and to protect the observers. what we need now is to act. you know what it means. humanitarian corridors. it is important for this year in opposition. if we can do it with the security council, let us do it with the security council. if it is not possible because of the position of russia and china, we do in much of the security council. the international divinity has an obligation. the last question -- can you give some information on the last incident with the german ship that is trying to deliver arms to syria? it is directly breeching the arms embargo. this is more important than always putting your hammer down when we are talking serious problems as the crisis in this area. thank you.

>> if i may, i believe that laws and regulations are to be abided by. it is up to you how to organize your speech. you have three minutes to speak. i will pass the floor for two minutes. >> dear representative vice president of the commission, the situation in syria is terrible. it is unacceptable. most important is to keep up the pressure to offer observers helicopters and airplanes, and to support the operation. so far, we do not see the results needed. we need to support the opposition politically and logistically. we cannot leave it to others to support them selectively. i think it is a risk that we will not see a building up of common ground. on the humanitarian side, we

need to make clear the rise of refugees needs to be guaranteed. shooting at refugees from any side is unacceptable. having said that, it is also our duty to support the refugees. we need to do much more. let me point out one really important topic. we need to end the bloodshed in syria. we need to be serious about our own arms embargo. there are two incidents i want to mention. on january 10, the authorities allowed the docking and refueling of the russian ships carrying more than 59 tons of weapons for bashar al-assad, despite clear evidence of its dangerous cargo. this is outrageous. cyprus cannot buy it out at the expense of the syrian opposition.

a german ship was stopped on the way to syria. the ship has not changed its course. as of today, its exact whereabouts are unknown. this is unacceptable. the eu has a duty to insure the arms embargo. i have already sent you a prayer to question on this, asking you to investigate the cyprus role on the incident i mentioned. so far, i have not heard back from you. develop the monitoring and oversight mechanism of our embargo systems. i will not deliver you this letter personally. i look forward to your answer. >> thank you. >> do you accept a blue car?

-- card? you have the floor. i understand. >> excuse me. we are here not for the photograph in. sorry. take the headphones to understand the blue card. >> last summer, cyprus suffered a terrible disaster, having confiscated a shipment of explosives, -- and the arms embargo towards syria. 13 people dead, and an economic disaster. there is a case you have mentioned. the government of cyprus is different. i will have no hesitation whatsoever to condemn my own government if the hi representative who is here makes

it clear. was it a breach of the embargo? >> excuse me. you are not asking the question. it is not a blue card. thank you. you have the floor. >> thank you. in the arms embargo as it was adopted, it also says there is no allowance of a transfer of arms. of course, it depends on how you define the transfer. there was a refueling. it went through the ports. all i am asking is investigation on it to get to know the details and the facts. we need an investigation. at the and we will see what is the reality, what are the exact facts. the european union must have

such an investigation to be credible. >> the second blue card. please, shortly. >> i just wanted to ask my colleague, and would be interested in the response, whether the greek government has, through its government, already started proceedings against the people who have been dealing with the part of the syrian population she referred to. i am sure the syrian government wants to look into this caution as well. does she recognize that cyprus is a member of the arrangement?

what extra information does she think is necessary so that we do not end up with the situation in which we found ourselves this time? the queue. >> we have heard there are no steps. but the point i am speaking about is that at a time, the ship was in the port, and it was not stopped. that is what i am criticizing. how can you let the ship go with 59 tons of weapons, knowing how bashar al-assad will use it? it is fine maybe there is now something going on. we do not know the precise nature. i have not yet had confirmation on that. it is up to the european union to have that conversation with the separate government. if you find out everything was done, the better. but i want to have an investigation. i think we cannot just be silent about it.

>> thank you. now for one minute, you have the floor. >> thank you, mr. president. madam hi representative, i appreciate the careful way in which you have or did your statement today. i understand the dynamics with which you are dealing. you specifically used the term syrian-led democratic transition. that is a phrase that has been used by many european leaders of the past few weeks, and base as well. the fact is this. we are not going to have a syrian-led democratic transition without the essential ingredient of a unified and cohesive syrian opposition. that remains elusive at this stage. what we are not getting is any information about what the international community or we as a european union are doing to help bring about the fundamental

change that we are seeking. secondly, i want to raise an issue i have raised previously online activists and the way the regime is carrying on targetting, through very specific and very well-designed and advanced technical ways in identifying people and arresting them, insuring that cannot get out the message to the outside world about the atrocities being committed. >> thank you. >> thank you, president. doing something about the conflict is necessary to create the political conditions. but the problem is that a lot of weapons are entering the

country from neighboring countries. can europe do something in terms of prevention? in the south of lebanon, there are lots of u.n. blue helmets. many of them are european citizens. madam hi rep, could some of these european blue helmets, for a limited time, work on the syrian-lebanese border to do something there? secondly, is pressure being put on the syrian government and the syrian national council? that was called for in the kofi annan peace plan. >> the queue. -- thank you for staying in your speaking time. >> there is no question the

european union and european parliaments can look i believe on that at the slaughter that is being carried out of the citizens of a neighboring country, particularly when it has been ordered by the leaders of those countries. but i think it is only right that we bear in mind two issues to put into the balance with the other events. how many thousands of corpses should be put into the other part of the scale so that it has to be counterbalanced with a democracy which will arrive subsequently? people are talking about thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who have died in iraq. does that balance what we are attempting to bring into iraq? a functioning democracy. the idea now is to export the

same model to syria. i say no to that. we cannot have the kofi annan plan unless it is done without a loss of any further life. we have to look at the weight syria has in the region. the support china is showing cursory it is a fact. we may not like it. it has been shown in the u.n. security council. we must look at the end result. we must not multiplied the number of deaths in syria. the idea of exporting weapons to syria, and our desire for the full implementation of the kofi annan plan -- that is the only way of achieving peace.

