no longer the greatest threat being the soviet union, but the greatest threat in the early 20th-century was considered to be al qaeda, and i am wondering with the splintering of outside the, the you think terrorism is -- of al qaeda, d do think terrorism is less of a threat, particularly in the way discontent and poverty conceived extremism? >> i think it is a real threat, and i think we should start the change in approach and ask why do young people learn in the hands of people like the late osama bin laden, who quiz their minds, who motivate them towards terrorism?

why are they vulnerable to that sort of thing? i think it relates to issues like bad education, failed education systems, issues like unemployment, and no hope for a better life, because of bad economic situations. they have nothing to lose. there is an element of truth. therefore, improving the living conditions of people here give where do the terrorists come

from? they come from suppressed countries where people are surprised. and they come from countries where the masses do not have a good living conditions, and it is stimulated by a fanaticism, so i think terrorism remains of threat. i think if we want the youth to be activated in a more constructive way, and we need to also remember to heads are better than one. i am sitting next to to people who made a tremendous difference, but they had organizational structures, and they were right to say, choose your cross, and a line with an organization.

people believing in the same thing can do better if they develop new and action plan rather than each of them developing narrowness action plan and promoting it on their own -- developing their own action plan and promoting it on their own. get involved in good organizations. get mobilized. and this becomes part of modern technology, which can exercise tremendous influence. i do not think we should glorify process for the sake of process. -- protest for the sake of protest. [applause] >> i could see you wanted to get in on this conversation. >> we should start with a proper diagnosis and a treatment.

there was a legacy handed down to us. we used to have people trained to fight against one another and arm them, and when they collapse and we loved those people without any money, and they began creating their own private wars, and we continue to have problems. people continue to adopt the same methods of struggle, though their motivation is different year ago -- is different. we need to globally identified terrorists, and we will have a proper education, a proper institution, so i think with the diagnosis, they are

appropriate. the treatment can be appropriate, too, but your question regarding young people and leadership, i know when we were young, and one needed to be more than the other. courage is not as needed anymore. we need to better organize ourselves to face the challenges and we have to meet. then i had two strong arguments, one was my belief in god, and i see how far i have gotten, but if i was to become the leader today, i would need

to adopt a slightly different approach. if i want to be a union leader, i would say in 20 or 30 years from now we would need to solve the conflicts and problems in an equal sided triangle. all the conflict should be solved once we sit down to debate in a three-sided triangle. the other side is business owners, and the other side is the level of the administration, depending on what level our original organization is. we should meet in a triangle of like this with the first question being what to make of 20 computers.

we will never reach an agreement if it were not on a computer, so once we decide, we have a second question asked, about the respective demands. we follow with a third questions. how many variations do you want? once we enter the data, we are given back the cd-roms. only the fourth question is out -- when should we meet again, and this is calculated, and the young people have answered within 20 or 30 years you will help us solve conflicts and

antagonism, and leaving a motion for our lives, and the same should be for political leaders. they should recall every single move of the politician, because i do not want a control of the politicians. i want this shift of records everything in the computer. this is something you have to introduce, because otherwise, the world will not be transparent. i believe this is something we can reach. that is why i do encourage young people, and then we will test things.

[applause] >> i have a handful of questions here from the audience, and i think they are fantastic. sam but it is out -- sam is out there. you mentioned the role of faith. he wrote which very nice handwriting, do you believes faith and religion have any place in humanitarian efforts? if so, are they a help or a hindrance? >> i believe they have a positive place to exert themselves in the future. when you look at christianity,

whether it is protestantism where catholicism, you find the principles are the same, then it is peace. islam,look at judaism, buddhism -- their basic principles are the same. none, including hinduism, fail to promote peace. > > is there ignorance that makes people fear religions?

>> it creates a extremism. people try to be superior to other human beings. it creates fundamentalism, and fundamentalist in any religion, and then the disagreement can deteriorated into feeling the other person is inferior, and that can go further, and saying that person's life is not significant and i can go to taking advantage of that person because they are inferior when in my opinion and in the eyes of god, and i think when we look at all aspects of religion, so

the common goal could lead to the same goals nobel prize leaders try to strive for and the individual human being can adopt. compassion, love, even for people who diagree with you. that is the common goal of religions. [applause] >> there are so many things did have the potential to have an impact, but this comes from brandon.

how do you believe the failed missile launch in north kroea orea will affect world peace? >> i think every country who that should have capacity is the product of developments. -- i think every country which fails to have nuclear capacity is a positive development. we in this organization held in hiroshima a conference in pleading for a world without nuclear weapons. i think the basis of the old agreement needs to be revisited. the idea that certain countries may and certain may not have it. [applause]

it is good that it failed. it is good we are talking again to iran, but a powerful delegation has started a dialogue. we must stop proliferation, and we must bring down the stores of weapons everybody has who is entitled to have it with international agreements, and the end result is no one can hold nuclear weapons. we should unite to achieve that. it can be done, maybe not in my lifetime, but it can be done in the last time of young people -- in the lifetime of young people. [laughter] [applause]

>> no one claimed to this question, but it is a good one. how do you get people to care about in justices in the world? a trick question for one of the last questions. >> if i knew the right answer to that question, i could have a new nobel prize. [laughter] you cannot come up with a sensible answer, but i think we all feel responsible, so let's take care of injustice in case we are faced with one. for them to be proper for the world in which we are living and will continue to live, but i

do not know if anybody really knows the answer. democracy should provide legal regulations. i don't know whether anybody knows the right answer. > >your request as anyone here have the answer? maybe not. i think we have time for one more question, but perhaps this speaks to many of the issues we have been talking about today. my teacher wants me to work on many different projects, but i do not feel safe in my neighborhood. how can i make my city safer? he wanted me to give that to president corporate shobes. he wanted to weigh in. >> you have to have more faith.

you have to have more faith in other humans, in destiny, and providence. >> the gross inequities within a community between the rich and poor seem to put tremendous pressure on the poor to commit crimes because they cannot support their family or because spain and lose self-respect. they do not feel they are part of society -- or because they lose self-respect. they lose a belief the future might be better. they do not feel they are part of society. they don't have an investment in the status quo, or protecting others. the first is to remove the inequity. the second thing is to make sure the police and officials try to

understand the problems in the neighborhoods where a crime eggs this theory give we had a program in atlanta, and we found out of third of a glance of people -- a third of atlanta people were desperately in need. the police had good enough job so they can live in the ninth part, and the same with the welfare officers and school teachers. they did not live in the community where the poor people live, so i think that issues the biggest thing, to let the poor feel like they have an opportunity puree good -- an opportunity. -- the poor and the wealthy feel they belong to the same community. >> i hope you feel as privilege as i do to listen to the wisdom, and i am going to tweet about is because it is going to be on line, and we want people to have the opportunity to watch

it. [applause] and perhaps they can be inspired, as i hope all of you have been, by these words of wisdom, and i hope it helps you think about how one person can make a difference and promote positive change, whether it is in your community, in your home, or throughout the world. and honor, of privilege. thank you. >> you did a great job. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

. . >> now british prime minister

david cameron takes questions about his government's relationship with rupert murdoch's news corp.. then president obama stop advisor defends the use of drones. later, a discussion on the killing of osama bin laden one year ago. special adviser adam smith resigned last week after testimony by james murdoch. today, david cameron denied inappropriate dealings with rupert and james murdoch over the deal for british sky broadcasting. he was in front of the house of commons where he also defended the culture secretary. this is about an hour. >> an urgent question, mr. ed miliband. >> i would ask the prime minister if he would refer the

conduct in respect to his dealings with ms. corp. to the independent adviser on ministerial inquiry? >> thank you. last wednesday i answered questions on this issue at prime minister questions. >> let me set out the position again. i sat out the levenson inquiry last summer to question the ethical at practices of the media and the relations between the media and the police and the media and politicians. it is a full inquiry with evidence given under oath and full access to papers and records. no government before has ever taken such comprehensive action. it is this government that is putting these issues properly on the table and getting them dealt with. let me deal of the three issues in this question. the conduct of the secretary of straight, the culture of media and sports, the nature of inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of issues and the wider

issues of the relationship between politicians and the media. first the culture secretary -- as was made clear in his statement last wednesday, with regard to the news corp. bid, the culture secretary followed up. he acted fairly and impartially and in line with the advice of his permanent secretary. as he sat at in his statement last wednesday, he acted against the interest of news corp. on four key decisions, referring the bid to the competition commission, on refusing to accept news corp.'s undertaking without advice first from oft and extending the consultation and on going back oft-comm on the importance of phone hacking. onmm the importance of phone hacking. i see no evidence that he acted in a way that was contrary to

the ministerial codes. in terms of the secretaries, the chairman of approved the approach. that included small number of people acting as contact points with these corporations as is required and rollins to process. required and follows in the process. it is quite clear that this contact became improper and inappropriate and went on the requirements set out by the secretary of state or the permanent secretary. that is why the special adviser resigned and he was right to do so. there are correct procedures to follow in this regard and they need to be followed scrupulously. that is why last week, i ask the cabinet secretary and head of the seacoast predicts its service to write to the department's clarifying the rig is procedures that should be in

place for handling cases of this nature. the second issue is the nature of the inquiry. all inquiries best suited to get to the bottom of this issue. i consulted the cabinet secretary and decided it was right to allowed lord justice average and to conduct his inquiry and not commission a parallel process to address _ the facts. we have a judgment inquiry with witnesses required to give evidence under oath, to access papers and records, all live on television. there is nothing is difficult for this rigorous that the cigarette -- that the rigorous civil servants can provide. not for the judge to determine whether a minister has broken the minister of code. that is an issue f me and i will do it properly. >> we must and shout at the

prime minister. i want to hear what he has to say. it must be heard with courtesy. >> i will not wait until the end of 11 setting gori to take action if action is needed. new evidence emerges from 11 cents inquiry that the ministerial code has been broken, i will either seek the advice alex allen or take action directly. in order to do this, it is neither necessary nor right to have a parallel investigation that could duplicate or possibly preempt what lord justice said he was doing. you're just as offered his view on wednesday when he said " although i have seen requests for other inquiries and other investigations, it seems to me the better course is to allow this inquiry to proceed." i agree with him entirely. i am and always will be a fierce

defender of the freedom of the press in this country. is what the central pillars of our soccer is a. the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close for decades. the levenson inquiry that this government set up gives power and politicians of all parties the opportunity to get this right for the future. already, we have been introduced transparency. everyone here can see which proprietor or as their i need. like other party leaders, in our country for decades, i have tried to convince media outlets to support the policies of my party and now my government. there was not and has never been any grand bargain between the conservative oregon and rupert or james murdock perr and. .

the idea that there was some agreement that in return for their support would somehow allow the merger to go through is simply not true. if that was the case, while i respect him deeply, what on earth was i doing making the right hon. member for detrick responsible for this? >> members must calm down. there will be opportunity to questi. >> the proprietors of news corp. have testified under oath and denied any type of deal and i will do the same period on like the party, we were not trying to convince a center-right proprietor of a cent of newspapers with solidly center

news to on a change that position. we argued that the last government was irresponsible, exhausted, and that for our country and often goes. i have said that the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close, i know that none of the people opposite have disclosed any of the meetings. they did that for other newspaper executives while there were in office. they just lie one-sided party politics. it is time they are honest about what they did in government and face up to the realess they have left. mr. speaker, the reason this was essential for the prime minister

to come to the house today is because the culture secretary is in clear breach of the ministerial code. the prime minister stands by and does nothing. he asks why this matter is? it matters because we need a government that stands up for families, not the rich and powerful. he is scaling back fans. playingor time, he says we shld wait for the levenson inquiry. lord justice leverson could not be clearer. heaid tha he is not the arbiter of the minister tell code. whatever anybody els says, there is somebody else who has that role, alex alun. lord justice leverson is doing his job and it is time the prime minister does his. there are no fewer than three breaches of the military codes

by the sun -- by the culture secretary. he told us "all the exchanges between my department and news corp. are being published." he has now admitted that he knew when he gave that answer that there was exchange's key himself authorized between his special adviser and news corp. now those changes were disclosed. we have won this -- we have 160 pages to prove this. will he confirm to the house that this is a breach of the code but said that ministers must provide full and accurate information for parliament? second, the culture secretary gave a speech to this house on january 25 and renown no that two days before that statement, news corp. was given confidenal inside information darie.

the prime minister does not need to wait to leverwson inquiry. will he agree with the high standards of propriety? the culture secretary was on a freelance mission. six months of daily e-mails leak in a leak of confidential information. on one of the biggest media blitz is today is the prime minister really reduced to the news of the world's defense. one roby individual acting a lot. if the culture secretary was that close about the previous issues facing s department, he should be sacked any way.

