thank you. >> something extraordinary i did not even thought of when i was reading. you said that the online activism was a real gift for women because in real life you are looked at as just a beautiful body or somebody to work in the house. >> definitely. >> but online you were gender- neutral. >> exactly. i wrote an article about this two years ago and the article on a very prestigious prize.

the article was describing the internet as a space for unveiling the minds of young muslim women and. the internet has played a very important role in our lives already, a young women living in the middle east or in the muslim world in general. in our communities are struggling between the rising religious piety and the rising patriotic mentality -- patriarchal mentality. the internet has started to be very common and widespread all over the middle east. it lets women express themselves freely. the internet has started and powering women by allowing them to express their cells on blogs. i write on my blog that no one cares if i am a man or woman or if i look good, they only care

for my mind. but in the streets they only care how i look. this has empowered women economically. women in saudi arabia are not always allowed to go to work or participate in public life. i've seen so many women going to web sites like facebook and other social networking web sites and making their own projects and marketing them on these three social networks and getting money and being independent after getting. the getting >> how wired our young people in saudi arabia and our women active in the communal way? >> they are very active on the internet because we are not really well-connected. we don't have ways to go out and drive cars. we always have to wait for man to take us out. so the internet solved many

problems for women. they actually opens a new window. now they can even reach anybody anywhere in this world. but there's a dark side of this. the extremists invested in that. 40% of these network connections are done by women. they are from saudi arabia. there's always that things and good things. in general, now we have the data campaigns. one of them is for driving because at that time i did not use facebook. but now young generation of women are campaigning for driving again. i told them it to go out and do like i did. i told them to go and do it like that. >> you made a direct appeal in your video to the interior minister. >> yes. >> do you have any inkling that

they may be ready to move on this driving issue? >> there are no signs but from time to time they will open the subject and let people talk and you will hear about it and you read it in the newspapers and in the case is closed. i don't know what their plan is. we have no idea if they're going to do it or not but now they have opened the subject again. when there's a crisis outside start to open cases like this. >> i want to ask -- because so many people in this audience, so many people around world want to know what can be done to help women in iran, in saudi arabia, and in egypt or wherever it might be. what do you, suzanne, the united states should do? we have the state department who is very keen on women's rights, people really looking at disintegration in these countries. can the -- looking at the

situation in these countries. >> in the case of iran in terms of our campaign, 50 of our members have been arrested even though it is a peaceful campaign. this includes women of three generations. grandmothers mothers, young women and even men. we have gotten a lot of solidarity from organizations, especially based in the west, from human rights organizations, women's organizations, and some organizations based in our region. i think while the solidarity is critical it is really important, it is part of why and how people know about us, know about the campaign so much, plus the internet. i think we also need space e in our region to get together. this is when i want to sort of advocate for because women's issues are always bust aside as

a western concept. it is non-islamic. it is a tax like this. you see very different demographics in all these countries closed countries. women are advocating for their rights. they want equal rights and human rights like people in the west. we need a space to get together and to strategizing and figure out how to work together and to make this issue of women's rights and indigenous issue. when we are attacked in iran, when we are arrested, it is great when we get petitions from other countries. wouldn't it be great if we got a petition from saudi arabia objecting to the arrests? we did a petition supporting our sisters in tunisia and we are working on 140 denounce and from iran. it would be dgood to

build strategy together. >> did your organization have any thoughts on how to help? >> there is the bigger and the smaller. the dalai lama a few months ago said that you cannot tell someone if you do not respect them. from a middle eastern perspective and particularly the issues of women the basic act is to respect. and not to generalize whether we cover our hair or get into or arranged marriages or whatever we do. it's really complex and there are inner politics and many women are choosing that and some are not. how can we go about it in a respectful way? coming from our part of the world is very defensive. how can we go about it from a respectful standpoint and not patronizing one. second is from a policy

perspective. it is very important america and europe and the world to prioritize women's rights as a policy as a national policy. women are indicators for the direction of society in my opinion. we cannot look at it as a marginal issue. it needs to be out their front and center. secretary clinton really does bring that up over and over again. it is how do we consistently and even too much more. that women are not only microbe but is -- not only micro but incorporating women into all aspects of society. and then there's the personal aspect. we asked women from around the world to sponsor one woman at a time by sending $27 a month and exchange pictures and letters with her. i was in my home country of iraq meeting with one woman who