>> two minutes. >> from the visit we made to north lebanon and interviews we had with syrian refugees, my conclusion is there are a two proxy wars going on over the corpses of the syrians killed. one is opposing the west and russia and china. the other is on the ground from soon is against persius, with support from -- sunnis and shias. it is disturbing proxy fighting, including among our members states. they do nothing to make it a reality. that requires military security

for the humanitarian corridor, deployed mainly in turkey. that are of course playing a game of political hypocrisy. the unacceptable breach of the embargo's needs to be clarified by all member states. what is crucial for the eu is to support the kofi annan plan, because it is the only game in town to prevent a fall civil war. at the same time, make it clear -- something which is not in the kofi annan plan but should be is that we want bashar al-assad out of power. it should be brought before the regime for the crimes against the people of syria that they have committed. it is important that we support this plan, namely in what it might entail in terms of the security for the observers to perform. we also need to give support to

the refugees, not only those in turkey, but those in countries like lebanon quarks i think is disgraceful what the people of syria have to suffer. the world community, in particular china, has to go. him and his henchmen are not a sustainable route for peace. it is killing of his own people. if we can actually negotiate with them and his henchman we will be disappointed. can we have some order over here.

>> who believes that you can negotiate with them and his henchmen. is it asking for more protection of the refugees on the border. we have to do that even if we have to use violence. nobody wants escalation or war, but how long is the international community going to carry on watching the war going on. we need a plan be because the six. plan will not work. >> we have six speakers and i would like to give the floor to this lady. >> thank you president, i am afraid this was the last attempt

to solve in a peaceful matter the syrian conflict. over 11,000 people were killed. the thousands more were wounded. all of these sanctions have had no effect and the fragile of truth that has already been trampled on shows that the regime is not honest with the international community. they have only paid lip service to the intentions of stopping the violence and has intensified the situation. we have a statement from march 21 best supports the plan of the arab league and the united nations. this plan that provides for the release of political prisoners must be abided by. >> next speaker.

>> do political human rights situation continues to deteriorate. forces have begun to bombard the three syrian army. the eu must push for the you an observer mission. our side has last -- lost any semblance of a moral authority. 9000 civilians have been killed or wounded. the government must be held fully accountable for its actions. they should be subject to swift and firm sanctions from the entire international community.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. syria is another country in the arab world where the conflicts between the various parties are inflamed. these struggles have called for thousands of victims, mostly civilians. the security council has tried to stop the violence. this could lead to peace. now members of observation missions can go to various parts

of the country to observe whether the truce has been held to. the temporary presence cannot lead to peace as we know. >> thank you. syria has 2000 micelles. -- missles. there is a political vacuum that might arise because of the opposition forces taking power. the aim has to be to build peace in this region. and to meld to a democratic and moderate regime.

it must ensure that turkey is in the same direction as well. these migrants who of gone into turkey illegally. one thing is clear, or we are bringing in the conflict from neighboring countries. >> thank you. it is obvious that the people one more justice for freedom and there has been opposition to the government in syria. what we are seeing today is not a revolution nor is it the

brutal suppression of a popularity rising. it is a war that is being financed from outside. it is a longer and internal syrian conflict. we need a peaceful solution to the conflict done that on the auspices of the un. we must stop exporting weapons to syria. that is the only lead that we can brandies to the world.

>> thank you. one can assume there have been human rights violations on both sides. whether the opposition can be programmed to exercise various tactics. as the observation mission of the arab league found out it is important whether or not the missions exceeds to increase pressure. the idea of a no-fly zone must be looked at critically.

they must learn from the area. >> closing remarks. >> thank you. it is very obvious from all of the contributions of the passion and the frustration from the members of this house feel. i want to make three particular points. the first is that it is of course emotionally very attractive and intuitively very attractive to think about safe havens and so on. the violence is not an isolated

places, it is everywhere. we also have to recognize that the humanitarian organizations are very nervous about anything that would engage with the military coming in support of their work. we have to listen to the experience that they have. to put boots onto the ground is a huge thing. to do so without the security council is extraordinarily challenging. it is very important that we recognize won't talk about these ideas when it is that we are actually describing. i am simply saying we need to understand what it is we are talking about.

they could not get agreement at the security council. we are asking for details to work with the government of cyprus right now. i would respond with any information that i might have. we are doing everything possible and working as closely as possible with everyone else to try to get the opposition groups to unite. this was very much on our minds. i know that we can come to a common view. we are continuing to engage with them and our colleagues across the world. it is my view that the minute

that the six. plan is where we must concentrate our energy. it is the resolution we can all get behind. it is clear there are significant problems already in syria and with the ceasefire. we have to work as hard as we can we must offer our full support. >> the debate is closed. >> charles colson has died. it was an aide to former president richard nixon the

preliminary cause of death is complications from brain surgery. we've asked students across the country what is important to them and why. >> their selected things including the second amendment.

>> let me start with an allegory. this game involves two individuals, one white another black. the game has been in progress for 350 years. during the game, the white player has been cheating. at the end of three and a half centuries he stands up and says no more cheating. >> the allegory was about racism and mindset. i am a birmingham native.

public safety commissioner the freedom of speech religion i am going to go to the church which is formally known as the high school. our first destination is this baptist church.

>> it was here where assemblers were made and held. they organized demonstrations and marches right here in the pulpit. we held several meetings at the church. we heard good sermons being preached and heard them being preached.

we assume that everyone has a right to speak out against what is wrong. we have a right to a peaceful assembly that took place in this church. we did segregative stores and businesses. it was a big part of getting people motivated and smart enough to stand up against segregation.

now on to our next location, high school. it was a big part of the civil rights movement. they tried to enroll their daughter at the school. it was really beaten with chains and brest knuckles. there was later and to give. they have a diverse enrollment now. they would not be in the position that they are in now. all those things are important. because of the history we have here.

more of the things we are really proud of his that he met with our students. and there were able to explain the history of them trying to register into our school. one of the things that kept him focused was the fact the he was right morally and constitutionally. the underlying support for his commitment and getting as children and to the school.