the central answer that the prime minister must kiev - must give, why doesn't he refer a it tolex allen. the prime minister is defending the inf accord -- indefensible and he knows it. the special adviser had to go to protect the culture secretary perry because a secretary had to stay to protect the prime minister. the prime minister has shown today he is incapable of doing his duty, he is too close to a powerful few and outf touch with everyone else. weak and wrong, that is what we learned. >> members on both sides -- need

to calm down. the prime minister is used to being hrd and i wish to hear him. prime minister? >> 15 years of secret meetings, pajama parties, christmas and all the rest of it and not one word of ology. let me answer very directly the three points he made. first he spoke about the responsibility to my hon. friend but if he had done as research, if you're going to make these accusations, get your facts right. the second issue, he raised specifically the information provided to news corp. which was completely wrong and a special adviser has said that while it was part of my role to keep and was corporation informs

throughout the process, the content and extent of my compact was done without authorization om the secretary of state. that is the second accusation completely wrong. the third accusation is also about the special adviser and the ministerial code. my friend took responsibility and can the house and explain what happened and gave a good account of himself. can anyone remember the minister taking responsibily cha forrley wieman or mc eni inbride. what a lot of self-serving double standards we have. let me just make two further points -- he says this is an issue of judgment about what steps to take. let us examine briefly what the deputy leader of the labor party

pastas and wise. she was asked and said you called for the secretary of state's resignation within 23 minutes of getting the evidence. she was asked if she read the evidence and c saidno, i didn't need to. she said because i heard the evidence of james murdoch. he is the arbiter of standards. what complete nonsense. i am not be levelling this issue but it is not as serious as the euros done, the jobs, the investment and the debts. it is time to focus on that. your endlessly questioning someone who does that have the credibility will come back on you. simon hughes "

-- order. simon hughes. >> every leader has sought to break these video relationships between the neighbor and the tory government. the leverson and korea is doing a credible job. this will be referred to the top adviser. it should be done independently. >> i agree with what my hon. friend says. the opportunity provided for the

inquiry, we should be frank. the relationship between the media and the police chief and the media and politicians and some of the ethics and problems in the media have not been dealt with properly. this gives us an opportunity to deal with it. on this specific issue of the secretary, what is more robust than a judgment inquiry with minister is under oath holding th bible, wang larose, answering questions. that is the point. >> on wednesday, the secretary of state told this body that the permanent officers have agreed to authorized and approved of this action. on thursday, the permanent secretary refused to 10 times concern for my committee that this was the case. on friday, he then wrote to me

stating merely that the tea was aware and content. the secretary of state failed to provide full information to parliament or the secretary of state failed to require his subservience to provide accurate information to a assembled committee. both are breaches. of the ministerial code. >> rather than brained noisily, let's allow the question to be finished. >> both sides of ride roughshod over the rights of parliament. >> there was an appearance and

what the ministry secretary said he backed with his assistance said. when asked to clarify, he made clear that he agrees the arrangements within the department as i said in my statement and he was pleased with the role of the special adviser. i know the gentle lady allows our committee to drift into these kinds of things but she is completely wrong. >> there is an urgent need to restore public confidence and the processes lead to decisions in this process and to achieve that, an increase to be held in the open in which witnesses give evidence in public subject t cross-examination and under oath. well the concern -- if there is concern is that questions remain, he will refer that to someone else. >> i can give you an insurance -- having seen some of the

inquiry on television, it is mentally powerful that people are questioned under oath. that is far more robust than anything the independent adviser or sell the service can provide. i am not waiting for leverson to complete his investigation. if an amazing comes out that shows anyone has breached the code, i would act. this is the right way to approach it and i think people should respect the integrity of the fact-finding mission. it does not remove from me the necessity to plead for the military code. that is my job. isone of the clear duty iies before the conduct of the special advisers. given what the prime minister

knows already about the possible dereliction of duty, why is the minister still advising him? are there not matter is under the ministerial code which now merits investigation by the independent adviser? no one understands why you are seeking to shut this behind a smokescreen. the duty to do this is on you. >> i respect your right of the gentleman and his experience in government and he would know that i consulted with the cabinet secretary. what is the right process to follow to make sure we get to the truth and we deal witthis issue? the right process is to allow lord levson to fd the facts of the case and if there is any question about the minister of code being broken, i can then

acts. the ministerial code is absolutely clear. ministers are responsibile. >> given that the role of the adviser of a ministerial code is purely to advise therime minister on whether the minister's actions are in breach of that code and not to investigate or establish the facts of those actions, is an essential to allow the inquiry to establish the fact and the advance that they discover there is a prime offensive, then they need to refer it -- referred to the ministerial adviser. >> you are entirely right. it is worth examining what would happen if you commission that the independent adviser to set down a process of factual discovery. you have to look at all the information that is about to be

provided l to theeverson finding and would duplicate the facts. >> the prime minister has just claimed began at in relation to theb sky b, that the government had independent advice every stage. will he confirm that on december 31, 2010, the government was advised to refer the bid to the competition's commission. the government did not do so. they both said last week and it is simply not true. >> we were acting in accordance with a law passed by is government, the enterprise act. this requiresou to consider

the company's reputation to you in terms of reference to the competition commission. if you don't take that into account, you could be subject to judicial review. i said that aid each stage, he took in a bad advice and all that independent advice of correct. >> all sensible people will welcome the approach. but will he agree with me? what appeared wrong to rest the judgment and that he has a duty to follow as does the process? >> i think this is right. this is something we can recognize if you go back over 10 years in politics, it is the easiest thing in the world for a prime minister to say to a member of congress that it is getting a bid to the gulf, you have to let go -- be let go.

i believe we need to get to e facts, it is natural justice and we should have more. >> the prime minister is aware that machinery has been in place for investigations in relation to the preacher codes of conduct for many years because of context of a citizens and members of the house of commons. why doesn't the fight -- prime minister implement that instead of going to a third party? >> kenyon across as that is more robust and that a minister having to provide under of information to incorporate the answer questions and under oath and knowing that all the time, anything in that information if it breaches the ministerial code can trigger another judgment. that is what is happening. that is what i aee with the cabinet secretary. i am absolutely convinced it is the right approach. >> this morning, i checked with

my office to see if there are lots of complaints about the department that colfer made during sports. mrs. bone said there were hundreds and hundreds. they wanted to know why harried was not becoming the football coach. she wants to let the prime minister get on with running the country and getting results. this is important but there are many more important issues like jobs and living services and deing with the debt that we should be getting on with. >> all these problems stem from the prime minister's original judgment. having taken responsibility for the news corp.bid for b sky b

away from the business secretary because he was sympathet to news corp., it was stupid of him than to handed over so that because the secretary was already on record and in favor of the bed >> i don't accept that at all. it was not just antipathy. he was recorded as saying he wanted to destroy this visit. he could not carry on running that part of his department. i sought advice from the cabinet secretary and the cabinet set -- cabinet secretary as to the secretary of state. >> the prime minister just reassure the house that we are getting maximum value for money in these cash-strapped towns in the office of the independent adviser. [laughter] >> yes, i can.

>> i was at the meeti of the public committeehere, according to the prime minister's the statements just now, the press secretary said he approved the approach which was taken by the department in relation to using adam smith as a conduit. the press secretary said the secretary of state made a statement and made it clear he is providing full written evidence for looking forward to providing normal evidence l to theeverson inquiry. this makes no reference to the ministers of parliament, how can lleverson deal with this? >> let me be clear -- the approach was approved taken by the department to the clause i- judicial process.

this included adams met acting as a contact point with news corp.. it is normal and required to have contacts and a promise secretary has made clear that he was aware and content for adam smith to be one of those was a contact. you can keep digging into this area but i'm afraid is not getting anywhere. >> could the prime minister tell us if he like other prime ministers have zero telephones of the murdoch empire? does he think what we see here today, but call for openness? >> i am perfely prepared to with a relationship between politicians and media proprietors and it got too close. the party opposite has not revealed any of the meetings

they had while they were in government. we have been completely transparent. >> of prime minister has relied l on theeverson process. in doing so, by providing the leveson to mr. frederick about b sky b. >> it is a judgment inquiry. he is able to ask for any papers or materials and this government will provide it. >> mr. speaker. the principles of fair play and natural -- it should be

determined after the secretary of state had the opportunity to give his side. th most -- it is more about the failure of opposition and the people of britain. >> i think the motivation is they would do anything than campaign. >> i am willing to keep them here as long as they like. that's my guess. >> the one fact that they cannot get away from is the fact that james murdoch knew in terms what the secretary of state was going to say before he said it had before comrcial operators in opposition to murdoch knew it.

is that clear example of collusion and a shabby deal between the prime minister and murdoch? >> i would have thought that when he stands up in this house should make an apology. he stood up last week and claimed a series of facts, based on privileged access he has had. the facts turned out to be wrong. a man of honor would stand up and apologize. >> speak up. [unintelligible] >> that is in sharp contrast to a process, directed by the high

bidder. >> order, order. most questions have focused on the terms of the urgent questions. that was a million miles ay from it, completely out of order. >> a proposed takeover bid it was given the same level of sctiny as the b sky b has been given. >> the transparency and scrutiny has been a proper process. he took steps that were not welcomed by news corp. he was open and taking transparent advice.

>> getting better employment rights than the rest of the workers in britain? is it possibly because he knows that whatever the culture secretary is in the private life, it presents the bully from hitting him, the prime minister. >> he can take his pension at any time and i advise him to do so. >> mr. speaker, i welcome the open process. i welcome the prime minister who will be responsible for insuring his government -- require lord justice leveson to report directly to him. >> the report is going to be a

major political media and regulatory event. he is reporting to everybody in parliament and politics and in public life that cares about these issues. we have an opportunity to deal with relions between politicians and the media, which have not been right in this country. >> the secretary of state -- the only way the minister's communicate with the special advisers is through e-mails. why has the prime minister forgot the letter that a resignation delays is a disgrace? >> what i would say is if he is

concerned to make sure that all the information is properly looked into. what is preferable -- where you can look at papers and ask questions or a inquiries with ministers asking questions under oath where all of the documents have to be revealed. this is what i do not understand or the opposition is coming from. if you want full disclosure before making a judgment, this must be the process. >> in a previous scandal, a respected member of this house suggested the prime ministe did not take responsibility. why he thinks the situation is

any different now? >> taking responsibility for your special advisers means coming to this house and explaining what is happening. he gave his reasons for resigning. he has not broken the ministerial code. >> when they have the opportunity to question the is is any -- important issue when the parliamentarians get the opportunity -- a key person was the special adviser. >> it is up to the door justice leveson. -- it is up to lord justice leves.

in this house, you are able to call whenever you like and you can ask those questions. about the way the department ran the process -- all the parliaments have been written to. >> would my honorable friend agree that a company which would sack the director would never achieve anything worthwhile at all? >> this argument -- if ministers resigned every time something was wrong, we would have a new government virtually every week. >> the real reason the prime minister is reluctant -- if as a

result the secretary of state were forced to resign, he would find himself on the front line having to answer from every revelation of the code between the empire -- as a result, is it not inappropriate that the prime minister who has a vested interest should take this position rather than parliament itself based on a stunted motion of the house. >> you can find any kind of explanation you wanted. you could go to the simple one. the best way to find out the facts is to allow it to run its course.

that is t answer. sometimes the sile explanation is the right one. >> if any major business was bidding for a company, would be normal for them to of dialogue with the departments involved. >> it is important that the dialogue is carried out appropriately. the special adviser to not act properly and that is why he resigned. there are wider issues. we should get this right. >> people will compare this to the cavalier way for television in wales. this is small in the grand

scheme of things. >> i did not accept that. we have done right. this has been a great success. look, all media companies have their great causes and lobbies. you get as much pressure from the bbc, from regional newspapers about things that they are concerned about. that is worth putting on the record. >> we should remember just a week ago he said we should let them do their job. >> that is exactly what he said. i think it is right that the

leveson inquiry take its course. a good headline 23 minutes after the -- >> mr. speaker, this is something that concerns me, the role of the special advisers. people work closely with their minister. i do not believe the prime minister does not know that the special adviser must have kwn everything that was going o hour by hour, day by day. >> all of that information it is going to be provided to the leveson inquiry. the special adviser has been

clear about the role he plays and that he went bond anything he was authorized to do. the difference is these people are going to be answering questions under oath, questioned by barrister in a court. >> they would almost be heavily guided by the leveson inquiry. >> i think my good friend makes a good point. you cannot guarantee an independent adviser would be quicker. it will be cutting across cutting what levelord leveson is doing.

i could not be clearer about it. >> he did not discuss this with james murdoch. i wonder why he felt unable to admit -- >> i have not had any inappropriate conversation about this issue and indeei haven't . it is important to record everything you possibly can -- to report everything you possibly can. a minister said he was tryg destroy it a media company. it was inappropriate for me to say that was not correct.

that was a sensible thing to say. >>i share the mystification -- this has been a breach of the ministerial code. >> she put her finger on it. he does not want to wait for the evidence or the information. he saw a crossing band wagon and he jumped oboard. >> the culture secretary said he would publish all the documents, all the exchanges between my department and news corp. does he nono problem

whatsoever? >> his answer was given to explain the situation. >> mel stride. >> a civil service inquiry would have no power to summon the minister under oath. would you agree that the best way to give the secretary state the best way to find the truth? >> i do not wanto belittle what the cabinet secretary is capable of in terms of proper inquiries, because this has happened in the past. the process we are engaged in is many times more robust in terms of getting to the case about the facts. >> mr. speaker, what does the

prime minister agree that sensitive information -- in advance of an announcement that that would bring a breach of the code but also illegal/ ?i >> i agree. that does need to be properly investigated. >> charlie and david were special advisers. both resigned in disgrace. there was an inquiry at the time. >> that is a very good point. special advisers have misbehaved and the minister has tried to

shrug it off. >> did the cretary of state out by was being sent special advisers? if he did not know, how could he argued he was in charge of the department? >> i agree with the first half. it is important we establish the full facts of the case. the difference between this case and other cases is this will be examined by a judge in a court. >> newspapers were driving an illegal market in personal information, yet there was no judicial inquiry.

now that we have the leveson inquiry, they should be given the chance to explain why they did so little. >> it is a point for the opposition. there were powerful reports. our political system did not react to them. we should try to get to a situation where, so that when problems show up they are properly dealt with. >> do you think this exceeded his authority. this will benefit smith in pleasing the murdochs. >> adam smith has made clear his role.

he said it was part of his role. this was done without authorization by the secretary of state. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister recall the words of his predecessor who said advisers' advice and ministers preside? a socialist yahoo make up his mind in 23 minutes. >> my old friend is quite right. it is the easiest tng in the world to react to any opposition politician, calling for a scalp. you have to take the time and get the issue right.

people are going to have to be patient. >> as a former competition minister who dealt with some of these judicial matters, why eight special adviser -- why a special adviser was used? how could the prime minister get to the bottom of whose idea it was? that's something that has not been told. >> there were a range of people who were authorized to have contact with the news corp. there have to be some contact with the department. the authorization was given. i think he is barking up the wrong tree.