gets help from an american woman. she says that she sprays rosewater on that letter. rosewater is something we used in religious ceremonies and marriages and things like that. i said she's american. she told me the moment is my sister and she's helping ain't. there's nothing at the end of the day that we have made a personal connection and we are opposed sharing. when i work on different issues in the country we use the story of an american woman domestically violated. always the iraqi women in the case say "really?" "it happens in america?' it's about building bridges and not looking at it from a judgmental perspective. women's issues are still a global issue. in our part of the world we have

a long way to go. we are working on it. it's about supporting each other and being in a sisterhood. that is the goal. >> in saudi arabia it's happened and international organizations affect a country's policy. we had one policy that has changed now. before women were not allowed to leave home even if she was abused. if she wants to go somewhere she has to get permission in order to live in another place. usually permission comes from the mail guardian. saudi arabia became a member four years ago in a world trade organization. the organization has a policy to change the laws. the law now allows women because we have women coming to their tent cities. now they allow women to enter a place without permission and to live in hotels without the permission of "the guardian. tha-- without the permission of

a guardian. physical education in saudi arabia is not allowed for women. not in the schools or universities or anywhere. only in private schools and of very small scale. they don't have a national game or anything. now the olympics, they have this policy if you don't have e- mails on your team, you are not going to participate in this olympics. so now they have started to discuss this and they will open a club for females to practice physical education. even international organizations can affect some countries' policies. so this has been done for us. >> economic arguments iraq, i was meeting with a shaeik and

it was very religious and he was not happy with how i am with short hair and i am very secular. and my father was sadaam hussein's pilot which was bad. i told him we are trying to help women and you have 1 million widows in iraq right now and we are trying to help them stand on their feet. it is through jobs. within five minutes this very conservative man was saying that women are like a broken wing to the a bird and a bird could never fly it's one of its wings is broken. he was like, bless you, come and work in my province. this is what everyone can impact the policies and investment. there's a reality back home where there's a big level of unemployment, big frustration with low wages and all these things. if we tackle it like this,

there's much more potential for openness. >> i was going to ask you, we spoke a little about some of the disappointments in the post- tahrir square moment for women. so many people are looking at the uprisings and saying we hope this does not become like iran. in other words, iran, the paradigm, fighting against one dictatorship, bring in some type of democracy and then be condemned to a worst kind of autocracy. do you have that fear it egypt? do you thing what is happening there could slide back into something as bad or worse than the tactics of what you overthrew? >> it is a possible scenario but not very possible in my opinion. immediately after mubarak stepped down, we started to get

training having a public debate stations for young people. the first debates station we made rules about do you prefer a muslim state or do you support a several-level state? 98 people in the vote in this debate supported the several- state. i asked people why they voted for that. if you write anything relating to as long, they accepted. >> explain the power of the muslim brotherhood. >> the muslim brotherhood is

very popular in egypt because they hope protecting the young people when they were attacked. because the muslim brotherhood are usually organized to fight these issues. they gained popularity among the people. this is not reflected in that political life. they are aware that occurs is between the country they would like to see and this religious piety that is rising. i have a disagree with the people who say that maybe because of the muslim brotherhood which are very strong in the country that they may lead in the near future. >> the last quick question to the remaining three. what are women in iran telling you now about what they're

saying they're wrong the region and how they may be the turn this into something for themselves? >> i were to comment on the economic issue. in the iran, when we talk to people, they are still of religiously conservative and we talked about women's rights. they see women doing so well. people in power are rarely moved when you talk about women, their wives, their sisters but when you talk about their daughters they want them to have rights and insure their daughters do well. they see this dichotomy. with what is happening in egypt, it could fly back. you have governments were secular but women do not have rights. legal guarantees, i think, are absolutely critical. this is the moment that egyptian women and egyptians really need

to see to ensure that women benefit from a "rights. women's rights are human rights. you cannot bargain them away. but the policy makers here, if you have any influence this is not what you should bargain away. we will be watching over the world the see how the international community deals with >> 30 seconds. what do you hope to see from these uprisings? how do you think they will affect women in saudi arabia >> the message for tomorrow, they want women to come in the front row because usually they do not attack women. they want to protect the men in the back. that was the plan for tomorrow. >> and tomorrow is friday, some carriers over the islamic world. ladies, thank you all so much.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on the situation in libya. speakers include former bush administration official, paul wolfowitz. later today, we will hear from president obama addressing the nation on libya. that is set for 7:30 p.m. eastern. we will have it for you here on c-span. tonight on "the communicators," perspective on the proposed deal between at&t and t-mobile. also, debbie goldman from the communication workers for america. they will discuss the impact on the wireless industry the deal facing the justice department and the sec. "the communicator's" on c-span2.