what do these things have been common. in represents the struggle during the civil rights movement. right here in our secret location is a place where history has done collective. i would not be here without them. i would not have the chance to use facilities, but thanks to

them i can do that. thank you for watching this documentary i hope you understand. continue the conversation on are faced a page. >> next been discussion on the state of the housing market. it begins sunday on c-span. >> one of the fangs of i always remember because my office overlooked the building on the plaza.

there is a day care center were some of them were killed or injured. it viavoice is and it left a lasting impression when it was silenced. when i got home that morning i have three different messages from parents.

now, a conference on the economy and the housing market. joseph smith is overseeing a $25 billion market segment. his job is to make sure the bank's overall their servicing operations and follow through with a four struggling homeowners. >> thank you all for coming. our guests are hungry. my name is john taylor.

welcome to this very important discussion about the future of housing in america. i am pleased to welcome a distinguished panel of experts to join us in this critical conversation about housing. our panelists this year include joseph smith to my right. the former banking commissioner. hold your applause. that will save us time. he received critical acclaim for his work on anti predatory lending laws. he's been appointed as the monitor.

franklin raines is to my left. once served as the director for president clinton. best known as the former ceo of fannie mae. he has also served on the federal reserve board.

he is on my far right. working for the republican senator from alabama. on my left, he has represented low-income owners forever. his current lay a counselor to the national consumer law center. former mayor of new orleans.

former ceo of the national urban league. has become a respected national organization. they're asking if we have the ability to make an inclusive society. that we have the opportunity to build a safe and comfortable future for ourselves and our families. dealing with problems of massive debt and high employment. they're increasingly divided our country into warring political

camps if the men. we are destructive from reaching real common-sense solutions to our economic and social problems. wolf as a client for middle- class people of all races. austria graphically how this manifests itself. a sanofi will capture it. we are talking about the disparity between the haves and have-nots in this country.

for black households the disparity is even more. whites have more than 20 times the wall of black people. a similar disparity is true in homeownership rates in the united states. with the exception for 10 percent of the population. you concede the rate for whites in this country is about 67%.

with the exception of the 10% the rest of the country is losing wealth disproportionately. is it any wonder that movements like occupy wall street are designed to give voice to those worried about their financial security. our panel will help us understand and offer solutions to alleviating some of the persistent track from the economy. a housing industry in crisis. economic recovery will not occur sarin.

over 5 million families have lost their homes to foreclosure. nearly all property values are diminished. one out of four households in the united states zero more on their mortgages when their houses were. another 5 billion are heading into foreclosure. we will not see it rise until sometime in 2013. we seem to be working harder and

longer hours even social security is on the chopping block. people are working harder and losing wealth and the process. people are filing their home has not acquire the equity it needs to help them and the retirement all of this comes at a time of record profits for corporations. american corporations earned 1.97 trillion dollars in just one quarter. that is the highest level of profitability since world war

two. they're still doing well. many are only a paycheck away from homelessness. is it not time for national reckoning. so, my fellow panelists, is it really possible for our policy makers in corporate america to rise above the muck and put america first.

your thoughts. as to discussing, my settlement, in fact, we worked together with the government to achieve that. we had a system that was put together by my colleagues and

myself. there are examples of people working gather across party lines in the united states. i am proud of that. keep in mind that we did i get to the settlement very quickly. we've seen ample of things that can be debated.

i think when you can have a small number of areas where people can come together and agree, i am hopeful that a few things can get done. your slides told the truth, had nothing but the truth. you can argue about the agneses but not the facts. half of our facts are out there. the just identified what is really a challenge for the country.

how can we have such extreme difficulties for working and middle-class people in this country? my take is that we have to reconcile that we need a plan to rebuild the country. this government about and it theological argument needs to be working together. people are concerned about results. people hide behind philosophy and ideologies.

history teaches us when this nation has faced great challenges it was willing to try new and different things. one of the things that the heart of that is what will be important for the middle class. we have to push the housing policies through that. >> i am a pessimist. the big debate was about affordable housing and could get a consensus about that. as dennis travel for a very long time. there was never a debate about home ownership.

and as the central source of wall for the americans. we have more wealth and our home than we ever had in the stock market. we lost our consensus about home ownership. too many people wanted to own their own home. what will it shape to change the quality of conversation?

regardless of what happens out that we can live with that. we are kicking the can down the road and not creating a solution. i am not suggesting that we should not do any thing. if i was a betting man i would not put a lot on it happening. i think we should push to get something to happen.

it is in an election year when people can ship what public officials respond to. that is what i hope people in this room on my go silent. he made an important point. it strikes me as absolutely wrong to suggest that home ownership is not is essential to the future of the american dream and it strikes me as an important change to the narrative on which there is a consensus.

it was not perfect and many mistakes were made. i challenge those who suggest that home ownership should not be an essential part of the american dream. what is their policy to house the nation. should we go to eastern european apartments? i call it the question. part of the american dream. is it subsidies for rentals? what is good. we have to recognize that this is a nation that needs to be housed.

>> i think this is a good point. as a fair opportunity for people to be able to use that as a vehicle to build wealth. the conversations we hear -- when everyone is it agreed that on this one issue, we are concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. the point is that unless we get and consensus the politicians

are not hard to respond. they find parades' and again front of them. my experience is that someone has to start the parade. there is a very serious argument going on around town. there are people lose say that home ownership is bad for the country. this is a standard economic analysis in this town. those of us involved in housing have been having this argument for a long time. unless the argument is turned

around, congress is the guard to do a thing to expand homeownership. we may find that in the guise of corporate tax reform, when they sit aware of credits for corporations that is the biggest source of financing for housing. we are losing the argument in washington. there will not be a lot of brave souls of said. that is why it is important to understand. >> at think where we in the

community organizing movement missed the boat. there was at a time when the people of this country are really on fire about the problem. i think because we lost it temporarily, the tea party took over and absorb some of that energy. we have to be preparing very quickly for the next time we get that opportunity again. let's be ready to help start this by working to get the money out of politics. doing all that we need to do to start building the movement.

one the things headstart may as interest in is when been burning to produce this paper that spoke to the housing issue. when the paper came out, it was very heavily weighted towards what we should be doing and what this problem as and create a lot of rental situations. i am concerned about given that as a nod in the direction of home ownership.