>> throughout the process, senior teams on a regular basis -- in the interest of transparency, all parties should publish all correspondence between their representatives. >> i think that is a very good idea. we all need to be transparent. >> i have heard2 and to receive >> the committee will release its report on tuesday. the committee held hearings of

the last year with testimony by james and rupert murdoch -- murdoch and rebekah brooks. watch live coverage on c-span 2 at 6 --6:30 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] a look at the state of of canada and pakistan one year after the death of osama bin laden. we will hear from the environment and energy reporter. shall discuss the impact of the energy and environment of policies on the economy. later, the examination of a report on the veterans affairs department. mark thompson, the national security correspondent for time magazine has not update. -- an update. white house, the terrorism adviser john brennan defended it

a program today. he said targeted strikes unnecessary to prevent future attacks. the strikes target specific terrorist. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon everyone. welcome to the wilson center and a special welcome to our chairman of the board. this evidence conversation is a great tribute to the kind of work we do here. we care intensely about have our most important policy-

makers here and getting objective accounts of what the united states government and other governments are doing. on september 10, 2001, i had lunch with mr. bremer. he chaired the congressional commission on terrorism on which i served. it was one of three task forces to predict a major terror attack on u.s. soil. at that lunch, we lamented that nobody was taking our report seriously. the next day, the world changed. in my capacity as a senior democrat, i was headed to the u.s. capitol at 9:00 a.m. when an urgent call turned me around. most think the capitol was the

intended target of the fourth plane. congress shut down. a terrible move, i thought. 250 members mingled on the capitol lawn. i tried to reach my youngest child. the cell towers were done. i do not know where john brennan was. i do know that our lives can to get a after that. when he served as deferred director -- the first director of the nctc, when he moved into the white house's deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counter- terrorism and assistant to the

president, and when i succeeded lee hamilton here at the wilson center last year. finally, when he became president obama's point person on counterterrorism strategy, and when the wilson center commenced a series of programs, which are still ongoing, the first of which we held on 9/12/2011, to ask what the next 10 years should look like and whether this country needs a clearer legal framework around domestic intelligence.

clearly, the success story of the past decade is last may's takedown of osama bin laden. at the center of that effort were a senior security leadership of the country. i noticed dennis mcdonald in the audience, right here in the front row. certainly, it included president obama and john brennan. they made the tough calls. but i also know, and we all know, how selfless an extraordinary were the actions of on an intelligence officials and navy seals. the operation depended on their remarkable skills and personal courage. they performed the mission. the wilson center is honored to welcome john brennan here today on the eve of the first anniversary of the bin laden raid. president obama will headline events tomorrow, but today we get an advanced peak from the insider's insider, one of president obama's most

influential aides, with a broad portfolio to manage counterterrorism strategy in far-flung places like pakistan, yemen, and somalia. activities in this space, as i mentioned, at the wilson center on going. as are terror threats against our country. i often say we will defeat those threats by military might -- might won -- we won't defeat those threats by military might alone. we must win the argument. no doubt our speaker today agrees that security and the body are not a zero sum game. -- security and liberty are not a zero sum game. as benjamin franklin said, "those who would give up liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." i want to congratulate him and president obama for nominating the full complement of members

to the privacy and civil liberties board, and never part of the 2004 intelligence reform added up -- another part of the two dozen for intel inche -- the 2004 intelligence reform law. at the end of today's event, we would appreciate it if everyone would please remain seated while mr. brennan departs the building. thank you for coming. please welcome john brennan. [applause] >> thank you so much, jane, for the kind introduction and that nice and memorable walk down memory lane. our paths did cross so many times over the years. thank you for your leadership of the wilson center. it is a privilege for me to be here today and speak to this group. you have spent many years in public service, and it continues at the wilson center today. there are few individuals in the country who can match the

range of jane's expertise come from intelligence service to comments occ -- to homeland security. i would just say that i am finally glad to be sharing the stage with you instead of testifying before you. [laughter] it is a privilege to be next to you. thank you for your invaluable contributions, your research, your scholarship, which helps further our national security every day. i very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss president,'s counterterrorism strategy -- president obama's counterterrorism strategy, in particular its efficacy. it was here in august 2007 that then-senator obama discuss how he would bring the war in iraq to a responsible end, and the war against al qaeda,

particularly in the tribal regions of afghanistan and pakistan. he said we would continue this fight while upholding our laws and values and work with our partners and allies wherever possible. he also made it clear that he would not hesitate to use military force against terrorists who pose a direct threat to america, and he says that if he had actionable intelligence on high-value targets, including in pakistan, he would protect the american people. it is especially fitting that we have this discussion here today. one year ago today, president obama was faced with this scenario that he discussed here at the woodrow wilson center five years ago he did not hesitate to act. soon thereafter, our special operations forces were moving towards the compound in pakistan, where we believe it was, bin laden might be hiding. but the end of the next day, president obama could confirm that justice had been delivered to the terrorists responsible

for the attacks of september 11, 2001, and so many other debts around the world. the death of -- deaths around the world. the death of bin laden was our biggest blow against al qaeda. credit goes to the many intelligence professionals who pieced together the clues over the years that led to the bin laden hideout, and to president obama, who gave the order to go in one year later, it is proper that we assess where we are in this fight. the end of bin laden marked neither the end of al qaeda at nor our will to destroy it. it is fair to say that as a result of our efforts, the united states is more secure and the american people are safer. here is why. in pakistan, al qaeda's

leadership ranks have continued to suffer heavy losses. this includes one of al qaeda's top operational plan is, until one month after bin laden. it included the man who was killed when he succeeded ayman al-zawahiri. it includes the planner of attacks against the united states and europe until he was captured. with this most skilled and experienced commanders -- with its most skilled and experienced commanders being caught quickly, al qaeda has had trouble replacing them. this we have been able to piece together from documents seized from bin laden's compound, many of which we will release this week. bin laden or read about "the rise of the world leaders who are not as experienced, and this will lead to the repeat of mistakes." al qaeda leaders continue to struggle to communicate with affiliates.

under intense pressure in the tribal regions of pakistan, they have fewer places to train and groom the next generation of operatives. they are struggling to attract recruits. morale is low and at some members are giving up and returning home. no doubt they are aware this is a fight they will never win. al qaeda is losing badly, and i bin laden knew it at the time of his death. in documents we seized, he confesses to disaster after disaster. he urged leaders to flee the tribal regions and go to places away from aircraft, photography, and bombardment for all these reasons, it is harder than ever for the al qaeda a car in pakistan to plan and execute large scale and potentially catastrophic attacks against the homeland. it is increasingly clear that compared to 9/11, the core of the al qaeda leadership is the shadow of its former self. al qaeda is left with just eight handful of capable leaders and operatives.

continued pressure, it is on the path to its destruction. we can look ahead and envision a world in which the al qaeda core is simply no longer relevant. nevertheless, the interest threat from al qaeda has not disappeared. -- that dangerous threat from al qaeda has not disappeared. it continues to look to affiliate's and adherence to carry on its murderous cause. yet these affiliates continue to lose key commanders and capabilities as well. in somalia, it is or in to witness al qaeda's merger with al-shabab --. -- it is worrying to witness al qaeda's merger with al- shabab. at the same time, al-shabab is a focus on regional attacks, and this is a look at two organizations in a climat -- in decline. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula continues to suffer from the death of ayman al- zawahiri.

nevertheless, aqap continues to be al qaeda's most active affiliate will continue to support the government of yemen in its fight against aqap. in north and west africa, another a little bit affiliate, -- another al qaeda affiliate, aqim, continues efforts to destabilize friends and engage in the kidnapping o -- destabilize governments and engage in the kidnapping for ransom activities. and a group that aligns itself with al qaeda's violent agenda is increasingly looking to attack western interests in nigeria, in addition to the nigerian government targets. more broadly, al qaeda's

killing of innocents, mostly men, wom -- mostly muslim men, women, and children has tarnished its image around world -- >> are you willing to speak out against -- what about the hundreds of innocent people we are killing with drones in pakistan and yemen and somalia? i speak out on behalf of those innocent victims. they deserve an apology from you, mr. brennan. >> ma'am -- >> how many are you willing to sacrifice? why are you lying to the american people -- >> thank you, ma'am, for expressing your views. there will be time for questions and answers after the presentation. >> in pakistan, who was killed because we wanted to document the drone strikes. i speak on behalf of abdul awlaki, who was killed in

damages because his father was someone we don't like. -- in yemen because his father was someone would all like to i speak on behalf of the constitution, the rule of law. you're making us less saved by killing some innocent people. shame on you. >> thank you. more broadly, al qaeda's killing of innocents, mostly men, women, and children, has tarnished its appeal an image around the world. even bin laden and his lieutenants new desp -- knew this. they detonated mosques and spill the blood of scores of people. bin laden agreed that large numbers around the world had lost trust in al qaeda. so damaged his al qaeda's image that bin laden consider changing his name.

has he set himself, but what u.s. officials have largely stopped using the phrase "war on terror." simply calling them al qaeda reduces the feel of muslims that we belong to them. to which i would add, that is because al qaeda does not belong to muslims. al qaeda is the antithesis of the peace, tolerance, and humanity that we associate with islam. al qaeda and its associated forces still have the intended to attack the united states. we have seen a lone individuals, including american citizens, often inspired by al qaeda's murders ideology, kill innocent americans and seek to do us harm. the damage inflicted on the leadership or in pakistan, compared with how al qaeda has inflicted damage on itself, allows us to look forward.

in the ticket after 9/11, the time of a -- in the decade after 9/11, it was the time of its decline, and i believe this decade will see its demise. it is the result of efforts made it more than a decade across two administrations, across the u.s. government, with allies and partners. this includes the counterterrorism strategy guided by the president's 5 responsibility, to protect the safety and security of the american people. in this fight, we are harnessing every element of american power. intelligence, military, diplomatic, a development, economic, financial, law enforcement, homeland security, and the power of our values, including our commitment to the rule of law. that is why, for instance, his first days in office, president

obama banned the use of intense interrogation techniques, which are not needed to keep our country say. staying true to our values as a nation includes all holding the transparency upon which our democracy depends. a few months after taking office, the president traveled to the national archives, where he discussed how national security requires a delicate balance between secrecy and transparency. he pledged to share as much information as possible with the american people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. he has consistently encouraged those of us on at the national security team to be as open and candid as possible as well. earlier this year, attorney general holder discussed how our counter-terrorism efforts are rooted in and strengthened by an appearance to law, including the legal authority that allows us to pursue members of al qaeda, including u.s. citizens, and to do so using

technologically advanced weapons. in addition, the general counsel to the department of defense has addressed the legal basis for our military actions against al qaeda. the cia has discuss how the agency operates under u.s. law. these speeches build on electorate two years ago by -- a lecture two years ago by harold koh, who mentioned at how the use of unmanned aerial vehicles comply with all aspects of applicable law, including the loss of more. i venture to sit -- that the -- including the laws of war. i venture to say that the government has never been more open regarding its counterterrorism policies. there is some debate about how they are sometimes used against the fight with al qaeda.