>> c-span bringing the politics and public affairs. every morning "washington journal" collecting -- helping you reach policy makers. supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see our signature interview programs. one saturday "the communicator's." on sunday, "newsmakers" as well as "q&a" and "prime minister's questions peacoat c-span -- washington your way. >> the defense department recently confirmed that they do not count the total number of civilians killed by unmanned drones.

this is raising the question of legality. they have discussed this subject in an event hosted by the american society of international law. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> a good morning everyone. i would like to welcome you to the morning session about drones technology sponsored by the human rights interest group. this morning, you will be hearing from nils melzer and chris jenks.

you'll also be hearing from students in the human rights clinic at columbia about a paper which should be circulating and which may have a red at 6:00 a.m. this morning about the research the clinic has been doing on crohn technology -- on drones technology. >> we are excited about this session not just because you provide such a great opportunity to present the researchers have been doing and not just because the kind of people you bring together but because of the sponsorship of the human rights interest group. we have an opportunity this morning to have a discussion about this topic with different backgrounds. we can come together and talk about issues raised by drone technology that in other contexts are othighly

contentious. we will seek to do so in a way that is more oriented the about placing a recent statements by the u.s. government in the context of our ongoing scholarly debate without it evolving into a heated discussion. i think everyone here is interested in a discussion rather than focusing on a disagreement. we are especially grateful to many in the room who what we have a bridge down to. we started to look at this issue just in volume this year. so many of you have made contributions in this field than wrong related issues. we found again and again in the during our research that we relied heavily and your tremendous contributions. you have been thinking about these issues longer and harder than we have by far. we spend lifetimes exploring these issues and get you welcome our intervention and our interest. the individuals who helped organize this for the human

rights in this group are certainly no exceptions. we're really thankful and grateful for that support. this seemed especially appropriate to talk about targeting operations of the u.s. in lights of the address given last year buying a legal advisor here at the meeting. so many scholars have sought to understand his remarks and put them in the context of ongoing debates and scholarships to. in his address legal adviser hope to talk to not only about the role but also the role of international law and in ensuring compliance targets -- targeting operations in the particular the lock in the conflict. really for peter rosenblum and died, the co-director of the

human rights institute, and myself the legal adviser was appointed venture for thinking about international law issues and a starting point to understand u.s. policy. we wanted to dig into the issues for drone technology. they have had far ranging implications. the research the students are doing has been about drone technology and it goes far beyond that. we thought that it was hard to dispute that drawn technology in targeting operations had been an impetus for debate. we found in our clinic project that we started reselling that there are already a wide range

of individuals wanting to place this among ongoing debates about various humanitarian law questions. they've focused on humanitarian law. these individuals were very gracious of their time. we delve into highly congested areas of the law and policy without understanding the context. legal adviser of statements and

others by the administration would be the focus of our attempt to understand. there are many other sources in these ongoing debates. we have focused on three areas. the nature of the scope of the conflict, who may be targeted, and to conduct the targeting. there is no way in the eighth for the page paper or 1.5 hours that we could do justice to these issues either here or in the paper. there are multifaceted. we wanted to focus is on the ways that this keeps going on. there are various theories that scholars have a spouse. -- have espoused.

we did not want to provide criticism of the government for the military. that is not the focus of boss. we with the sad the foundation for discussion in the answering an unanswered questions. it can be contested whether they orare answered at all and where do we go from here about a different policy motivations in understanding u.s. policy and where legal standards fed. with that, i will turn it over to our students, rashmie chopra and anil.

they will be presented for the clinic. >> i would like to think the american society of international law, the bread society, and the international humanitarian law group. the scholarly debate that has significant indications for the u.s. department in a clarification of the legal basis of targeting using drone technology. last year, they spoke about the role of international law with reference to a number of context including a number of instances. as with formulated research, we recognize that before we could focus on what is stated that it

was important to look at the relevance of international law and respecting the rule of law. we recognize the importance of law. by imposing such constraints this legitimists the remarks. the president spoke about adhering to international standards and isolating those who did not. as i now turn to look at what the legal advisers said using drone technology, it is important to look up the role of international law which is always underpinned our understanding. he confirmed that the basis.