maybe what we gotta be doing is establishing a need for home ownership. long enough for them to improve the market. there may be slum landlords in the process. not all what he had in mind. i am concerned about town of the suggestion that rental is the alternative to home ownership.

rental for some and homeownership for others. for arn to yesterday's long time ago. the early part of the 20th century when people bought them with cash. they have the depth of wealth. it is what washington revels and witches absolutism. when the truth at the community level is that you need comprehensive housing policies. the issue is where we face our value. libby on asset building or home ownership?

it was easy to separate the neighborhoods where people who owned verses those were people granted. sometimes the discussion is also dominated by an eastern seaboard view of the world. new york is a city with a low homeownership rate. most cities in america are not like that. people want to have a driveway and a lawn even if it is small. we need to reaffirm the values.

it is also a discussion of the damages that come out of this period of predatory lending practices. there was a time when a lot of mortgage lending was done to working class people and working poor people. there were prime loans and sustainable though. fannie mae had a 50% jump in home loans to african americans. 100% increase in two years. they're all prime loans. there were things without documentation or with balloon

payments. it is for everybody if it is fair. if the terms and conditions are right. that is the. i've been thinking about what has gotten lost in this conversation is remembering what those kinds of loans were that led to the crisis and collapsed. there was toxic loans that were made to people without any expectation that people would be able to pay them back. the better the credit.

there were sucking out the income from communities that have built wealth. it was the kind of loans that drove this crisis. one other point that illustrates the stretching. we never had a policy in this country that everyone was going to own their own home.

we thought it would be thrilling if 70 percent did. it was absolute craziness. we did not make progress was the area's most devastated by the house and collapsed. in las vegas, 30% of the loans made were made to people who were investors.

the do not need a complicated theory to understand. if those 30% did not buy another house, you can see why housing prices collapsed in all these areas. this has nothing to do with the average american family wanting to on a home. this was speculation being financed on wall street with no questions asked. fleming ordinary people to try to own a home for this is wrong. to dig into the numbers around you got is of prime products.

many of them were not for first- time home buyers. many of them work for people who own their homes. there refinancing to take cash out. most of them were white and many of them were middle-class. what i ask each of you to do is to counteract the falsehood. the weapons of mass deception. let's have a discussion about public policy that is based on facts. we cannot build the future without understanding if we andw false narrative's lies.

helps to get the facts to people in the community. of the challenges for us today in promoting home ownership are the options on where lenders can go. lenders no longer in these loans and portfolio. they sell them to somebody. it is interesting that there is such a monolithic call for doing away with it. it would collapse the housing

market and send us into a depression. this is information or deception issue. where is the physical market that will step back into this arena to ensure that their quality sustainable loans under proper conditions. where is the mechanism for them to help alleviate the problem? am i missing it.

>> i do not think of it as a choice. the discussion we should have is going back to a jimmy stewart world where you knew the local banker and he knew you. if the needed modification the fact is that these are not loans on portfolio. when a bank sells 1000 loans in a mortgage-backed security that is not securitization. you've only made the situation more complicated. i want to go back to a time when credit was available. i will say the assumptions are that we'll need a trillion

dollars in the next year in originations. banks have a trillion dollars in cash doing nothing. .

. . .

he made the observation not out of aberration but contempt and a believe that such a society was

rotten and would collapse under militant islam. the terrorist trial in 2008 was introduced in evidence entitled explanatory manner -- memorandum on the strategic goals of the group. the phrase the group refers to the moslem brotherhood in america. the document was written in 1991 from a senior hamas leader and explained that the movement is what the memo refers to as a settlement process to establish itself in the united states and to pursue a civilization mission led by the moslem brotherhood. the author has described it as stealth.

as a kind of way to destroy the western civilization from within. sabotaging it by hands of believers so it is eliminated and god is victorious. sharia is the the law of the land. that is not simply in muslim countries. it is any place where they can and to exercise control. some neighborhoods are, like in france, somewhat in england, and sweden. it is practiced and forced with the suppression of local law with the result that some of those neighborhoods have become a no-go zones for police and firefighters unless they have permission. it is a place to be reclaimed.

a proposed mosque at ground zero in new york was to be named "cordova house." the implementation of shariah is the goal of jihad. the information is readily accessible. shariah contains the obligation to wage jihad against nonbelievers. jihad is obligatory for every muslim. some call it a personal struggle for self improvement.

it is the obligatory struggle. that doctrine regards treaties as a temporary ploy's within the struggle. it permits, indeed it urges, takia. shazzad was a talent at a sentencing. she asked did you not take an oath when you became a citizen to the country? his response was, yes, but i did not mean it. are there no moderate muslims? of course there are. millions of them reside among us in the united states as loyal americans. millions more reside around the world. there are even places where they are in power, such as indonesia, the most populous muslim country in the world. some disregard the cries for

shariah. a brave few are struggling to create a theoretical and doctrinal basis for combating islamist. they include someone who heads an organization called the american islamic forum for democracy. i hope you will all buy it when it is published. an australian academic recently delivered a lecture hanting there are ways in which one can use passages from the koran to oppose classical sharia. it was published under the title "the islamic case for religious liberty."

the incredible part of the story is it is a catholic, not a muslim publication. make no mistake, as onerous as they may be, the moderates are the weaker minority. the majority of view is stated succinctly by a political leader. he said the term moderate islam is offensive. he said there is no moderate islam area is long is islam, that is it. that politician is the prime minister of the muslim nation of turkey. what of the arab spring? what indeed. as events unfolded in tahrir square, we watched the coverage on twitter and facebook. even less coverage of the emergence of the sinai peninsula as a refuge for hamas-

trained terrorists. there was virtually no coverage of the return to egypt by a sheik that was exiled by mubarak and take a sermon upon his return. he was known as a liberal and a reformer. he issued a fatwah that authorizes women to participate in suicide bombings. indonesia -- islamists are in control. someone called for the public hanging of someone who taught at the university of tunisia and said he should be joined on

the gallows by another tunisian freethinker. a column said that was the new islam with a sense of irony and humor. it is well known that alcohol is consumed in tunisia. the united states at a bad experience a couple of decades ago. apparently, the spiritual successor to the parade of soviet premiere's in the 1970's. one after another, we were told they must be a man of peace because they drank scotch. [laughter] how is the threat met by those who of the responsibility for protecting us? not very well, i would suggest.