in the course of the war with afghanistan and the fight against al qaeda, i think the american people expect us to use advanced technology. for example, to protect attacks against u.s. forces and to remove tourists from the battlefield. -- terrorists from the battlefield. we do, and it is saved the lives of men and women in uniform. what is captured the attention of many is a different practice, beyond battlefields like afghanistan, identifying specific members of al qaeda and targeting them with lethal force, often using aircraft remotely operated by pilots, who can be hundreds if not thousands of miles away. this is what i want to focus on today. jack goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general in the administration of george w. bush, now a professor at harvard law school, captured the situation well. he wrote, "the government needs

a way to quickly convey to the public that its decision about who is being targeted, especially when the target is a u.s. citizen, are sound. first, the government can and should tell us more about the process by which it reaches high-about you targeting decisions. the more the government tells us about the eyeballs on the issue and the robustness of the process, the more credible will be the claims about the accuracy of the factual determinations and the soundness of legal ones. all this information can be disclosed in some form without endangering critical intelligence talk as well, president obama agrees, and that is why i am here today. i stand here as someone who was been involved in the nation's security for more than 30 years. i have a profound appreciation for the truly remarkable capability of our counterterrorism professionals, and our relationships with other nations. we must never compromise them. i will not discuss sensitive

details of any specific operation today. i will not, nor will i ever, publicly divulge sensitive intelligence, sources, and methods, for when that happens, our national security is in danger and lights can be lost. at the same time, we reject the notion that any discussion of these matters is as slippery slope that inevitably and teachers our national security. too often, that fear can become an excuse for saying nothing at all, which creates a void that is filled with myths and falsehoods. that, in turn, can erode credibility with the american people and foreign partners. and it can undermine the public's understanding and support for our efforts. in contrast, president obama believes that, done carefully, deliberately, and responsibly, we can be more transparent and still ensure our nation's security.

let me say it as simply as i can -- yes, in full accordance with the law and in order to prevent terrorist attacks against the united states and save american lives, the united states government connects targeted strikes against specific allocated to risk, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones. i am here today because president obama has instructed us to be more open to the american people about these efforts. broadly speaking, the debate overstrikes targeted at individual members of al qaeda has centered on their legality, ethics, the wisdom of using them, and the standards by which they are used. for the remainder of my time today, i would like to address each of these in turn. first, these targeted strikes are legal. attorney general holder, harold koh, and j. johnson have addressed this question at length.

to briefly recap, as a matter of domestic law, the constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. the authorization for the use of military force, aumf, passed by congress after the september 11 attacks, authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate forces against asians, organizations, and individuals responsible for -- 9/11 against na -- against nations, organizations, and individuals responsible for 9/11. as a matter of international law, the united states is in our conflict with al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we use force consistent with our international rights. there's nothing that bans the use of formally piloted

aircraft for this purpose, or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield. at least one of the country involved is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target as an individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. it is critical to use the strike against the basic principle of the law of war that governs the use of force. targeted strikes and forms with the principle of necessity. the requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the ability to target them with a lethal force, just

as we target and to meet leaders in past conflicts. such as german and japanese commanders during world war ii. targeted strikes conform to the principles of distinction, the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted. with the unprecedented ability of a remotely piloted aircraft to precisely target a military objective while minimizing collateral damage, one could argue that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to extinguish more effectively between an al qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians. -- distinguish more effectively between and allocate it to rest and innocent civilians. targeted stocks conform to -- the notion of -- targeted strikes conform to the notion of proportionality. by targeting an individual terrorist or small number of tourists, it can be adapted to avoid harming others in the

immediate vicinity, it is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimize the risks to civilians that remotely piloted aircraft -- than remotely piloted aircraft. for the same reason, targeted strikes conform to the principle of humanity, which requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. for all these reasons, i suggest to you that these targeted strikes against al qaeda terrorists are indeed ethical and just. of course, even if a tool is legal and ethical, that is not necessarily make it appropriate or advisable in a given circumstance. this brings me to my next point. targeted strikes are wise. remotely piloted aircraft in particular can be a wise choice because of geography, with the ability to fly hundreds of miles of the most treacherous terrain strike their targets with astonishing precision, and then returned to the base. they can be a wise choice

because of time, when windows of opportunity and close quickly and there just may be only minutes to act. they can be a wise choice because they dramatically reduced danger to u.s. personnel, even eliminating the danger altogether. yet they are also a wise choice because they dramatically reduce the danger to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordnance that can cause injury or death far beyond the intended target. in addition, compared against other options, a pilot operating the aircraft remotely, with the benefit of technology and the safety of distance, might actually have a clearer picture of the target and its surroundings, including the presence of innocent civilians. it is this surgical precision, the ability, with laserlike focus, to eliminate the cancerous tumor called an al qaeda terrorist while limiting damage to the tissue around it

-- and that is what makes this tool so essential. there is another reason targeted strikes can be a wise choice, the strategic consequences that inevitably come with the use of force. as we have seen, deploying large armies abroad will not always be our best defense. countries typically don't want foreign soldiers in cities and towns. in fact, large commenters of military deployment is playing into al qaeda's strategy of trying to draw us into long, costly wars that train as financially, and fleming anti- american sentiment, and inspire the next generation of terrorists. in comparison, there is the position of targeted strikes. -- precision of targeted strikes. i knowledge that we as a government, along with foreign partners, can and must do a better job of addressing the mistaken belief among some foreign publics that we engage in these and casually.

as i will describe today, there is nothing casual about the extraordinary care we take in making the decision to pursue an al qaeda terrorist and the lengths to which we go to avoid the loss of innocent life. still, there is no more consequential position than it deciding whether to use lethal force against another human being. even at terrorist dedicated to killing american citizens tried to ensure that our counterterrorism operations are legal, ethical, and weiss, president obama has demanded that we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards. this reflects his approach to broader questions regarding the use of force. in his speech in oslo accepting the nobel peace prize, the president said that all nations

must adhere to standards that govern the use of force, and he added, "where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in finding ourselves to certain rules of conflict. even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, i believe the united states of america must remain a standard-bearer in the conduct of war. that is what makes this different from home we fight. that is is worth -- source of our strength." the united states is the first mission to regularly use remotely piloted aircraft against targets. president obama and those of us on the national security team are very mindful that as our

nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may -- and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians. if we want other nations to use these technologies responsibly, we must use them responsibly. if we what other nations to adhere to high and rigorous standards for the use, we must do so as well. we cannot expect from others what we will not do it ourselves. president obama has therefore demanded we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards, that every step we would be as thorough and delivered as possible. this brings me to the final point i want to discuss today, the rigorous standards and processes of review to which we hold ourselves today when considering to authorize a strike against a specific member of al qaeda outside of the hot battlefield of afghanistan.

what i hope to do is give you a general sense in broader terms of the high bar we require ourselves to meet when making these profound decisions. that includes not only whether a specific number of al qaeda cannot legally be pursued with lethal force, but also whether he should be paid over time, we've worked to refine and clarify and strengthen this process and standards, and we continue to do so. if our counterterrorism officials assess that a member of al qaeda poses such a threat to the united states to consider legal action, they rays that individuals and for consideration. it goes through the review and as appropriate, will be reviewed by the most senior official in our government. first and foremost, the individual must be a legitimate target under the law. earlier, i describe how the use

of force against members of al qaeda is authorized under both international and u.s. law, including both of the inherent right of national self-defense and the 2001 authorization for use of military force, which courts have held extends to those who are part of al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces. if, after a legal review, we determined that the individual is not a lawful target, end of discussion. we are a nation of laws, and we will always act within the bounds of the law. of course, the law only establishes the outer limits of the authority to which counterterrorism officials can operate. even if we determine it is lawful to pursue the terrorist and a questio -- in question, it doesn't necessarily mean we should. there are, after all, literally thousands of individuals who are part of al qaeda and the taliban and associated forces.

thousands upon thousands. even if it were possible to go after every single one of these individuals with a gleeful force would need to be a -- i snore andwith -- with lethal force would neither be a wise nor effective use of our resources. we asked ourselves whether the individual's activities rise to a certain threshold for action, and whether taking action will enhance our security. for example, when considering a lethal force, we ask ourselves whether the individual poses a significant threat to u.s. interests. this is absolutely critical, and it goes to the very essence of why we take as an exceptional action. -- take this kind of exceptional action. we do not engage in legal action to eliminate every single member of al qaeda and it will b -- in the world. most times, as we've done over

a decade, we work in cooperation with other countries who are also interested in removing these tourists within their own capabilities and -- these terrorists within their own capabilities and ans law. we are not seeking vengeance. we conduct targeted strikes because they and necessary to mitigate an ongoing actual threat, to stop plots, prevent future attacks, and to save american lives. what we mean when we say "significant threat" -- i am not referring to some hypothetical threat, the mere possibility that al qaeda my attackers in the future it is significant threat might be posed by an individual who is an operational leader of al qaeda or operational force. or perhaps the individual himself is an offer to in the midst of training for planning to carry out attacks against u.s. persons and interests. or perhaps the individual possesses unique operational

skills that are being leveraged in a planned attack. the purpose of a strike against a particular individual is to stop him before he can carry out his attack and kill innocents. the purpose is to disrupt his plans and plaats before they come to fruition. -- and plots before they come to fruition. our purpose is to only undertake lethal force when we believe that captain the individual is not feasible. -- capturing the individual is not feasible. i've heard it said it tested at the obama administration somehow prefers killing al qaeda members and capturing them. nothing could be further from the truth. it is our preference to capture suspected terrorists whenever and wherever feasible. for one thing, this allows us to gather intelligence we might not be able to obtain any other way. the members of al qaeda let me and other nations have captured have been one of the greatest sources of information about al

qaeda, its plans and intentions. once in u.s. custody, we prosecute them in federal courts or reformed military commissions, both of which are used for gathering intelligence and preventing future terrorist attacks. you see our preference for capturing in the case of a member of alpha about who had significant ties to al -- a kid in -- member of al shebaa who had significant ties to al qaeda in the area peninsula. -- arabian peninsula. since 2001, such unilateral captors by u.s. forces outside of hot battlefields like afghanistan have been exceedingly rare. this is due in part to the fact that in many parts of the world, our counterterrorism partners have been able to capture or kill dangerous individuals themselves. moreover, after being subjected to more than a decade after relentless pressure, al qaeda at ranks have dwindled and

scattered. these tourists are still seeking a remote and hospitable -- places te -- terrorists are skilled at seeking remote and hospitable terrain. oftentimes, attempting capture could subject civilians to unacceptable risks. there are many reasons why captured may not be feasible, in which case lethal force might be the only remaining option to address the threat, prevent an attack, and save lives. finally, when considering legal force, we are mindful that there are important checks -- when considering lethal force, we are mindful that there are important checks on our authority in foreign territories. international legal principles, including respect for state sovereignty and the laws of war, impose constraints. the united states of america respects national sovereignty and international law.

those are the questions we consider, at the high standards we strive to meet. in the end, we make a decision, we decide whether a particular member of al qaeda warrants being pursued in this matter. we consider all the information available to us carefully and responsibly. we reviewed the most up-to-date intelligence, drawn on the full range of our intelligence capabilities. and we do what sound intelligence demands. a challenge it, question it, including any assumptions on which it might be based. if we want to know more, we may ask the intelligence community to go back and collect additional intelligence or refine its analysis so that a more informed decision can be made. we listened to the departments and agencies across the national security team. we ask for them and encourage them. we discussed, we debate, we disagree. we consider the advantages and disadvantages of taking action.

we also consider the cost of inaction, and whether a decision not to carry out a strike could allow a terrorist attack to proceed and potentially kill scores of innocence. nor do we narrow ourselves to counter-terrorism implications but we consider the implications of an action, including the effect any action might have on our relationships with other countries. we don't simply make a decision and never revisited again. quite the opposite. over time, we refresh intelligence and continue to consider whether a lethal force is still warranted. in some cases, such as senior al qaeda leaders directing and planning attacks against the united states, the individual clearly meets our standards for taking action. in other cases, individuals have not met our standards. indeed, there have been numerous occasions where after careful review, we have concluded that lethal force was not justified in a given case.

as president obama's counter- terrorism adviser, i feel i.t. is important that the american people know that these efforts are overseen with extraordinary care and thoughtfulness. is capture not feasible? it is these individual a significant threat to u.s. interests? is this the best option? have we got through the consequences, especially unintended ones? further attack -- is this really going to protect the country from further attacks? is this really going to save lives? we only authorized a particular operation and its best is of

the individual if we have a high degree of confidence that the individual being targeted is the terrorist we are pursuing. this is a very high bar. of course, how we identify an individual naturally involves intelligence sources and methods, which i will not discuss. suffice it to say that the intelligence community has multiple ways to determine, with a high degree of confidence, that the individuals being targeted is indeed the al qaeda terrorist we are seeking. we only strike if we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed, except in the rarest of circumstances. the unprecedented advances we've made in technology provide us with greater proximity to target for a longer period of time, and as a result, allow us to better understand what is happening in real time on the ground in ways that were previously impossible. we can be much more discriminating and we can make more informed judgments about factors that might contribute to collateral damage. i can tell you today that there

have indeed been occasions where we have decided against conducting a strike in order to avoid injury or death of innocent civilians. this reflects our commitment to doing everything in our power to avoid civilian casualties. even if it means having to come back another day to take out the terrorists, as we've done previously. and i would note that the standards for identifying a target and avoiding the loss of lives of innocent civilians exceeds what is required as a matter of international law on the typical battlefield. that is another example of the high standards to which we hold ourselves. our commitment to ensuring accuracy and effectiveness continues even after a strike. in the wake of a strike, we harnessed the full range of our intelligence capabilities to assess whether the mission in fact achieved its objective. we try to determine whether there was any collateral damage, including civilian deaths. there is, of course, no such

thing as a perfect weapon. remotely piloted aircraft are no exception. as the president and others the knowledge, there have been instances where, despite extraordinary conscience we take, civilians have been accidently injured or, worse, killed in these strikes. it is exceedingly rare, but it has happened. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

this is about one hour. >> this afternoon. -- good afternoon. hello. it is great to be here and obviously a great honor for all of us to be able to see four presidents, four nobel peace prize winners, four men a part of history.