there is wide recognition of the clear impulse behind the speech regarding the relevance of international law and is seeking to reassure the rule of law. these have had such divergent interpretations and may have undermined the reassurance. and in the one year since his speech, there have been discussions relating to reports of the increasing frequency of strikes. in our research, one area was how they affected the interpretation or the views of speech. for example, we considered the emphasis on the boards of civilian protection. legal adviser koh stated, " plans and execute attacks

against us while hiding among civilian populations. that behavior simultaneously makes this more critical for the protection of innocent civilians." these reports and the increasing frequency correspond with concerns being raised about the implications of conducting strikes in non-traditional theaters. some have noted that there is no comprehensive reporting based on primary resources based on who was killed and under what circumstances. the issues of verification are particularly difficult when discharged from officially of knowledge. as we have mentioned, legal adviser koh's speech has turned into several areas that i will turn to in a moment. one of the questions we asked ourselves is why these questions about the standards

and rationale is about target operations are being raised now in this particular manner. scholars and experts have identified a number of factors to differentiate this by conflicts. some scholars have pointed to the a share of geographic and tempura boundaries. we noted earlier that his speech referred to the conflict taking place in afghanistan and elsewhere. scholars have raised questions about the geographic boundaries. they have opposed questions about when will this end? another issue is the identity of whom the u.s. is attacking remains nebulous. the have highlighted the unprecedented level of the involvement of the cia. former specialists at the u.s. department of defense noted that drones are being used in

civilian contacts. and number of experts have argued that technology is allowing them to use force outside of conventional battlefield. as we consider how to examine these issues and the battles they present, we wanted to focus on humanitarian law. we realize that there was a huge universal the bay raised by scrawlers with layers of complex and interrelated questions. we do want to a knowledge of the questions we have canvassed in our paper and that we go discussing today relating to targeting operations cannot exclusively be resolved with reference to a humanitarian law. other bodies of law clave significant role including humanitarian law, the master clock, and other branches. statements about targeting operations including in good risers speech have also directed debates on the use of force including different acts.

recognizing the importance of these debates nonetheless we have confined our analysis to perspectives about the role of humanitarian law. specifically we have focused our work on three core areas which present important questions. these questions represent scholar the debate which necessitate more clarification. the three areas are the scope and nature of the armed conflict, who may be targeted, and the legal and policy implications of who conducts the targeting. scholars and experts have disagreed, but it is telling that the course of issues have emerged from across the spectrum. i will very briefly now outline the debates in these three areas. with regards to the nature and scope of the conflict, the obama administration has indicated they are in conflict with

allocated in afghanistan and elsewhere. experts have articulated and debated the verse theories of the conflict. in particular, they have questioned whether all targeting operations executed by the u.s. are part of the same non-international conflict taking place in afghanistan. they have questioned about whether the non-international armed conflict have been met cumulate -- cumulatively in which the u.s. is engaged in the targeting exercises against the taliban and coordinating forces namely the level of organization of the parties. the u.s. has raised questions about the intensity of the parties and the parameters of what constitutes associated forces. on the issue of who may be targeted the government has acknowledged the application of the principal distinction. while the u.s. government's reaffirmation of the application

of this core principle for u.s. targeting practices have been very welcome the ongoing scholarly disagreement about who may be targeted underscores much more can be said about the government's position. the key questions revolve around what is the characterization of those they consider to be chargeable. one possibility is that the u.s. is targeting civilians you are participating and another that they are targeting persons with a continuous combat function. some scholars question the implications of the u.s. government statements which cannot directly address the basis on which they consider them to be direct the participating in the hostilities nor their views on individuals with a continuous combat function. we also want to canvass the wider scope of the debate on what constitutes a civilian directly participating under international humanitarian law in particular with reference to the recent interpreted items provided by the international

committee of the red cross. regards to questions concerning who conducts a marketing operations, legal adviser koh did not address the involvement of the cia. many have interpreted his comments as seeking to a provide assurance in the level of care in targeting practices. our purpose is not to raise questions about government statements as a proxy for misgivings about the cia, but rather to map what legal advisers koh and others have said in relation to three particular issues. the status of cia personnel conducting targeting practices under humanitarian law. the application of international humanitarian law, and concerns about the cia's structural limitations as a covert civilian agency. with regards to questions about the status of cia personnel experts disagree about whether they are in fact civilians or