the effects are obvious. but the obama signed a declaration to close at guantanamo and to a ban the cia's successful interrogation program. it goes back before that. in the 2008 campaign, the current attorney general said the previous administration had "authorized the use of fact torture, approved a secret surveillance against american citizens without due process of law, denied a writ of habeas corpus, and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the united states constitution." he added that "we of the american people eight reckoning."

that reckoning started on the second day of the administration at the signing ceremony for executive orders. at the ceremony, the private and now that through these orders we will take the moral high ground in the struggle against terrorists. apparently he felt, and for all i know still feels, that success itself is not sufficient to claim the moral high ground. the reckoning continued in april to tell the nine with the public release upper classified department of justice memorandums. they analyzed the reality of the cia's interrogation procedures adopted after 9/11. that disclosure apparently was designed to stir outrage that would drive up further reckoning. when it failed to do so because the memo had made clear the length to which the cia had gone to avoid violating the law, the attorney general announced he was reopening the investigation into cia personnel involved in interrogation.

cases that had been closed after diligent investigation by career department of justice prosecutors were preparing detailed memos declining what papered -- what they declined to proceed in each case. the attorney general testified he had not bothered reading the memos before he reopened the cases. november 2009, the attorney general announced he was proceeding in which ksm had announced he intended to plead guilty so he could achieve martyrdom. the attorney general announced "we will bring him to new york and try him in civilian court to show the world that we are dedicated to upholding the law and we are afraid." apparently the military commission act was not among the loss used to uphold it at that time when congress forced his hand and withheld funds, he

proceeded to do the inevitable. at a press conference, he insisted he had been right all along but was going on with ignorance and irresponsible legislators. the president of the islamic society of north america was invited to the white house to attend a dinner in 2010. you may recall that event as the occasion with a prayer that and out support of the construction of the mosque at ground zero in new york -- the cordova house. another brotherhood affiliated organization, the council on american islamic relations, which was also named as a co- conspirator in the elan foundation case, was in 2008 a target of outrage by the fbi and had systematically tried to place in terms on congressional

committees. the evidence in the home when case found it was a hamas front. the institution of higher learning that gave us the definitive guide to islam was been chosen by the president to deliver his famous outreach speech in cairo in 2009, to which he invited members of the muslim brotherhood much to the consternation of the government in egypt then headed by mubarak. when our secondary of state was in tunisia at a town hall meeting, she was asked the following question -- after the electoral campaigns and in the united states, most of the candidates from both sides run to lobbies to get their support at afterwords thank their electorate that comes to show

their support for countries like to these and egypt. how would you reassure and gain of trust again given the fact that you're supporting his enemies at the same time? my answer -- and this is from someone who when a questioner asked a couple of years ago what her as one would say about a particular subject took umbrage and said she was not there to channel her husband. her response to this question was it was a "fair question." "a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. there are comments that certainly do not reflect the united states, our foreign policy, or who we are as a people per "she advised the questioner to "watch what are the that obama says and does. he represents all of the united states and he will be reelected

president. it will be a very clear signal to the rest of the world as to what our values are and what our president believes." i would concede the administration in which i served was not a model of clarity. we recalled immediately after 911 that islam was a religion of peace. the director of national security, later secretary of state, said it was a religion of love and peace that had been kidnapped by extremists. there are reasons for that, including such diverse situations as our experience with the treatment of the japanese in world war ii, which we do not want to repeat. but understand how far we have come. imagine how president roosevelt would have been seen if he got up on december 8, 1941 and told congress said the shinto religion had been taken by

militants. the term were on tear is out in favor of man cause disaster. the white house issued a paper for dealing with what we used to call terrorism. it does not use the word terrorism. a is called preventing extremism. what is wrong with it is every single part of it. it is not only violence that is dangerous. the source of it can hardly be called extremism when there are in the mainstream of the religion from which they spring. if the local partners are places like tear, it is more likely to worsen our situation. the paper identifies the challenges. it tells us that throughout history, extremists and

individuals will commit violence to further political goals, promoted messages of divisiveness, and divided innocence. the response is supposed to be a community-based approach with outreach to stakeholders. to the extent a villain is identified, al qaeda, comes off sounding like a motorcycle gang. there is no reference at all to recruitment in prisons or on campus although these are well- known and dangerous problem. the document is intended to sound innocuous and it does. small wonder it was applauded by care. what is the danger of such a document? take a look at the social change that has overtaken some countries in europe including

france and sweden. that is what comes through local stakeholders. the document also overlooks that from 9/11 on word, participants in pots have been radicalized in the west. the terrorist that control the plane taken over in pennsylvania was raised in beirut where it was said he never missed a party but then he went to germany where it was said he never missed a prayer. the person at fort hood taxes, the times square bomber, the chicago native who changed his name to david so he could pass for christian and pleaded guilty to conducting surveillance to carry out the attack in mumbai. all of these were radicalized in

the west. what about the killing of osama bin laden? do they not suggest that those in control have changed their view? i would recommend before you decide you examine the circumstances before you determine whether what you're looking at is an event, an episode, or a change in policy. the killing was announced with great fanfare as it deserved to be. also announced was the fact that intelligence information had been seized from his residence and we have learned a location of numerous statehouses. to someone who understands the value of intelligence, making an act -- an announcement like that is the loss of numerous potential targets.

the attorney-general announced that the drone killing was justified and went through a list of criteria including the certainty that he was a terrorist, the likelihood there will be few collateral victims, and the on feasibility of capture as justifying the strike. it is interesting to contemplate how we would have gotten intelligence if we have captured him when all employees must use the field manual to conduct interrogations'. that manual has been available on the internet for years and is used by terrorists as a training manual. we have no classified interrogation program at all. those know precisely what to expect and expect techniques from a manual designed for use by the most experienced recruit.