[applause] and while we are getting the audio portion of our program together, i know there were introductions to these four great men, so i will be brief. to my immediate right, jimmy carter, former president of the united states. [cheers and applause] he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 2000 to four decades of his untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflict. president miguel borja of of the soviet union, his policies of glass nose led to the downfall of communism and the breakup of the soviet union in 1991. he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1990 for helping to end

the cold war. "time" magazine named him man of the year and man of the decade. mikhail gorbachev. [applause] f. w. de klerk is the former president of south africa, a one of the peace prize in 1993 along with nelson mandela with efforts to end apartheid and initiate the first fully democratic constitution for south africa. president de klerk. [applause] and lech walesa was the president of poland, helping to lead the poles out of communism.

there are the other members, including the pope and mikhail gorbachev. [applause] is that a high five? we are together with men who have changed the course of history, but they are here with a message for all the young people an audience and who are watching, not just across america but in many places around the world, and that is you, too, have the tools to bring about change. it is very simple. there are many examples. but perhaps the most global what

happened in 2010 when a series of protest by young people started that spread to egypt and libya and syria and yemen and became known as the arab spring. they are still riding the future of the arab world as a result of what the young people did there, and in the united states, the u.s. have led the occupy wall street movement, to bring about change in the conversation in a way that the news media is covering this very controversial election here in the united states, a change in the conversation in washington, and so we want to talk to them about things about changing the world and also advise for you about how to change the world. president carter, let me start with you. what do you think the biggest challenge is in the world today? >> i think the biggest challenge is the international

community to go to war only as a last resort. it should also apply to the united nations and all of the regionals. i think now humankind in general are much more inclined to resort to armed conflict instead of negotiations and mediation and a commitment to peace, because all of the major religions say that peace should come fourth -- first, watching the prince of peace, not war. if we all did that, we would not have any more wars, and i am not saying that islam and judaism and others, humankind has got to say that war comes last, peace comes first. [cheers and applause]

>> are there places in the world, president gorbachev, that give you pause right now? >> well, i feel that people are disturbed. and i think that once again, people are asking the question we asked 25 years ago. will there be a nuclear war? something happening in the world. i have heard that again. i heard that years ago, and now i am hearing it again. and i fully agree with jimmy

that we should not be worried. i remember in the politburo, they said it would take a couple of tanks. thousands of tanks cannot solve problems. the most important thing is people want change. and people see that often change is not happening. there are opportunities that have not been used, and again, it is a lack of political will, and more than ever before, without democratization of politics, without political leaders listening, without them listening to civil society, i think we will never succeed.

the democratically minded people everywhere in the world should unite in should understand. the production, industry, agriculture. that is important, but there is a more important thing. the people everywhere in all countries. unless we do that, unless we have governments practically everywhere in the world take kind of a condescending attitude towards the people, we will never put an end to the kind of problems that we are facing.

and very often, the old tricks are being used in this new world. we must unite. we must have solidarity. we must support each other. to change the world for the better. and i think the awards and the nobel peace prize, awarded it for some contribution, for making some difference, so you, too, must act. civil society must be more active than before. >> the role of the people. and the role of government with some examples. last year, for example,

president obama cited a directive to the civilians in libya deciding to allow military power there, and i think many have seen the video. millions have now seen this video of the fanatical head of the resistance army, notorious for murdering civilians and kidnapping children. in october, the president dispatched about 100 troops to you gone back to hunt down joseph kony. and there are human rights activists. in syria, to stop the killing there. where is the role of government in modern society? can you make any sort of broad statements about that? has it changed? >> i think governments and the

opposite, bad government, lie at the root of improving the quality of life of people. for that reason, i have formed an organization called the global leadership organization. prime ministers, presidents, cabinet ministers, and we are all prepared, and we give our advice not-for-profit, and we give our advice sort of beneath the radar. what initiatives to take in order to end conflicts, in order to settle conflicts, in order to govern better, in order to get the economy going, in order to create a better economic climate for foreign investment and the like, so this is

extremely important. i do not think the united states as the only superpower right now should accept the role of policing the entire world. [applause] in all countries, there are governments. a president said there is a time for a big stick and a time for speaking softly. too much big stick. is it not time for speaking softly? of the south african experience, i can testify that we did not change because of oppression, because of the many big sticks wielded. at times, that delayed reform,

and president carter was right when he questioned the effectiveness of sanctions and the like, and is not such an effective instrument to bring about change. peace can only be achieved if you get people involved in that which stands in the way of peace to go to each other. i do not know of any peace effort, a country torn apart by violence, but conflict, which has been achieved without former enemies sitting down, negotiating, and reaching an agreement which becomes part of an accord, so i am a great

believer that the world now needs in addition to an act of civil society needs a sort of private diplomacy to bring about the change of hearts and minds. if we analyze the root causes of those things which suppress people, which causes so much misery, i would identify some, but there are others. for one thing, we are failing to manage diversity. all countries are becoming more diverse. an overwhelming majority of all the countries in the world have important minorities consisting of 10% or more of their population. are we managing diversity? how do we make important

minorities feel -- and appreciated building block of the greater whole? instead of them feeling and actually being marginalized in the country where they have been born, where their children are being born, and where their grandchildren will be born. and the second root cause of all of the misery and all of the oppression lies in the fact that 2.5 billion of the 7 billion people on this earth live as an absolute misery. are hungry. live beneath. so if we look at the bigger picture, i think we need to develop a vision, and world leaders should put their hands and their heads together to develop a vision of how we

effectively manage diversity. secondly, how do we win the war against poverty? people living beneath the bread line, giving them a better life, giving them hope, giving them opportunity. [applause] you areident's waalesa, someone -- president walesa, you are someone fought to give people a living wage, to have them work their way out of poverty, and i certainly do not want to draw a direct comparison. when you look at the youth unemployment numbers in the united states and the difficulty even with a college degree now of getting employment, there is some understanding of what it

means to fight to be able to support yourself. here is a classic picture. you have may be seen it in your history classes. some of you are old enough to have seen it while we were alive. the class emission of you standing up with workers at the shipyard and bringing about the solidarity movement, which changed, again, the course of communism and certainly changed the course of history. tell me what you think the world today is a protests in society -- tell me what you think the world is -- role is to day of protests in society. >> young people tell the truth.

so therefore let us be truthful and implement the truth here, so here i am asking, the chinese nobel peace prize winner, asking yourself in your conscience and ask yourself how we should be a if when our laureate is in prison. but returning directly to your question, until the end of the 20th century, places were divided, continent divided, and there was a great disproportion in the development and standard of living.

in the united states, perhaps you cannot see it that clearly, but in europe, we can see it. now, we have advanced to the technology so much that it is no longer single states and countries. we have come to realize that we have to enlarge the structure in which we organize ourselves, and during the lifetime of this generation, we need to quickly and large our organizations, or otherwise it will continue increasing in the future. for me as a revolutionary, i believe there are three major questions that we need to answer, and the answers to these questions will determine which way we will lead our countries.

the question is what should be the economic system in europe as a single state? not the capitalism we have in place today. we improve it. unless we reform it, it will not survive this century. certainly, we will retain the free market economy. there is no question about that. but certainly not the kind of injustice that we have. on the internet, we can get together over a few hours, and humorous are no longer scared of their neighbors. the world seeks justice.

just checking the weather cheat on them. and the development by improving economic systems to prevent the waist and damage. this is a question we have no answer to. the second is democracy. today, people do not consider this seriously. they emit some representatives, and the following day, they try to write it and get rid of them by rioting on the streets. democracy. we need responsibility on various levels, where technology should safeguard leaders, making sure they implement the platform, and a question that

would really be the fundamental one, what should be the foundation that would allow stable european integrity and stable globalization? ourselves with different freedoms, and this is half of mankind's thinking. the future of civilization. the remaining half claims that nothing stable can be established. this will really miss the media. the stands the best of a chance for prosperity. it has to be safeguarded. but when we speak of values,

there are so many different ones. and what is worse, we do not have an entity or in individual that we can all share and values to serve as a foundation for any solution. if we manage to find that foundation, then, the contraction that we are anticipating. the challenges and opportunities for us all. [applause] >> i would like to make one positive piece on what president walesa just said, which is the prospect for prosperity, the prospects for the future of the young people out there, and i was looking at some old, if you

do not mind me saying, television footage. 1978, the treaty, is that right? and at the signing ceremony, but what struck me was your daughter amy. she would have been 12 years old, and she has a grandson about that age. two grandchildren. do you think these opportunities for peace and prosperity and maybe nuclear peace as we were talking about, but to president walesa's point, are the prospects for peace and prosperity as good or better for your grandchildren as for amy, and how about moving that forward? >> i think the prospects of peace for my grandchildren are better than they were earlier, and amy has two sons right now.

one is 12 years old, and one is just 18 months old. the 12-year-old goes to school. he has no other text books, and he is able to communicate with children, for instance, in china. in china, i went to give one lecture, but he communicated with the school children in china about the common things we have to address for the future. i think by the time we go through another four or five years, maybe when the war in afghanistan is over and iran, and the world sees that peace is possible, then i think there might be a turning of attention for more opportunities for children of all nations to communicate with each other and to learn about one another. >> and does not technology make it easier? we certainly saw the way the pictures were, for example, in

tahrir square, in egypt, when we were able to be interconnected and were able to organize because of twitter, because of facebook, because of the internet. how has technology changed the prospects for peace and for the involvement of everyday citizens to make a better world >> well, the carter center is deeply involved in egypt. i will be going down in a few more days, and i do not think any one of those revolutionary -- would have been possible without the modern technology. the cell phone and that sort of thing. people in communities within libya and within tunisia and within egypt and so forth to gather together with a common purpose, and the point i made earlier about my grandchildren, not only are the children in china and japanmaybe north koree

israelis and the egyptians -- those children are going to be able to talk to each other and communicate with one another, so i think what has happened in egypt or tunisia is likely to happen in the future among children of different nations, and they have something in common, the benefit of peace and prosperity and environmental and equality, i think that will be a major contribution to them wanting to get along better with each other instead of to go to war of the drop of a hat, so i think it is going to been in peace and not war because we understand each other better pure growth harks -- we

understand each other better. >> you and i were talking about presidential candidates who were not going to be allowed to participate. i know all of you have talked about your frustrations in not seeing the war come out of and what you have accomplished. is it harder to create peace or to sustain it? >> they are different challenges.

it requires them to fully accept the need for fundamentals. it is the starting point, and this is what needs to happen. we cannot just maintain the status quo. we need to change in order to improve the environment in order to bring a better life to our key bove and -- in order to bring a better life. it demands adhering to the cornerstones of the agreements of the constitution, which was

negotiated. this was effective protection of private ownership, freedom of the press and freedom of association. all of those are under threat, because it is argued what was good 20 years ago maybe is no longer good tuesday -- today because of bad government. education has not improved. what was needed was a effective governance, good management, and when that falls away, it can significantly damage what has

been achieved. >> those their need to be a face to that change? it occurs to me there were faces to the camp david accords, iconic images and we have had. we know mikhail gorbachev was the face of change and nelson mandela is so connected with the end of apartheid. one of the criticisms of the occupied movement is they will never affect the kind of change they could not, and the coasts -- because they reject being part of the structure, so by not having a face to represent that change, it is difficult for them to do it, and i am sure there

are a lot of students in this audience who went to the occupier movements or were interested in them. do you think without a strong leader it can affect change? >> ladies and gentlemen, whenever we looked up the problem, and we have to the get- respective term. it is a different problem when you have an outsider. good let's look at it differently. each of you can drive almost anywhere all around the world. now won the advancement as also

does, it -- assaultive us, we have to a depth of things we can have that are the same kind, whereas with the different taxation system, a different social benefit systems. the disproportions' are simply too big. but is why when we have this vote, are we talking about respective states problems? we are facing the challenge of greece. they have much better social benefits and poland, and poland is supposed to be helping increasgreece. a similar thing will occur when

we come to terms with governments. we should really begin to think what should be the foundations and only then decide what we can afford three today, bearing in mind all of this is necessary when one country dominates the other. then we assisted those who were the fastest runners. and we should assist those who live behind. isever does not pay tax thoses not to our advantage. everyone is essential.