members of the armed forces as a matter of domestic law. experts have noted concerns that was standard of humanitarian law such as proportionality and others are reflected in the manuals of the u.s. military, there is a comparative lack of transparency on whether the cia personnel employs the standards in their targeting practices. scholars have also raised questions about whether the cia has a similar command and control structure to that which exists in the military and whether they have the required training under international humanitarian law. to the extent that market differences exist, this is focusing on the extent to which a bidder for its is has an impact and whether they in fact a matter. i will now handover to my colleague, anil, about the ambiguities highlighted in these three core areas as well as the viewpoints about how clarity on

these ambiguities would serve u.s. interests. thank you. >> good morning. we discussed the ambiguity scholars have identified in legal standards for targeting practices through the use of drones. i would like to talk about what some as specified as possible implications on the substantive debate on international humanitarian law. although our paper thames to lay on these debates, we did not want to cover the field. we just wanted to query what recent statements by the government including legal adviser koh's speech means in these debates. with knowledge in a multiplicity of perspectives of not just the

substantial debates whether further government statements are in effect warranted, we sought to understand what the implications of ambiguity are. in the course of researching current debates, we found that commentators to agree on the need for clarity by the government have a varying policy motivations. some have expressed concern that the u.s. use of technologies it's a global precedents and its failure to articulate with the constraints could come in the near future, be sited by less law-abiding groups as justifications for accountability. other commentators focused on whether the government pose greater clarity to the personnel they asked to conduct targeting operations. as a matter of fairness and to protect them from possible legal claims are investigations. there is a worry that individuals in common areas may find themselves in the

precarious situation. unable to predict what conduct makes them tartabull. finally, one could argue the risks of relaxation of the compliance of lot increasing when rules are not made clear. this can increase the likelihood that they will be followed. the u.s. military manuals do provide some guidance regarding operations conducted by the military. we of little information on the standards offered by the cia. not all scholars and observers agree that the government needs to disclose more information about procedures. some are concerned that disclosure of legal standards may enter the flexibility the government may be afforded by ambiguity on conflict. moreover, there is a worry that acknowledgement of an armed conflict in the country's other than afghanistan may jeopardize u.s. diplomatic relations with other countries.

some suggest that legal standards, such as a direct participation may not address the pragmatic and tactical realities and military operations and constrain the broad discretion that could be needed in making targeting decisions in the battlefield. many observers are concerned that further government clarification would it require divulging sensitive information are least information that the government has not historically made public. and has been argued that the legal standard also incorporate important policy issues. what we have discovered is that while technology raises many important issues in new ways the call for clarity and scholarly debate extend beyond technology. the access of many of the discussions between scholars and practitioners is the appearance of an unbounded conflict or at least a conflict where it is not readily identifiable.

as we have noted the geographically into a broad boundaries, or whether in fact, such boundaries do exist are unknown. the identity of whom the u.s. is targeting, who qualifies they tell levin an associated forces appears nebulous. the involvement of actors beyond the regular u.s. armed forces, who often operate covertly and with limited public accountability further obscures the nature of operations. whenever technology means for humanitarian law generally, in this context, in a catchall in favor of greater discussion among scholars, practitioners and others of fundamental questions regarding humanitarian law. thank you all very much for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. i will now turn the discussion over to our moderator. >> thank you so much to the students. that was a really clear inarticulate presentation of a number of the specific

challenges that many of us are familiar with and have been working on. if it is okay with everyone, i will introduce our discuss sirs, which i think most of you know, but i would introduce soever one knows. i have asked them to give us about five minutes of reflections and comments on the paper in the presentation by the students. at that time i will come to the questions and peter rosenblum will be running around with a microphone. great for the microphone before he speaks so we can all hear you. i will ask those commenting and asking questions to limit to about three minutes. we have many joining us today who are experts in the field who have been working on these issues for many years. we want to have a rich discussion rather than only questions for the panel. these are the rare moments when we invite people to comment. it is my pleasure to introduce our discussants for today's

discussion. lieutenant-colonel chris jenks is the chief of the international law branch. he received a b.s. from the army universiy andty and is now a ph.d. candidate at the university of melbourne. he is widely published in this area as well as another key topics of humanitarian law. dr. nils melzer holds a ph.d. in law from the university of zurich and. he has been responsible for the expert process aimed at clarifying international law relating to the issue of civilian bridges a patient in hostilities. he has served in the middle east the balkans, and is

published widely not only through guidance, but his book about international law. we could not have a better people joining us to comment on the broader dilemma is that these rays. kress, i turn to first. >> i want to begin by thanking the libra society the human rights interest group the columbia law students for their presentation. i think i empathize which -- with try to get your arms around this topic which is very difficult. you face a series of challenges and what is really trying to focus on an issue. they knew and run the risk of being criticized because you have not addressed enough issues. the alternative is the approach that you followed which is more broader to survey. and is notable that your broad survey of the relevant issues is