when he was captured in detroit, there was no interrogation program operated by the fbi. he was put into the criminal justice system. however, the investigations of cia operatives, the justice department had time to begin and organize. that is eloquent of the priorities of those making those decisions. what of the larger struggle? there are limits to how a government can defend itself and the society it governs. the first descendant -- means that our government cannot pick winners and losers in doctrinal disputes. that is something muslims will have to decide on their own. but they can take steps to defend itself and avoid irrational steps that undermine security. first, those charged with

protecting our security has a duty to understand and to teach others under their authority what the basic tenets are of the people who are trying to destroy our way of life. that may not know is have been self-evident. perhaps it was not necessary when we fought germany and japan to understand the ins and outs of nazism and fascism. we could blast those countries to smithereens, as we did, because the evil had its home base there. it was necessary to understand the enemy when we fought communism. also, those charged with protecting us have a responsibility to avoid strengthening backhand of those trying to undermine our way of life by relying on them as are in turn marketers -- interlocuters. islam society of north america

is another branch of the muslim brotherhood. that traces itself back to said. its motto is the profit is our leader, the koran is our law, jihad is our way. if those are the people we empower by relying on them in reaching out to them, we not only damage ourselves by giving them entry into our political system but we strengthen them and we can we can more moderate voices. in addition, those charged with protecting us have to avoid self delusion that can wind up polluting others azov. the report on the massacre at fort hood, which she preceded

by charting god is great, does not mention the word islam. the army chief of staff said the greatest tragedy would be a vet had a negative effect on the diversity program. in national security advisory to president obama told an audience, this is a deep thinker, he said that violent extremist attacking united states are products of political, economic, and social forces and should not be described in religious terms because that would create the impression we are at war with islam and give credence to al qaeda propaganda. products of political and social forces? let's review. osama bin laden was a millionaire many times over. his successor and the focus of the glasgow airport attack would

was a physician. the perpetrators of 9/11 were educated. the christmas day bomber is the psalm of a former economics commissioner. economic and social forces? the attorney general, i mention not because he is unique but are examples of the soft headed diffidence. not that this is new to the point of been unprecedented. as was said, ridiculed the value and lifestyles of what they call the bourgeois. anti communism was fashionable in some circles in the 1950's. the great liberal judge often called the greatest to sit said that the spirit of liberty is

the spirit that is not too sure it is right. that may be an indulgence at times. it may have been an indulgence of the time he said it, in 1944 when victory against the islam of that day was pretty well certain. today, we are up against people who are sure they are right to fly airplanes into buildings. we had better make certain that the spirit of liberty sure enough that it is right and that those responsible for protecting us are sure enough it is right to keep that spirit, and thus, alive. thank you for the honor speaking with you. [applause]

>> i introduced the judge by mentioning his moral compass being infallible. we have a few minutes and we can take two or three questions. yes, sir. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible]

-- between islam, which is a religion, and the people who misusage name to spread terror all over the world. i love your country. i have been here many times. i was received as a guest your

majority speaker in 1975. i had the pleasure of meeting president nixon. but as a great friend of the united nations, and also was a friend of israel, which i respect enormously, which was created by jews denied their rights, now they're trying to crush their spirit, you, -- >> i have to ask. do you have a question. please ask it. >> we must not mix religion with fanatics.

>> 2 things, i believe explicitly in my talk i said i was distinguishing between islam and islamism, a movement. several times. if you do not now -- you should. you and he would get along. you and i both know that the people who are misusing your religion are quoting from the same career on that you quoted from when they call people descendants of apes and pigs and so on. a line has to be drawn someplace. people like you and doctor johnson will the be the people to draw it. people like me can not do it. i am heartened to see you here today. [applause]

>> thank you, a judge. judge tenner. >> michael. >> i think your remarks are great and i hope we will be able to put it on our website to share with our colleagues. [applause] >> i hope someone will also oppose the remarks of the gentleman who spoke in my remarks to him. that probably conveys the spirit of the occasion. >>-more of a monday question with respect to the history of prosecuting the terrorists you talk about, etc. then of course guantanamo. what is your view in terms of where these terrorists should be tried in the criminal court, military commissions, or do we need a specialized court to

handle these kinds of cases? >> a hybrid is the answer. right now we have made by neri choice. it is either civilian or military commission. civilian courts are the wrong place for a variety of reasons, moral because the rules of war have been developed over centuries so that if you wear a uniform and carry your arms openly, you follow a chain of command, and you do not target civilians, then you are entitled to the protections of the geneva convention. what this says is that if you violate those rules and you target civilians, we have a batetter deal for you. you will have a platform for your views and have a lawyer tried to mislead the jury. on the other hand, military

commissions, we have had them in the past since the revolution. we have never done it long term. i do not know that the military's heart is in it. the military is not there to run in parallel justice system. it is there to win wars by blowing stuff up and killing people, what you're supposed to do. you do not win wars by running in parallel justice system, particularly one where society is offloading an unpleasant problem and asking you to deal with it out of our side. what is called for a is a third kind of tribunal that would be created by congress and presided over by judges so that people would have faith in the proceedings with the jurors from

the military. and trials held using rules of evidence to allow evidence to be introduced gathered on the battlefields to you do not have to comply with all of the rigors. congress does not show any sign of doing that. yes. >> i have had the privilege of teaching the origins of terrorism at a college so i appreciate your remarks. two questions very quickly. first of all, how do you respond to a judge's attempt to adopt sharia law between private individuals who agree that sharia law will adjudicate their controversial is? and how you objectively, what to do you project for the

incursion of judea -- surely a lot? >> if you're talking about a commercial case, in theory, there is no reason why you cannot do that. if two parties agree and they want to arbitrate and agreed to take that decision, then rules that apply under sharia law will apply. there is no reason to avoid that. we do that elsewhere. if there is an actual connection and both parties agree. so far as sharia law getting into the basis for u.s. law, it happened a couple of times and has been turned around. there was a judge in new jersey who dismissed a charge against the person who raped his wife