as we must find jobs for everyone. if we felt there will be revolution. the discrepancies are so great, we have of wide platform for integration. we need to level disproportions in order to enlarge freedom for all of us. these are the challenges of today, but before we were not even allowed to ask such questions. today we have realized it is no longer anyone's benefit. we can create better benefits, but the discrepancies do not allow us to implement the decision, and we have political

leaders. we cannot invent a new vision. hopefully we will find some structures that can lead us forward. good sex does there have to be a singular leader? the answer is an -- >> does there have to be a singular leader? the answer is who is the singular leader in egypt or yemen or syria. the answer is there is none, but you do not need a leader to take charge and say, let's all do this endeavor -- and to gather followers. every student or everyone who believes in freedom or peace or environmentally qualities beaks independently, but their voices combine and make a powerful weapon that can change a government and bring revolution.

in the past you have to have a singular leader. now you do not. i think that is a good signal to say, i can do something. i do not need to wait for someone to tell me what to do. good >> i would like to pick up on that, because i think there is a sense the internet and social media has had an opportunity to bring us together, and president carter, you are known as a peanut farmer. you went on to become a nuclear physicist as well as president of the united states and a nobel peace prize winner. he is one example. if you were in a school in chicago earlier today, president gorbachev was talking about

where he grew up, and it was one of the most impoverished areas, and raised by peasants. can use the globex -- can you speak to youth about the opportunities that were out there, and to say, i came from plains, ga., or from a small town in poland. what can one person june? -- do? >> i think certainly we should not speak about region we should speak about things we have achieved, and they are important. they must be continued, freedom of speech, freedom of protest.

if there is a protest, it may go too far, of but we should definitely preserve the ability of the people, the right of people to peacefully protest, and that is a great responsibility on all of us on the current generation. what i would like to say is but i think the government in many countries understands the importance of youth in every country. we have recently had an election campaign, and there are some youth organization sponsored by the government. one is called our people. what about the government? what about the rest of the young

people? they are not ours? many people do not want that kind of divisiveness, that kind of split of young people into those who are good and those who are not. i think there is a great responsibility of the municipal level and also of the national level to have the right kind of attitude towards young people, confidence and respect. i am sure young people should not the pactiv on the back, should not be controlled. good at is not a way -- that is not the way to work thwith yout.

we will not succeed if young people are just supposed to do someone sitting -- someone's bidding. i think very often that results in irresponsibility, and distortion of the democratic process. that results in the way real problems are ignored, and that may result in extremist and fascist organizations and radical nationalist organizations. we have recently discussed this problem of young people, and the

leaders of some news organizations -- youth organizations have recently taken the path of some kind of extremism. i think it is only within the democratic city that young people can look forward, debate, shows solidarity. without the democratic framework, we could get something quite dangerous and very harmful to reuter >> you bring up a good point about two sides of the corn. good one is what we saw with the arab spring, but there is also up a clear link between poverty and youth and terrorism.

no longer the greatest threat being the soviet union, but the greatest threat in the early 20th-century was considered to be al qaeda, and i am wondering with the splintering of outside the, the you think terrorism is -- of al qaeda, d do think terrorism is less of a threat, particularly in the way discontent and poverty conceived extremism? >> i think it is a real threat, and i think we should start the change in approach and ask why do young people learn in the hands of people like the late osama bin laden, who quiz their minds, who motivate them towards

terrorism? why are they vulnerable to that sort of thing? i think it relates to issues like bad education, failed education systems, issues like unemployment, and no hope for a better life, because of bad economic situations. they have nothing to lose. there is an element of truth. therefore, improving the living conditions of people here give where do the terrorists come from? they come from suppressed countries where people are

surprised. and they come from countries where the masses do not have a good living conditions, and it is stimulated by a fanaticism, so i think terrorism remains of threat. i think if we want the youth to be activated in a more constructive way, and we need to also remember to heads are better than one. i am sitting next to to people who made a tremendous difference, but they had organizational structures, and they were right to say, choose your cross, and a line with an

organization. people believing in the same thing can do better if they develop new and action plan rather than each of them developing narrowness action plan and promoting it on their own -- developing their own action plan and promoting it on their own. and this becomes part of modern technology, which can exercise tremendous influence. i do not think we should glorify process for the sake of process. [applause] >> i could see you wanted to get in on this conversation. >> we should start with a proper diagnosis and a treatment. there was a legacy handed down

to us. we used to have people trained to fight against one another and arm them, and when they collapse and we loved those people without any money, and they began creating their own private wars, and we continue to have problems. people continue to adopt the same methods of struggle, though their motivation is different year ago -- is different. we need to globally identified terrorists, and we will have a proper education, a proper

institution, so i think with the diagnosis, they are appropriate. the treatment can be appropriate, too, but your question regarding young people and leadership, i know when we were young, and one needed to be more than the other. courage is not as needed anymore. we need to better organize ourselves to face the challenges and we have to meet. then i had two strong arguments , one was my belief in god, and i see how far i have gotten, but if i was to become the leader today, i would need to adopt a

slightly different approach. if i want to be a union leader, i would say in 20 or 30 years from now we would need to solve the conflicts and problems in an equal sided triangle. all the conflict should be solved once we sit down to debate in a three-sided triangle. the other side is business owners, and the other side is the level of the administration, depending on what level our original organization is. we should meet in a triangle of like this with the first question being what to make of 20 computers. we will never reach an agreement

if it were not on a computer, so once we decide, we have a second question asked, about the respective demands. we follow with a third questions. how many variations do you 1 2/5 want? only the fourth question is out -- when should we meet again, and this is calculated, and the young people have answered within 20 or 30 years you will help us solve conflicts and

antagonism, and leaving a motion for our lives, and the same should be for political leaders. they should recall every single move of the politician, because i do not want a control of the politicians. i want this shift of records everything in the computer. this is something you have to introduce, because otherwise, the world will not be transparent. i believe this is something we can reach. that is why i do encourage young people, and then we will test things.

>> i have a handful of questions , and iom the audience pinhol think they are fantastic. sam but it is out -- sam is out there. he wrote which very nice handwriting, do you believes faith and religion have any place in humanitarian efforts? if so, are they a help or a hindrance? >> i believe they have a positive place to exert themselves in the future.

when you look at christianity, whether it is protestantism where catholicism, you find the principles are the same, then it is peace. >> it creates a extremism.

it creates fundamentalism, and fundamentalist in any religion, and then the disagreement can deteriorated into feeling the other person is inferior, and that can go further, and saying that person's life is not significant and i can go to taking advantage of that person because they are inferior when in my opinion and in the eyes of god, and i think when we look at

all aspects of religion, so the common goal could lead to the same goals nobel prize leaders try to strive for and the canvidual human beeing adopt. >> there are so many things did have the potential to have an impact, but this comes from brandon.

>> i think every country who that should have capacity is the product of developments. we in this organization held in hiroshima a conference in pleading for a world without nuclear weapons. i think the basis of the old agreement needs to be revisited. [applause] it is good that it failed. it is good we are talking again but a powerful

delegation has started a dialogue. we must stop proliferation, and we must bring down the stores of weapons everybody has who is entitled to have it with international agreements, and the end result is no one can hold nuclear weapons. we should unite to achieve fact. it can be done, maybe not in my lifetime, but it can be done in the last time of young people -- in the lifetime of young people. >> no one claimed to this question, but it is a good one.

how do you get people to care about in justices in the world? a trick question for one of the last questions. >> if i knew the right answer to that question, i could have a new nobel prize. you cannot come up with a think we answer, but i sa all feel responsible, so let's take care of injustice in case we are faced with one. for them to be proper for the

world in which we are living and will continue to live, but i do not know if anybody really knows the answer. your request as anyone here have the answer? maybe not. i think we have time for one more question, but perhaps this speaks to many of the issues we have been talking about today. my teacher wants me to work on many different projects, but i do not feel safe in my neighborhood. how can i make my city safer? he wanted me to give that to president corporate shobes. he wanted to weigh in. >> you have to have more faith. you have to have more faith in other humans, in destiny, and

providence. >> the gross inequities within a community between the rich and seem to put tremendous pressure on the poor to commit crimes because they cannot support their family or because spain and lose self-respect. they do not feel they are part of society -- or because they lose self-respect. they do not feel they are part of society. the first is to remove the inequity. the second thing is to make sure the police and officials try to understand the problems in the neighborhoods where a crime eggs this theory give we had a program in atlanta, and we found out of third of a glance of people -- a third of atlanta

people were desperately in need. the police had good enough job so they can live in the ninth part, and the same with the welfare officers and school teachers. they did not live in the community where the poor people live, so i think that issues the biggest thing, to let the poor feel like they have an opportunity puree good -- an opportunity. >> i hope you feel as privilege as i do to listen to the wisdom, about isgoing to tweet because it is going to be on line, and we want people to have the opportunity to watch ipsit.

[applause] and perhaps they can be inspired, as i hope all of you have been, by these words of wisdom, and i hope it helps you think about how one person can make a difference and promote positive change, whether it is in your community, in your home, or throughout the world. and honor, of privilege. thank you. >> you did a great job.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

. .

and the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. general sherman stated this at the close of the war in 1865 and it remains true today. when the dogs of war are released, don't be surprised. in some ways we are polly anish . when a person is bad, they are bad, regardless of their skin color or religious affiliation. be decisive and brutal at that point.

opportunities may exist, and they must be exploited. imagine the difference if hoe which i men had been given that path. and i do not want to trivialize the complexity of these matters, but we will have opportunities. thank you very much, gentlemen. [applause] >> the next speaker is professor hunter from georgetown university as well as from the center for strategic international studies. >> does this work? >> i hope so. oh, that's only for c-span. can i do that, too? all right. thank you. sorry about that. it shows that i am out of practice. first of all, i would like to thank my old but young friends.

in other words, we have known each other for a long time, and actually wrote stuff together, too, at some point in the going 80's. first of all, i have to say i feel a little bit like a fish out of water. because it's been quite a while that i have not -- that i have focused on terrorism as such. i used to do that a lot more in the 1980's and surrounded by those focused on it academically and -- but so i feel a little bit apprehensive. but i will try to see what i can contribute to the debate that hopefully will be of some use. first of all, i would like to say that i personally am extremely happy that osama bin

laden has been disbanded to a warm place, a hot place, so that is quite good. and definitely we can say that al qaeda today -- going by reading the talks of i'm al-zawahiri, when he was chosen a successor to that, that -- you could see it beneath the bluster and everything that there was concern that they were -- including that he was saying of course now we have trouble getting money, and people have to come, and our friends should help us more in pakistan and other places, so obviously this has been a trauma for them, and every organization, even al qaeda. when you suffer such a blow, it takes a while, a long while,

you can imagine. so what i am trying to focus on is saying what he was saying about tactical and strategic and looking at forces that give us, people like bin laden or al-zawahiri and in light of the arab extreme. to talk about context, and see when one is trying to develop a broader sort of counterterrorism strategy, what are some of the issues that one has to do? i think that obviously there are certain things happen that united states does not have control over it, which helps in the development of movement such as -- for example, the united states does not instigate the soviet -- of

afghanistan. but at once soviets invaded afghanistan, we have to go and do our job. but it's also, we have to understand that the soviet-afghan war was the crucible in which this whole jihad thing really emerged and blossomed. now, i'm not suggesting that -- had written all these things in the 1950's, but this had not been completely operationalized. so what happened was this whole afghan war really became jihad and jihad became legitimized. this is something we have to understand. the link between conflict and this certain types of acts of terror. also the other thing that happened with the soviet-afghan war, was that pakistan

underwent tremendous change, and here, some of our actions of our allies, maybe i don't usually miss -- if i had, i would be in better shape, but what occurred in the pakistan-afghani which you willture. it always existed in the continent but got a new lease on life of -- that went on, and this new -- that happened, this did not -- these did not exist before in pakistan. and i had been brought to pakistan and afghanistan during the whole -- so it is almost unrecognizable. and this is what we have to keep in mind. everywhere else you see the jihaddist idea migrated. whether it was in bosnia or chechnya, it just migrateed

from afghanistan and pakistan, so we have to really keep in mind that who were the people that helped developed whether financially or ideal objectivically and so on and so forth, an so here we come to the -- that is the euphemism for what we all know, so i don't need to say it on television. but you have to come to terms and if you don't, i don't know how we will -- now, we are going to go -- why is it the whole question of terrorism is difficult to resolve? i think one of the things we are seeing happening -- and i hope that it will stay that way. although europe is different when you judge by the horrendous killing that happened in toulouse which really was heart-wrenching, and apparently the person involved in that claimed to have connection with this

new-fangaled group in pakistan called the -- ha did if a who they say is another who i call prioritized where the they have become the mcdonald's or kentucky fried chicken of terrorism. and like a franchise. this is another thing. what of these issues have local roots that unfortunately al qaeda is trying to exploit. and definitely in central asia, an area i look into more rather than nigeria or other places. because definitely pakistan didn't have the militant or terrorist problem as much as they do now. so these are the things that are going to happen. but in terms of what in the

future we are going to do, we have two problems. one of which is the ambiguity and youth abuses of -- terrorism also has to be banned against whomever this is perpetrated. and the minute people have a selective use or approach to terrorism, then it becomes difficult. in other words, if some group steps up against the country that a local power or others don't like, then they call them, you know, liberation movements or whatever, and i can go on and on and name names if need be, but i prefer not to. but to the ambiguous rule of state, it's terrorism. and the most significant factor in years past, i mean, the idea that bin laden was roaming hand in pakistan, and the pakistanis

didn't know about that, to me, i'm sorry. it's just straining credibility to the point of impossibility. so if pakistan cannot protect its own shia population, and you have to separate the shias from iran. that is the fact, because you have 160 million shias, and only 65 million are in iran. so there are 100 million that they treated -- they must treat differently. and while they are slaughtering the shias in that area, all we know is that the pakistan government probably helped them to carry it out -- the terrorism in mumbai and such. so we have to keep this in mind. it is not just al qaeda.