37 pages. there is probably some other stuff that could have been added in and this is just a survey. i do want to congratulate you on the way that you have laid this out in the research that went to this. for those who have not had an opportunity, i believe there is a link to web site for you to download this and take a look at "targeting operations with drone technology." what i appreciated was the fact you began your paper in your comments today with a discussion about the nature and the scope of the armed conflict. i submit that too often the question of whether there is a geographic limitation or the possibility that there is not a geographic limitation to the current conflict is certainly not completely bypassed but often bypassed and the analysis

goes more to a micro level in the terms of analyzing what is or is now going on in afghanistan, pakistan, and yemen. while i am not positing, and i should preface i'm not speaking on behalf of the u.s. army the jagged corp., the department of the defense, but there is no geographic limitation to the conflict and i submit that is a question that merits asking and consideration for how applicable it may or may not be. i commend that you began to discuss that is part of the discussion. maybe if not the answer, it is part of the discussion. why do i say that darks first, i believe oftentimes we think of what the current conflict is ascending that has never happened before. there's certainly some attributes that would give that some legitimacy.

in other ways, there are aspects we can draw from from prior armed conflict. there are areas you identify of neutrality sovereignty. are those appropriately applied now? do they serve as an appropriate offer to the limitations of a conflict? i often believe that the concept of geographic limitations is bypassed. when it is not bypassed and it is summarily addressed. if there is not a geographic limitation that means the parties could launch a ground in the downtown london or something that i think it's, frankly, is not a real legitimate argument. and the terms of the geographic limitation lack thereof, are the concept of sovereignty neutrality, and the overall structure, do they afford enough of a track if there is no

geographic limitation to the scope of the conflict? i do not posit the answer is yes but that is the question that i do not know we are asking enough. i think you would really need to focus in, as your reference on the issue of looking at this. what is an association or membership status? you're dealing with a transnational threat and when that is tough to find. that will be some of the scholarship from those in the remanded in the field. had we define concepts like membership and status whether it relates to guidance or just the concept of how we're going to define the nature and scope of an armed conflict. ida's wanted to conclude my a

beginning remarks to reference that i think it is important that everyone realizes that ambiguity and the tactical level within the military is not helpful. to the extent that there is ambiguity and there is confusion, please know that it is her not something we viewed as helpful at the operational and the tactical level. i just want to offer up one thing the department of defense that has done that i know many of your probably aware. that is essentially trying to bridge the ambiguity bridge the gap. maybe it is bridging the disagreement within the u.s. government on aspects of the conflict to the department of defense directive 23 11.01 e. we have attempted to provide

guidance of the operational- tactical level that regard this of how conflict is characterized, implicit is the recognition that reasonable minds may disagree. reasonable people in the pentagon academics reasonable ngo or judge advocate's who are rising in the field may disagree. there is a time and place for that this agreement and that discussion. within the military, frankly it is not in the operational theater. to avoid that, the department of defense has a diplomatic directive and the point is that however you would characterize the conflict, we will apply as a matter of policy the rules that govern international armed conflict. i think that answers some questions, solves some problems, but it does not address all of them and i recognize that the mechanism for doing so, a policy directive, is unsatisfying to some. that is one aspect of wanted to

point out in terms how we in the army tried to operate at least on the tactical and operational level to bridge the divide or this gap in terms of the ambiguity of the applicable law. thank you. >> i would like to think the organizers for having organized this event even though i probably have spent 26 hours on the ground not enough time with the jet lag. the other thing is i have to say i am not here in my official capacity as nrc rep. -- irc rep. the paper the students have written highlight very important issues and i think we all agree and most of us may have specific issues on these, but there are issues of international

humanitarian law it including who may be targeted and what the status is who are conducting marketing operations. there may be other questions under human rights law territorially, in an armed conflict? can states acted in self-defense against actors? what is a non-attack? what is sporadic terror and so on? there are questions of neutrality in the territorial states that may be willing or unwillingly hosting recruits and their territory named the suspect to use of force by someone intervening. all these questions we could be discussing here, but we will not get very far. discussing one that notion for seven years with the experts we did not, as many of you know,

come up with a consensus either. the overarching question i think, that moves here is really that of the rule of law. this is where all these questions somehow lead. there is a growing sense of not really knowing what the lot is were the rules of the game. it is not frankly a game. it is a serious issue and stake here. it is about human life, the security of states. these are really fundamental issues of society and civilization. i think we are challenged to come up with questions that are in line with the values are societies have developed over centuries and that also are in line with the operational certain stature requirements of security and the rule of law. the rule of law requires certainly that there are rules that everyone knows.