because he thought it was legally permissible under his religion. the judge says he practices a different religion and he dismissed the case. the court turned that around. i do not think we are in danger of having that happen. that is not to say courts should not be aware of it. the problem is when you get in place in which not everybody has a choice about what law applies but the enclave controls. that is what is going on in europe and that is what we want to avoid. >> [inaudible] >> sure, she is a superb lawyer and a super person. i have worked with her on a

number of cases and i think she would make an excellent condition. she is a good, common sense lawyer with her head screwed onto the front, which is what you need to a district judge. she is also not easily bored. [laughter] which is also what you need. our work prefer and i think the world of her. -- i worked with her and i think the world of her. >> thank you. the clock is telling us it is time to move on. [applause] >> supreme court attorney michael corrigan also spoke at the national republican lawyers association. he is one of the lead attorneys

who argued against the constitutionality of the affordable care act health-care lobby for the supreme court. he represents the national federation of independent business in the case arguing that the law is unconstitutional. this is 20 minutes. >> i hope everybody enjoyed the breakout sessions. we will get started with our final speaker of the day before our reception and open bar. we are very happy to have mike carvin, who focuses on constitutional appellate. he has argued numerous cases with the united states supreme court and every federal appeals court. these include decisions preventing the justice department from obtaining monetary relief against the tobacco industry, overturning the federal government's plan to adjust the census, limiting the justice department's ability to create minority majority

districts. mike was one of the lead lawyers and argued before the supreme court on behalf of george w. bush in the 2000 recount controversy. mike is a graduate of george washington law school and learned his bachelor's from tulane. he has served as deputy assistant attorney general, special assistant to assistant attorney general civil rights division and he knows a few things about obamacare which is why he is here today. please welcome to the stage mike carvin. [applause]

>> thank you. i will try to make is relatively painless and brief. sitting here talking about the commerce clause. i will walk through it and i would be happy to answer any questions as you undoubtedly know the issue that we did are you a few weeks ago was the first time in american history the federal government compelled citizens to buy a product. they had require them to buy the product even though it was economically disadvantageous to these people, which is not my opinion. it is the finding of the congress that imposed it. because you were making healthy 30 year-old by insurance they did not need because they rarely went to the doctor, this would lower everybody else's premiums by 15% or 20%. that was the purpose of the individual mandate. since congress had required

insurers to sell below cost insurance to sick people which would obviously drive up premiums, they wanted to bring in a bunch of healthy people into the risk pool to drive down the cost of insurance. the question is, where does congress get the power to force american citizens to buy products they do not want, to 90, and are economically counterproductive. it is a simple case for people who read the constitution. the constitution only gives congress limited powers and the power to give them is the power to regulate commerce. when you are sitting at home not buying insurance you're not involved in commerce. the question is, can they come tell you, does that incorporate the power to compel you to enter into commerce since they can regulate your transactions when you go out to buy a gm car can they require you to buy a gm car.

the answer is pretty obvious. even though the government did not push that argument. their argument was a series of cases that you undoubtedly know about from the 1930's, most notably record against fell byrne said congress can reach and get out local production of goods. people who substantially affect interstate commerce. they can regulate people selling are involved in a small amount of wheat. our point was, whicker did say you can get people producing a small amount of wheat. it did not imply you can require americans to buy wheat. people who are in the market even at a local level are now -- would it does not allow them to get at our tea totalers. that is what they're trying to do here. that was the key point that we

made which is if you are not in the market you cannot possibly adverse the affect market participants. supply and demand will be precisely the same as it was. you are in no way engaging the activities which has been the rationale for congress to regulate local people like whicker. even if you do not negatively affect commerce, you affect commerce regulation. this plan and this act will not work unless we can constrict -- constrict all these healthy people to buy insurance. you really need their money because if we do not get them to buy insurance, if we are requiring insurers to insure all the sick people, premiums will go through the roof and we will not be able to keep them affordable.

our plan -- our point was, congress does have the ability to eliminate people who are creating problems for regulation. if you have a small amounts of marijuana, you are creating a problem in terms of congress's effort to extricate all marijuana. we are not creating problems between insurers and the government. they will regulate the insurance companies and they are not going to deny people with pre-existing condition any care. we do now have anything to do with that. we're not a barrier to that. we are being prodded not because we are a problem in terms of regulating insurance companies. we are a solution to the problem that congress has already created through its fully executed lot. if that is a power congress has

under the necessary and proper clause, that means every time they impose some burdened -- artists and regulation on a car company through environmental or safety regulations and it drives up the cost of cars, that means they can bring you into offset the cost of their burden sen regulations and require you to buy gm stock or gm cars. that cannot possibly be the law. it has never been the law for 200 years whenever we have told private companies like the insurance companies in this case they have to take actions for the public welfare. in this case because of charitable reasons we have to require them to get low-cost insurance to sick people when we have done that kind of thing that we have required hospitals to provide care to sick people, we do not constrict some other group of the citizenry and say, you pay them for what the public could have just done. we pay for it out of the tax dollars for the public treasury that we all contribute to.

we either get tax exemptions to hospitals or give them medicare payments or the like. if congress can get away with this notion not only have they violated the terms of the constitution but they have given congress a new power where they can continue to spend well beyond their means and never have to face the political accountability of raising taxes. they can skip those certain people in society, and the problem and make them buy the products and -- in order to offset the cost burden san -- burden some regulation. their response is that health care is different. there are a lot of free riders who are not paying for their doctors. our point was, if you want to regulate free riders regulate them. the vast majority of the uninsured pay their doctors. they pay out of pocket. it does not make economic sense for them to have insurance if you are a 30-year-old.