where it is going? i think al qaeda is actually developing in more sectarian focuses. the sectarian focus was very clear in al-zawahiri's speech. he spoke to the persians. he said the heathen persians are becoming strong in lebanon and so on and so forth, and now that he is trying to piggyback on what's going on in syria, it is very much coming sectarian-directed and in iraq it was sectarian-directed, linked to rivalries and so on and so forth. what does al qaeda mean for syria? anytime there's a political process including the syrian

salafis, which i'm hoping they are in minority and i'm not happy they are gaining support of egypt. but anytime you can go through political means, the likelihood of that local group will sort of disconnect themselves from the kind of headquarters. al qaeda after all means headquarters. so we have to wait and see. so for me it seems to me that the arabic -- could have been the worse thing that happened to al qaeda. because they are going to have to play catch-up with that. and i agree with you, adam. that even if you want to get rid of a corrupt government, whether it is egypt, syria, iran and whatever, there are many of them around, so nobody has a sort of monopoly or correction or repression.

and then there are local factor s for this. it's not america that does this. in other words fetishes somebody wants to be corrupt, america says why not go and speak to your people. so you can take action within your own country, and of course there is a political troot that. however, the experience of -- if one can call the events in arabic that happens quite peaceful, and it doesn't work out. i don't think that it's a terrorism central or it never really had existed as such. but nevertheless, a place that everyone can look to, again, this is a misnomer, but some sort of spiritual headquarters that everybody sort of tries to get legitimacy by affiliating

themselves to them, and bin laden did this thing again in the mind to develop. and the other thing is the targets of terrorism change. depending on where grievances tend to exist and where the opportunities exist. so i think this is one of the problems. for example, the russians. because i know a little bit about terrorism in the caucus of central asia and other places. i follow that very much, the chechen issue has not finished yet. but when the russians felt that chechnya has been pacified and now they are having more problems ining a daya and so on and so forth, and so as long as those problems are there, they will continue. so i guess i talked more than i should have, and i apologize for that. but i hope there was something useful in it.

>> thank you very much, shireen. of course we will have questions shortly. i would like to call on dr. murray to speak. she is an associate professor of strategic studies at johns hopkins university. please? >> i'd like to begin by apologizing for my early departure as well. like matt, i need to teach immediately afterwards. so we will be departing together, matt. and i'd also like to apologize, because i feel like i'm going to throw some retorqual bombs here and then run out the door before anybody can get back at me. but i'm not leaving because i'm avoiding the discussions. i think it's an important discussion. i will have strong views though, and i believe the person to my left will disagree

profoundly and if i am not able to engage in the discussion afterwards, please forgive me. so let me begin by saying i groo agree that the death of bin laden is extremely important. this is the founder and chief and radicalizer and the guy that had so much charisma that he was able to convince a whole lot of people to go out and kill themselves for a cause. so i don't want to minimize what the death of bin laden has meant. but as is others, i don't believe that it has killed off al qaeda or that it has even led to the strategic defeat of the group nor do i believe the arab spring as it has developed has led to the death of al qaeda. there was a point last year when there were a lot of hopes, including some that i had that this might point out a different path, especially in

places like egypt. but as it's developed, i don't think it's led to the strategic defeat of al qaeda. and this is because i profoundly agree with an accepted settled view of what al qaeda is. in fact, my definition of the group, mine and a very tiny group of extremists apparently have of the group, and that is i don't think that it's a terrorist group at all. it was in the 1990's. i agree that in the 1990's that was all it was able to be. it had a few one hundred followers and whacky dreams and fantasies about what it was going to accomplish, and it was combined to sudan and then off to the wilds of afghanistan where it could basically do nothing, is that right so in the 1990's i agree it was a terrorist group. but it always had these as

operations for bigger things. faund take a look at the captured document from the our war in afghanistan 2001 and 2002, what you see is they were spending 90% of their money training new gentleman ha deen and regular combat troops and only 10% of their money on what they called special operations, that is attacks on the united states. so even back in the 1990's, they had as operations, although unfulfilled as operations for bigger and better things, and they were spending a lot of their time developing those rather than attacking the united states. i would also like to say this at the beginning is one of the things that has profoundly distorted this is our views of 9/11 and made it all about us. 9/11 made us think that everything that's going on in the world that has the name al qaeda attached to us is about us.

but it really wasn't. the fact that eight times as many muslims have been killed out in the world since 9/11 versus americans, it should tell us something about where al qaeda is focusing its attention and main effort. so i think 9/11 distorted the discussion quite a bit. that's because i think also we have misunderstood what al qaeda's objectives are. all right? we believe that their main objective of al qaeda core is to attack the united states when in fact that's a means towards an end. we have confused means with objectives which in strategic thought and planing is one of the basic mistakes you can make and which leads to all sorts of confusion about what needs to be done and policies need to be adopted in order to take on and defeat a group. the means were attack the united states, get the u.s. out of muslims countries entirely. bin laden had this complete

informants in fact disputed by a lot of the members of the al qaeda in the 1990's that the u.s. was this cowardly country that you could carry out a few attacks and then run for it. they would run for it. but then what happened afterwards? that led to his real strategic plans which they have expressed multiple times not just in open statements and articles written by al qaeda analysts but also in the few captured documents we have from iraq that are public, they are expressed multiple times. here they are. stated repeatedly. basically if you go back, and itch, and read every single statement made by al qaeda's leaders for the past 10 years, these are repeated ad nauseam. fist and foremost to overthrow all the rulers of muslim- majority countries and second

to impose their version of sharya in those places and around the world if they are able to do it and third is to create emirates which are states that have very specific characteristics and eventually set up something they call the cal fate, and beyond that they have a fifty objective i don't talk about it, because it really fits in the fantasy mold, which is world conquest. so those were the five but really four they focus on all the time. they call it making the word of god the highest. and to them that means world conquest. so those twrp fundamental objectives, sort of the grand, strategic objectives, right from the start the things they have spoken about over and over again and really have nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the united states. repeatedly, when they talk about their objectives, oh, and by the way, one of our main objectives so attack the united states.

i think attacking the united states before 911 -- before 9/11 was about this and after was showing people they were still really vent and recruiting. but not about those main objectives any longer. so that is why i call al qaeda not in a terrorist group, because a terrorist group is a small secretive group, a few hundred people. don't have either the capabilities or desire to expand further. unable to recruit people in their organization fast enough to replace them and they are unable to hold territory and invade it. so when you look at al qaeda the core, that's what was going on but as you point out, the term al qaeda actually means headquarters and the first term for themselves was "the high command" something that's in these captured documents, the high command they hoped would be bigger and since 2005-2006

has begun to live up to these as operations of the 190's. they set out to create what you call franchises, but they called them branches of their organization. they believe that those branches are an intragoodwill part of their organization and they are carrying out their orders not off on their own, they believe. simply conquering territory, doing all kinds of things that they shouldn't do at least that's what they thought until czar couey came along, and suddenly they couldn't get these guys to agree with them idealologyically and on objectives and strategies to go about achieving these, because al za with a harry is what happens when you don't have tighter command and control. so before 2005-2006, they were slowly creating something, and then czar couey showed them what would happen if you allow somebody to completely destroy

your name, and since that time they have kept a much tighter command and control that was possible during that time. i don't think it's any convince tcheans about that time it's when osama bin laden moved into that house in pakistan. because the way we knew about communications before last year suggested that they used couriers only to carry their orders around, and that turned out not to be helpful at all especially when you saw the orders and al za with a harry simply says, no thank you, i'm not going to do what you suggest. >> yes. >> so they move in this house and the early reports said in the house there were fiberoptic connections in the house. so to me that answered a huge question about my assertions that were backed up by veryly.

about command and control. i could see them putting out orders and but how precisely are you going to thorgs an global scale without some sort of command and control? although i should point out command and control in an irregular war is very different than in a regular war. a regular war always has a much bigger chance for splintering and general strategic guidance from the high command rather than specific daily updates required and things like that, so even before i heard about abod bod, there was a recing in addition at least by -- a recognition, at least by me that the -- commanders around the world. so i -- in 2009-2010, i had

rough conversations with people in which they debated this command and control idea because the answer i couldn't answer how you could do this from a cage in northern waziristan. as soon as i heard he was in abod abod i thought wow, i am getting this. and as soon as i heard the there were these fiberoptic communications i thought you don't have to depend on courier service. now i'd like to finish by saying that i understand making this assertion, that is this is not a terrorist group but in fact a headquarters or high command of something that it's attempting to become or is in the process of becoming a global insurgence as i has an awful lot of policy implications, some of which are

tremendously unpalatable, but i don't believe that you should ignore what reality is telling you, because one, you can't afford it or two you just don't like what reality is telling you, right? because the fact that we can't afford to carry out an global insurgence as i should not make us flinch from recognizing at least the scope of the problem we're dealing with. so i understand that there are tremendous policy cases from everything i'm saying and first and foremost it argues that attrition is absolutely the wrong way to go. it will in fact encourage radicalization and recruitment and that our main method for combating these guys is probably adding to the problem rather than helping to solve it. there's an awful lot of places where it's the only thing we can be doing, though, because we don't have partners or capabilities ourselves and we

believe that's it. maybe that's true. maybe that's not. but to engage in a process that's in fact worsening the problem for us on a daily basis is not the way to go if in fact we are not dealing with a terrorist problem but an insurgence as i problem. i have to stop there and please forgive me again after leaving these retorqual twists that i have to leave. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. mary, but wait. wait a few minutes before we dom back to your ticking fwom. and we're going to ask our final figure after -- was a distinguished -- gnawed snaud at the institute for national strategic studies and national defense university. and retired from the military after 26 years or so.

>> thank you very much. i want to thank you for having me here today. as you mentioned i'm a research fellow at the university so let me open up with comments that neither represent the host of my institution or the department of defense my ultimate employer but are the product of my own research and individual conclusions. again, delighted to be here today. and as we near the one-year anniversary of the operations that eliminated bin laden, i'm here to contend perhaps not as starkly as mary about diverging with her position but rather than overestimated the death of bin laden we still underestimate and underappreciate the degree to which bin laden's death has made understandable -- here's what i disagree with mary not what is an insurgence as i but

radical idealology which has prospered under an organization which tried to bring life to five different did mentions in an attempt to get his arms around it and channel it in the direction mary pointed out to him but bin laden's personality was no less than staalen's and we misappreciation badly if we think it's not the equivalent of lennon dying in switzerland before making it into -- because there was no one who brought together the charisma faund raisings ability and i was like mary, convinced that bin laden was a strategically really vent communicator with various and dis pretty outfits and to a certain extent i have to admit i had insider knowledge and i worked on the problem of iraq, and we knew

bin laden personally was involved in communications to corral and bring under control al zawahiri. we knew he was involved in all these types of things working through mediums and individuals, and knew he was there doing it, and as a consequence, bin laden was relevant. consequently, his death changes or evolves or morphs al qaeda in what it is, but it also leaves -- to what mary and sharin and matthew refers to which is the wide irideology. and it remains and is the issue. but like a would irbeing rubbled into small pebbles, when you take away the glue and cohesion and are left with what matthew says is sand paper as the relevant cohesion idea then

you are left with a different managerial problem and one that i think needs another vocabulary to understand but not that it's irrelevant but taking it on in a relevant global conflagration but you bring down your overseas foot sproint you are not a ma fast sized group and you focus on operations and work with partner nations, some who may not share your pro cliffty for democracy in the short-term but who want to see this same threat diminished, and third that you spend a lot more time on your intelligence and police cooperation because rubbled elements are less of a athlete to do what mary referred to which was the outside inappropriate that al zawahiri uniquely brought to this in that we are failing in trying

to overthrow corrupt governments in 1990's, algeria, and we come together to throw out this influence of western nations. this was indeed the spark of al qaeda that was the most significant to altering the organization of what was the chaos of the jihaddy movement that ma sasttized the movement. and in recognizing this change and backing off of the rhetoric of trying to take on every one of these affiliate groups as if they are an inherent threat of what bin laden or al zawahiri mentioned because he is claiming he is influencing syria and because we make a policy mistake if we move in that direction when in reality it is voices of the islamic world where i have had the

privilege of living in qatar and pakistan. it is those voices that indeed at the end of the day are going to find it moving another way than violence which is underpinning gentleman hadism and which they orkedsed to move in a more globally-focused and therefore dangerous -- that did galvanize us on 9/11 but doesn't need to galvanize us in that same way now. so what is it about al qaeda that has changed? and al qaeda tried to graft itself on top of this movement brought to the fore. and the five elements of al qaeda, which, by the way, has been, as mary quite correctly denotes, has been trying to coop and bring together knees