what is the law? what does the law required? what are the standards? beyond a formal requirement, and requires that the somehow corresponded to the values that we have in our society of humanity democracy but thirdly, the rule of law requires that these standards are implemented in that there is a compliance, a mechanism that ensures that the standards are followed and practiced. of this requires a certain amount of transparent to. if we do not know what an absurd standards mean, we have to come as a community to an agreement. as international lawyers we have a key role. there are clarification process these and international

conventions coming up with new conventions. we have to clarify this. there is no use into digging into positions that will never get a consensus. we have to try and come up with something that everyone can agree on. we have to come up with some form of accountability mechanism the response to the practical means of what we're talking about here. states will never be able or willing to disclose all kinds of intelligence information that is crucial to their security. the rule of law cannot prevail if these standards remain secret and are not subject to some kind of independent overview or oversight. let me recall that is the basis at our thought.

this needs to be something that corresponds to this carry requirements and stage are not in abjective being that they represent us fall. we are also human beings that may, at some point-care operations and not always fussing humanitarian and military personnel but people who have never would have counted that kind of risk. there is individual interest in the security of human life and dignity that have to be respected. that is the main point of wanted to make. the rule of law than risking the do not have clarity or standards. of the to somehow an open discussion on these points because the others we could

probably be discussing four years on end without coming to a conclusion. this form is terribly naive enough to have an international consensus. >> i will make a few brief reflections and tried to sharpen some of the questions that i am hearing from the paper and the brief remarks from chris and nils. did both noted that we are all very very familiar with the substantive debates that are highlighted in the paper. many of them have been aired at this conference over the years as well as a number of other forums regarding this scope targeting law, and who target to. hopefully we can focus in on this for the rest of our time.

there's the question of law verses' policy. does it matter if we articulate a set of standards or rules as a law that is binding and a state acknowledges? are we moving towards an arena where policy recommendations for policy directives to be just as effective in determining what the rules are of the game or those that apply to operators legal advisers, and those on the ground in areas where these are being conducted. in essence do we want to be more clear about that or is this now in the area where we are moving the between law and policy. the question that nils raised, the rule of law in humanitarian law. are there standards in humanitarian law the require a state to clarify the legal

standard that it is applying when engaging in armed conflict and military operations? does ihl ask of a state or counrttry where they tell what rules apply? one model was being increasingly placed on those engaging with international humanitarian law on a daily basis? military advocates outside a military and those involved in conducting operations. finally, i want to press on a question that i think has, from the beginning, but i wanted to see if we can have members of the audience speak to this. are other aspects of ambiguity or lacquer total clarity and transparency of the rules that are advantageous to the states,

and others concerned about the implications of international humanitarian law or operators? clearly we have the position that it is not helpful for operators and legal advisers to be on clear on the applicable rules, but is the broader question of exactly what the scope is of the conflict or exactly you can be targeted in what context is there some benefits ambiguity that we went to also articulate? do with to understand better with those advantages may be? those are just some reflections and the questions i am hearing. i think we will now move to the audience. can we ask you would like to come in? maryellen, we will go to your first? thank you, peter. i am a professor of international law and international dispute resolution

at the university of notre dame. i led a brief thanks to the very well deserved thanks to received so far for organizing this wonderful event. this is a question the students can respond to as low as are two speakers nils and chris. both spoke to the importance of clarity in this area of law. for those in the field, they need a clearer guidance in when they are doing in this most awesome role of fighting on behalf of their countries. nils you spoke about clarity in the rule of law. do we undermine the very rule of law which should be guiding of our nation's policies at every level? our and thinking that there may be a rule upon which we can gain "greater clarity and work our

way at of ambiguity. i did not know this in the students presentation about harold koh's speech which is the concept of necessity. when nils worked on this, there is a character known as a person in a continuous combat function who may be someone acting beyond the traditional battlefield, beyond battlefield hostilities but guidance suggests that person cannot be targeted and killed her and said they have stability unless there's a case of necessity. necessity brings us back to battlefield hostility. there's one level of necessity if you are actually on the battlefield and there is ongoing fighting and there is a different assess the day a law enforcement type necessity if you are off of the battlefield.