the only economically sensitive thing to do if you are a healthy 30-year-old is to buy catastrophic insurance if you get hit by a bus or get an unexpected disease. what is the one product they prevent you from buying? it is catastrophic risk insurance. you have to buy the whole boat. you certainly do not need to avoid becoming a free rider, becoming somebody who default on their health care regulations. the 4 -- the purpose of this was they need the money now. if they're going to drive up insurance company costs in 2014 they need an infusion of cash from these people so they can keep the premiums within some relevant to arrange or affordability. the are of their argument they

made is everybody goes to the doctor. 100% of people in the united states will lead some. engage in health care. our response to this and the other things is, that is an economic policy argument that they distinguish health care from some other industry. it is not a judicially limiting principle. the judiciary can tell congress based on constitutional grounds the cannot do something. these policy arguments are committed to congress's discretion. the court will never second- guess congress's policy judgments. these are fake limiting principles. it would require the same case by case adjudication. all of these things are fake. our other point is, what difference does it really make everybody will go to the doctor at some point. nobody says they're going to the doctor has a problem.

they did not regulate going to the doctor. the only become a problem if you do not pay a doctor. the amount of people who do not pay the doctor is a small subset of the uninsured. the other point was, even if you are a participant in a market that everybody participates in, everybody uses phones. even the solicitor general can see that the chief justice roberts, even though everybody uses funds that cannot require you to use a cell phones to you could call for emergency aid. they cannot require you to buy broccoli. even though you are -- regardless of if you are participating, the relevant question is whether the government can require you to buy 5 bushels of wheat and make purchasing decisions for you that neither serve your needs or serve your economic interests. that cannot possibly, within the commerce power or necessary and

proper power. finally, and the major point of the arguments i think in the supreme court was, the justices constantly asking the solicitor general if he can require americans to buy this product, while limiting principle the you have? what product can you not force them to buy? the solicitor general has been criticized by a lot of liberals and media commentators for not having a good answer. i think that is more or less killing the messenger. it is not that the solicitor general is a bad advocate or unprepared. the reason he cannot give a comprehensive answer is because there is no comprehensive answer to this. they talk themselves into the notion that our position was a tea party fantasy that did not make any sense.

rather than can see that they really had a weak case they had to blame him for being a bad lawyer. i do not think that is true. i will not make any predictions in terms of the outcome of the case given the tone of the argument. i cannot say the argument went quite well. it went quite well mainly for the reasons i just said. the solicitor general was unable to lay any reasonable person's concerns about if we grant power for this particular emergency, what will stop them from using it for the next emergency or the next time they decided will be a little bit better to use the mandate power than the taxing power for all of the obvious political reasons. i do hope -- i think

optimistically that we have a very good chance of having the individual mandate struck down. with that, i will be happy to either answer any questions or chat about other aspects in the case. [applause] >> [unintelligible] >> what he is referring to is obviously -- everybody knows in this room whatsoever ability as. if he struck out one part of the statute what happens to the rest of the statute. i think the justice department took an unusual position. normally they suggest the individual mandate goes down. here they took the position, yes you must write down this band and community ratings

provision that says insurers have to ignore the health status of their customers. they were agreeing that there are other parts of the law that were so inextricably intertwined that you have to shut that down i do not know why they took that position -- i do know what it to that position. is what i was talking about before. the individual made it was put into the law for a specific purpose which was to offset the cost of the pre-existing condition band. you would have the worst of all worlds if you struck down that allows the pre-existing mandate in place. if these two provisions go down, that adds to insurance companies cost. what about all the other provisions like no cap on how much to have to pay out, all these other taxes and bergson -- burdensome regulation or part of

the deal. basically the insurance companies came in and said, look, we but like a lot of your require all americans to buy our products. who would not like that law? in exchange can basically do what ever else you want to. tax us, pre-existing man, as long as we get this lot is a legal not to buy our product we can cut any deal you want. once they take out the requirement that 30 million people buy products, the deal does not look so good the government was a problem was the cannot distinguish where these two provisions the greed or in -- they agreed went down were in any material way different from all the other provisions that added to the insurance company's cost. in the other. we kept stressing -- the other. we kept stressing is you have read the whole point out of this act. if you have done that, the tax

on tanning salons and toilet paper's may be able to work but it will not work in the way that congress intended. i was gratified at the argument that the justices were saying, sometimes it will be hypothetical of what would congress have done if they do this part of a law was not in play. this counterfactual a hypothetical when you have taken the steps of live at is like asking, what would happen in europe today if hitler had been killed in 1922. you are guessing and making all kinds of policy judgments. you are creating a law that nobody would have never voted for or we have no idea if they would have voted for it.

they came away with a notion -- i call a baseball arbitration. if there is no principled ground between striking down the individual mandate and the whole act, if we cannot figure out where in between the two extremes we will decide to do things, the best course, the one most respectful of congress and lawmaking power is just to strike the whole act down and let congress figure it out from here. does not make sense to create this act does not make any sense. as a patriot i hope they do that. as a partisan republican i would not mind this lot going through the next four years. i do not think you would never again elect a democrat in the united states. i think it would be hunting them down with dogs by 2018. i have to put my patriotism before my party. but we will see what happens.

>> [unintelligible] i want to ask about the catastrophic insurance issue. you go to the emergency room and so forth and there is the free rider issue. is it possible that the court as a matter of law could split the baby in this regard saying that the mandate is tonkin's -- unconstitutional to the extent it exceeds coverage for catastrophic and use that several ability or is it an all or nothing proposition? >> i think it has to be all or nothing. they are not going to rewrite the law to do something congress did not intend to do. i do nothing there is anything constitutional bar requiring you to buy catastrophic health insurance or anything. my only parliament -- my only point was, i investing your.

it will come back in the next time it will be this is unique. is this not really unique that these health a 30-year olds can come into the market and all of a sudden be a big burden on society. among the other points i was making was, if we are going to create exceptions and uniquely compelling need arguments where we will bend the rules and the language of the commerce clause, congress is going to show us that they really are trying to address the unique aspects of this. i made the point i made earlier which was, surely if congress was really worried about 30 healthy year olds -- healthy 30 year olds, they would have allowed them to do the only economically sensible option which is for $500 a year by catastrophic insurance. catastrophic insurance.