host: kevin, boston. democrat line. caller: right now, in america, how hard you think it is for interest to attack when it is so easy for any american to get a weapon on the street. to attack somebody on a public train -- i get on the train every morning. there are a lot of people. i get nervous sometimes. guest: that is a good point. i have often wondered the same thing, just someone with a handgun going into a crowd. two reasons. there is not a lot of interest in supporting al qaida in that way.

>> we take you now live to the wilson center in washington for a discussion on the role of courts of in a democracy. a number of legal scholars will talk about that. this is just getting under way life here on c-span.

>> i am clearly not prepared for this level of silence. >> there is word out on a scam

targeting firms. [unintelligible] they send you money. and then they say, they overpay you. would you mind sending the money on to a third party. people do do this. it is usually 10, $30,000, $50,000. you think you are getting $40,000. you find out after you send it on that the wire transfer did not clear. it is a flip.

the fbi white-collar task force -- >> now i do not know how i will put my children through college. >> are we starting on our queue? ready to go. >> good evening. my name is bill robinson and it is my privilege to serve as president of the american bar association. program, inoday's the courts and a constitutional democracy and america. it is a pleasure to be here at the woodrow wilson center for scholars in the heart of our nation's capitol.

please look around this spectacular building and facilities. this is our 11th annual program to commemorate lot day and our third year conducting it here at the wilson center. we are very pleased to have the wilson center as our host and program partner. at this time i have the pleasure of introducing my good friend who is serving as national law they share. mark? -- law day chair. >> thank you for joining us for this annual celebration. the tradition we observe today began in 1958 when the american bar association president charles ryan persuaded dwight eisenhower to start date.

since then every u.s. president including president obama has issued a proclamation recognizing the may 1 as law day. i would like to recognize the support of our partner organizations, our host, the woodrow wilson center for scholars, the humanities councils represented by president mcintosh, the league of women voters represented by nancy tate. please join me in thanking all of them for their support. [applause] i also would like to acknowledge the american bar association's staff which has worked hard to organize this and our other activities, particularly those in the public education division

that organized this annual event and the communications division. each year they select a theme i can inform and inspire the hundreds of programs and activities that take place in state capitols and city halls across america. nois your's team, no courts, justice, no freedom. it was chosen to call attention to a problem many of our fellow americans are aware, the serious underfunding of our state courts and the effect of an adequate resources on the quality of justice and our nation. i would like to share a brief excerpt signed today by president barack obama. this year's theme, no courts, not just as, no freedom, recalls the historical role our courts have played in defending the rights and liberties of all americans. our courts are the guarantors of social order and public safety

and we must do everything we can to enable their critical work. courthouse doors must be open and the necessary services must be in place to allow all zero litigants to operate efficiently. likewise we must ensure that access to justice is not an abstract theory but a concrete delivery that promises council and assistance to all who seek it. we all join the president in the hope that this law they has provided an opportunity for all americans to reflect on the vital role of the courts in safeguarding our rights and liberties and bringing us closer to the day where the dream of equal justice under law will be a reality. we now conclude our observances with this discussion of the courts and constitutional democracy in america. thank you for being with us. i hope you enjoy the program.

[applause] >> thank you very much. at this time it is my privilege to introduce an call to the microphone the director, president, and ceo of the center for scholars, jane harman. [applause] >> it is my pleasure to welcome all of you to the wilson center for this important the event. this is the second time, at least on my watch, i have welcomed it as a group. many of them are dear friends. many people on this podium are good friends. it will be exciting for all of you to hear this panel discussion. i just want to make a few brief points. on this stage yesterday, john brennan who is a deputy national

security adviser and special assistant to the president told the world for the first time that, yes, in fact, the u.s. operates a drone program that targets certain individuals under certain circumstances. it was very important to him and the administration that this program be as transparent as possible and it operate fully under the rule of law. it was a very important speech. the lawyer in me was pleased to hear him say how important it was that our programs operate fully under the rule of law. there has been a lot of conversation about some actions in this era of terror that some including me feel has exceeded or been outside of the rule of law. it was very comforting to me to

hear yesterday this point. one of the reasons this matters is, as we all know, our constitutional at -- our constitution is the center in which our country operates. secondly, as lawyers, we believe this is important. in this battle against bad guys around the world, one of the values that we have that is rock-solid most important is our obligation to operate fully under the rule of law. i was very comforted by what he said. it sets up a lot day to me this year in a way that is particularly special. let me finally say i actually knew leon. he was not a close friend of mine but many people who worked for him on that watergate commission i guess you -- i guess it was called were people