elements that are insurgent-based inside the muslim world the, i argue, first, it aspired to be a core to, train and organize and organize catastrophic terrorist events against westerners especially in their homelands and as mary correctly said and for the purpose of what? furpts of getting us out of muslim slooneds they could have free reign to aoverthrow what they believed, negative regimes. and recently-focused jihaddist groups in redirected violence against westerns and in the muslim lands where their presence was thought to defile islam and third, an inspiration to the disaffected and lone wolf muslims nationwide to act

out on their frustrations of perceived oppression against islam. fourth, and very important, to serve as a brand name to represent the highest level of this ideology in bringing successful violence against the so-called crusader governments and officials in which most senior leaders remain free from punishment or pent or harm. and here was the mystical notion of al qaeda prior to the raid against bin laden was this notion of impunity that bin laden and al-zawahiri was immune. they could find a way to sucker or hide out and the long arm of westernism couldn't get to them. then fifth that they, al qaeda, would serve as a base certain for the conquest of afghanistan and included in that is western pakistan. and this is important. because of the mystical or gins about where al qaeda came from

and how it then turned itself towards first these local jihad activities and then eventually towards the galvanized framing and bringing together of al zawahiri's jihad with al qaeda in the focus on the far enemy first and to defeat near enemy second. these elements three of them have been totally -- this notion of a brand name that was free from retribution or impunity, that was brought to its knees, and most of us that follow jihaddy websites is that you clearly over the next two to three months. the notion of how could this have happened followed by a claim and desire to have rebecause of rage but the notion of impunity and living above the law, that came crashing down by way of this

raid and al-zawahiri and others of the limited number of remaining core groups are suffering the wrath of that. we have made it clear to the pakistanis andors that any obvious intelligence on al-zawahiri would produce the same kind of response. that's to the right and even though he is sand paper to bin laden's grew, he still controls the cohorts of well-trained and well-cape ible egyptians and to a lesser extent, algerians who are very capable of attacks, and should not be taken lightly. second, is the notion of this core organization able to plan and recruit and conduct overseas operations that, has been put asunder in the last five or six years. we can all point to things that have been plotted or planned and our intelligence has seen

that since 2006 but we have also shown ability to work and adapt with partners to include the much-maligned and deservedly so the january is spaced pakistan to corral and arrest a number of these folks who were plotting very massive attacks in western europe and in some cases against us in the homeland or to find the critical intercements, so al qaeda the core group no longer has that cache or ability nor do i think they can regain it based on who is left alive and listing those left who other than al-zawahiri have capabilities to thorgs type of group. and there i argue that the relationship between bin laden and omar and -- was a personal relationship. and i think we are starting to

see more of that confirmed? n the people being released. having lived in that part of the world and done a lot of work with the thankful assistance of peter and others suggests to me strongly that it's not the ideological linkage but rather the strategic linkage to pakistan and how far pakistan wishes to see the motions that jihad to western pakistan is being fermented into a larger problem that that's the constrainting break right now on this particular part of the world where does that legislative us? the things about al qaeda that are left throughout that we do need to worry about. but we have to take a different tact and approach and one we're seeing already has to do with an attacked and approach that says reduce the foot flint western military where you can and forces, indirect strikes

and better police force nations and that's where i think we're headed in somalia and slow for some of our liking but we should expect that al qaeda is trying to really coop these regional groups. again, the bus analogy, let's make sure the handle on the wheel is connected to the bus and not just a claim or attempt to claim ener -- ownership of -- and the second is the lone wolf an attacker where we in the united states finally started to come to grips and i refer you to the recent counterterrorism strategy where the phrase resilience comes up of and over and over again and has to do with the fact that no matter how food we are, we're never going to do away with the loan wolf that shows up at the recruiting station or with a proclaimed self-professed

internet activity that reads one of the claimed affiliates and go off and do something negative. they are harder to get to be but harder to effect upon and i think it's time we follow our modern capabilities and so long as we keep connected with these parts of the world. so the prescription is not to oversize or produce -- recognize al qaeda's uniqueness historically was an attempt to bring that together. and that made it dangerous. and that policy, i argue needs to reflect that going forward. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, very much, tom. in honor of our speakers would

like to develop some sort of discussion, especially because i know that mary and matt have to leave for your teaching. ok. are there any questions now at this point? and -- >> would you kindly come to the mike over there? >> we have scared them speechless. >> can i say one thing about this whole -- >> you can honestly for the members of the panel to make a statement or ask a question or comment. somebody here. milton? >> sort of -- milten hoenig, i have a general question. what you've said have to do with the concern over a rise in

domestic terrorism. and terrorism perhaps inspired by the ideals of al qaeda even after the death of bin laden. what is your feeling about the importance of a concern over domestic terrorism? what is the panel's concern about them? >> mary? >> i -- on the one hand, what i've said might seem to minimize the danger from terrorist attacks, but in fact terrorist attacks are one of the major means that al qaeda has used in this war as a whole. so it's one of their major tactics, so i personally do not believe that anything i said should minimize the threats that we face for potential terrorist attacks. and i'd like to just say about al-zawahiri in particular, if

he wereer smart, he would never carry out another attack on the u.s. again. because unless americans are dying, apparently we don't care. so if he were smart, he would never, ever, ever attack us again. and keep doing what has been going on in the rest of the world as one person put it to me, the garden spots of the world. this person put it dismissively. and we wouldn't intervene. you know, he made if he made a public declaration tomorrow, we've given up. we're not going to attack the u.s. again, i think that would be one of the smartest things he could do strategically, given his war aims, but i don't believe he'll do it, because i believe i have a slightly different read of al-zawahiri than others around the panel do. 15 years ago i think that was right on. i think he had ticked off everybody in his entire

organization that he had started. he had such an abrasive personality i think caused by certainly events in his life, most especially that he was tortured so horfully and betrayed his best friend to death. so i think there was a lot of pent up anger that kept him from playing well with the other children. but on the other hand he's had 15-20, nearly 20 to watch how bin laden did things, to learn from him and see how to the the organization works, and i'm sure he has a deputy as well who will take over for him if he is killed, because this organization is a tightly-knit organization with room for guys getting killed off and replacing them. not that it doesn't happen an lot. it does. but a lot of people expected the worldwide thing to collapse after the death of bin laden, and that didn't happen. there were 40 days of silence, because that's the mourning

period, and then he was announced as the next head, and things just went on. but on the other hand, i said i don't think he will be able to give up attacking the united states even though his strategic focus seems to be egypt and la vanity and exploiting the arab spring in particular, from everything he is saying, but he is also extremely angry at the united states. and i think his attack on the u.s. won't be about chasing the u.s. out of the -- our lands. it won't be about fundraising, per se, in fact, i don't think it will have a rational basis at all. i think it will be pure revenge, because it was the u.s. that killed his wife and kids i don't know he's ever forgotten that anymore than he has forgotten that he was tortured by the egyptian government and betrayed his best friend. so i do worry about attacks on the u.s., but i don't see them as having the tight sort of

strategic aims that bin laden's 9/11 attack had that went after economic, military and political centers. i believe it will just be in a sort of -- i want revenge, and he will do it regardless whether it's to the benefit of the group or not. >> yes. i think that part of that is irrelevant in that the attacks in the united states could come from al qaeda core. it could be driven by al qaeda core. and i do think there's something to be said of the fact that the al qaeda core has less of the capability to do the spectacular it once did, though there are still very capable people out there who know the united states who are certainly trying to carry out attacks. but the larger thing, to get to the question which was about the homegrown violent extremist threats and that's that those

here won't be from the al qaeda core any bigger than they are from the big idea. it's not that we won't have at least attempts on spectacular attacks, whether it's from the franchises or the core. you will still have that. but with -- what will likely be more previous excellent homegrown violence from those extremities. some may be from pakistan and others will not. hopefully most of those will fail or be thwarted. if they are not, let's call a spade a spade. we did not thwart the it is bombing. they just couldn't remember how to make the bomb go off with the right material and then they couldn't figure out how to wire the train bombs just right. in some ways i think that's what we'll see.

i don't take a whole lot of comfort from this, so it may not be an attack that will kill thousands, but hundreds. if you had several of those, it could have a devastating effect economically, as well. so it's important to understand al qaeda beyond and go beyond what is the core today or what might it be tomorrow? it's unbelievably relevant and tomas, i think your paper was good but it's beyond that. it's affiliates and the idea has ma fast sized and we don't do a good enough job at the terrorist level because homegrown extremists tend to be griffin by one, most importantly, i believe, a radical ideology but what opens them to it are things that have to do with social cohesion, whether it's being

underemployed or unemployed or not knowing a third-generation muslim or as we've seen in europe. if you look at the sew mallian-american community, there's a lot we can do that's not in the national security realm that would or could go a long way in making the country safer. >> i think there's an implication that mary and matthew touched on that i want to highlight here. that is the feature of the core in being able to this cadre of bomb makers and trainers and rehearsers, and matthew's point of the failure of the it is was indicative that he was a boy scout and farouk amude couldn't get his underaware to go off in the airplane meant he didn't have enough training. >> she called these guys tongue in cheek, anytime wits but the

difference between 7-7 was the absence of a last-minute visit bay capable bomb visit that caused the bombs to not go off in the south london subway strike but did in the northern part two weeks before. so there is something to a core and taking something which can either be comeical or mildly tragic or hugely tragic that we have to be careful to not must understand misunderstand as a core degradation of the core. but my point is if we instead focus on the how those pathways exist and people working with impunity and how you look through the internet to see how disgruntles show up with a rival the next day.

that doesn't mean complacency but those kinds of attacks, those are the ones we should fear a little more, because they require less of the hi-tech capability to get in with a management al qaeda core brought but a lot of these other groups really don't. >> sharin? >> yes. not exactly only to that. but more in terms of the long-term thing. first of all, if i may say about bin laden. every single person since the death of the prophet mohammed has wanted to have that, wanting something doesn't necessarily mean they can do it. they want to have islamic ha latha, but you have to be realistic. you cannot just say that a list of -- as something of a strategy and then say this is a global insurgence as i.

i'm sorry to say that, mary. because that is only that. that's a list. now there never is going to happen within the muslim world and you have to realize history is important. we unfortunately ignore history at our own peril. even recent history. and we don't want to see contradictions in our own policies in the regions. we have had a relationship with a country that has played us like a fiddle. and that name is pakistan. we don't want to concede that because of, including the fact that we basically made ourselves a hostage of pakistan because of our own afghan policy. if you have only one root and then the root has to come from afghanistan or god knows. then you obviously pakistan is going to do whatever you want to do.

i'm sorry to say that. the other thing that we don't want to understand about this smovement saudi arabia. i'm sorry. it's another word for mohadism, and it has started since the 1960's. and as long as we don't understand this. i just gave you this thing that is american published that the lawyers find that they helped al qaeda. and this has been -- this is 9/11 victims and -- and then this looks for terrorist groups in latin america that doesn't exist. this is something that we have to say, we are failing american people if we don't realize some of this. so. hali faye and all this is just that. it's a pipe dream. the problem is the muslim community is never going to be -- one of the things that is dangerous right now. and i will go to that. and it is getting more and more

dangerous is the intensify indication of sectarian and regional conflict. we are making even a country, turkey. it is going to pay a heavy price for his ambition instead of zero problems, he has now problems with just about everybody. so what i am saying is that all of those things, i agree 100%. and we have to follow this monthly disenchanted of pakistani, and at the level of grand strategy, we have to be a little bit honest with ourselves that how we have been shooting ourselves in the foot. we keep stay saying the taliban and al qaeda don't have any relationship. whoever believes in that, believes in tooth fairy, i'm sorry. [laughter] >> and i will sell you the brooklyn bridge. i will shut up. but i was invited for that, because that's the only thing i can contribute. >> don't go away. >> i am not.

but >> just one point of clarification. you're right. everybody wants to create the calify. >> expect except me. >> all these and it's a question of as operations versus capabilities. so here's a great example. they attempted to carry out military coups and failed missouriically in other countries. when i look at al qaeda, i see that they have not just that as operation, but they are also talking about world won quest. well, the issue for me is where are they in chiefing their objectives? to me, i see that the first objective of overthrowing these rulers seems to have happened through other means, but there are places like egypt where

mubarak is no longer in charge. but immediately they wanted to set up sharya in those places but failed. the only places they have managed to set up sharya are yemen or iraq or northern pakistan where they have formed it to the everlasting hatred of most of the people in those countries, by the way. and in the creation of these emirates, they think they have but the metrics in measuring whether they are successful -- >> about 0 people created an emirate in a small village in -- >> to me the most important metric in saying whether they are succeeding or failing is are they controlling people's behavior? are they forced to wear the clothing or wear the beard or pray the way they want or forced to give up kite-flying

and all those other things. it's very similar to what they created in afghanistan with the taliban and there they were largely successful at making that happen. and the last thing is fear. on the ground we got to see that for themselves. nobody there really wanted these guys except for some people who had some revenge fantasies. but i guess the important thing is, is there are what people want and what is imposed on them. and everywhere these guys have managed to impose their vision and where al qaeda claims they control these people, only with the help of outside actors have we been able to get rid of them once they have set up their so-called emirates. so the people of chechnya were inca