is that not the concept for which we can build a consensus? with the students find when they were researching haroldk's position -- harold koh's or the president's position? >> naureen? >> i will be speaking for the students because they are sleep deprived. the concept of necessity is something i know and you have written quite a lot about it in the types of limitations of places. the focus of their race -- of the research was not on the question of whether the government should have policy but would it means for us to have policies and really one of the purposes for our research was on the comparative transparency about the way the

military understands the standards and the fact that many of these standards including necessity, are reflected in the military manuals but in the operational law handbook and we know there are procedures but there are also discussions taking place, at least we think we know, among or than two dozen people. it is clear and reflected in those manuals, when you go to a conference, or you hear jag and others talk about them. there is a comparative silence about whether other actors, including the cia, is involved, civilian contractors, or members of the military beyond the regular members how the standards are fitting into the

decisions and the analysis that they are conducting and how much that matters. on the issue like military necessity, we would want to query if those are happening here in the scholarly community if that is a concern that is reflected in debates among the other actors for him there is less transparency about the kinds of standards that they are applying and what it means. cracks maybe this underscores the difficulties, but i would submit that we cannot reach agreement, not here, about what i understand may be a very baseline question. eyelids and then it really return just back to the director to the patient and returned guidance discussions. -- i do not think we can even

reach agreement. this goes back to the issues about continuous combat functions, direct participation necessity, and whether there is a requirement to escalate the use of force, deadly force as a first resort like to read in the more traditional armed conflict. >> without reopening pandora's box i do they get is a very helpful approach to think about with the general proposal -- principles are that govern the use of force. without coming to the question, what does that mean it? without refining the standards exactly or which necessity is needed? whenever states resort to force

if we look behind the treaty rules and the national linked to the treaty rules under been customary law, necessity has always been there somewhere. you can perhaps take it is an inherent distinction because it is necessary. let's not get into that detailed discussion. necessity is always part of the use of force assessment. the state does not use force without necessity. the same slaughter principles -- there is necessity proportionality, and a disproportionate. how much damage. going to cause and is it justified by the advantage your pursuing? plug that into how much is justified. is it fair? collateral damage and human rights law, it is a slightly

different assessments because of the circumstances. as a general principle, it is always present. is this always necessary? is this justified in terms of the balance between advantage? do i use all reasonable precautions that i can to try and avoid an erroneous use of force or a disproportionate use of force. if we can stick to that very general level it can be a useful approach on the general principles. then we will refine that at a later stage. >> let me open this up to see if there are other questions. yes, peter? in the back of the room. >> i am from tiffin university. i want to commend the students and the quality of the research and the report. it is a good piece of work.

i want to return to what i think is your fundamental question or a shoe which there is a lack of definitive guidance that has been issued especially by the cia, on the new rules and policies that are governing by. as a legal adviser, for my career i became sensitive to the fact that the legal advice i was obligated to provide and policy advice and a be invited to provide are two different things. i would like to drill down and ask the fundamental question. we may agree that in an area of democratic governance that the public issuance of these guidance and analysis is advisable. do you believe there is a legal obligation for the office of the council for the cia to issues such guidance?

>> great question. i will bring that to chris and nils and the audience on the question of may wheat agree or disagree about whether it is a good thing for there to be a clear statement of the applicable law and the standards of the cia. what are the legal obligations around the clarity of the applicable rules and understanding of the free market? i will first go to chris and nils. indicate to me if you'd like to come in on this. >> i am not in a position to speak about what the cia does and does not do, i would take the question of maybe one level to a broad application to the u.s. as a whole. i am not aware of any obligation expressed or implied, there requires a state

to make the articulations that are being discussed. maybe it is a policy or a good idea and maybe it should happen. in one of the discussions yesterday, there was a discussion about a right to know or a right to truth. what that triggered in me was a reminder that it is not warned that we distinguish between obligations the states are under obverses mavy policy or some kind of emerging concept of what that mrs. mavy. i am not aware of any obligation -- concept of what that may be. from the geneva convention when the conventions are violated, that obligation can maim be summed up as where the violation is of a grave nature, there is an obligation that the u.s. prosecutor expedite and or the violation is not a grave and