we worked with on the hill and new as peers. that was a difficult and stressful time in our history. many in this room may not have lived through it, but the fact our country survived things like the saturday night massacre what i thought this city might erupt into gunfire is another testament to the rule of law. let me just say the wilson center loves hosting this event. i think it signifies something very important to all of us as lawyers, but also in these stressful times when there are a lot of issues about some of the operations of our government. it is comforting to know they do come to the wilson center like john brennan and pledged to uphold the rule of law. thank you for being here. i hope you enjoy the panel.

[applause] >> thank you very much. our lot day theme this year as all of you here know is "no courts, no justice, no freedom." we selected this thing to emphasize why courts are so important. we also want to underscore that without our courts we simply could not sustain the rule of law in the united states. indeed, open and accessible courts are the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. the framers of our constitution recognized the framers of the courts when they made the judiciaries one of three coequal branches of our federal government. our courts are where we go to have our rights protected, our disputes resolved. our courts, however, need

adequate funding to ensure that americans have access to justice. without the access to justice, the fundamental freedoms that we all enjoy and treasurer are profoundly threatened. unfortunately, there has been a troubling trend in our state courts as a result of declining budgets and increasing workload. many of our state courts are seriously underfunded. this is especially disturbing because state judiciary's handle over 95% of all cases processed in this country. courts simply must be open, available, and properly funded and supported. courts are the very guardians of our fundamental freedoms. we must all do our part to sustain them so that they can do their work to sustain

constitutional democracy in america. constitutional democracy is the key to freedom. freedom is what we are talking about today. i am pleased to introduce our program moderator, john milewski. he is the host of the television and radio program "dialogue." john is a veteran broadcast journalist and a communications professional with extensive experience as a moderator, interviewer, anger, reporter, and producer. he is a frequent moderator for programs and panel discussions of the american bar association division for public education for which john we are very grateful. i am pleased to turn the program over to john and look forward to this panel discussion.

[applause] >> thank you. you were kind enough to not add that i was born the same year as lot day. and the spirit of transparency. welcome to the wilson center. some of you are familiar faces from these past programs you referenced. i want to say hello to you joining us via c-span. we are happy america's favorite network is here to cover the event because we have interesting things to talk about. my job is to introduce you to our panel. all of you pick up a program on your way answer you can get extensive bios within the program. i will get to the abbreviated program. i will do it from your left to right. next to me is christine duraham.

also with us is mickey eswards he was in the u.s. house of representatives for oklahoma until 1992. he is vice president of the aspen institute. linda greenhouse is a senior research scholar and a lot and is a night distinguished journalists at yale law school. sherrily ifill joins us from the university of maryland france's key carry school of law. and finally, jeffrey rosen. please welcome our panel. [applause]

i want to begin with the concept -- everybody knows the concept of the elevator speech. did any of you have to tolerate one on your way in? this idea that if you have only captured a person's attention from the time it takes a person to reach their destination in an elevator, the question is, what is the elevator speech if you are responding to the question about the role of our courts and our constitutional democracy? what is the brief version of that? would you tell a newcomer to the country or an alien invasion force to the planet, somebody you are trying to educate on that. let's do it in reverse order. >> we are on the sixth floor of an aid for building.

>> 30 seconds. the role of the court is to enforce constitutional limitations when they are clear and to defer to the legislature when the constitution does not speak. basic rights like freedom of speech, expression, privacy, all of these have been enforced by courts. they are guarded not only by judges but engaged citizens of the united states of america. >> it is -- i would say no rights that you hold in a democracy has any meaning without the presence of a fair and impartial courts. it is the one branch of government we all have equal interests, should have equal interests. it is the one branch of government that actually cannot

-- the it is absent means the absence of democracy. there can be problems in the legislature. there can be problems with the president. some of you mentioned watergate for example. when the courts become corrupted, you cannot have a democracy. >> a very good. >> just to build on that. you are talking to someone once before i was like for an interview with the mayor of baltimore and i consumed an entire sandwich in the elevator on the way to his office and his office was on the second floor, that is not a pretty sight. [laughter] independence i think is really the key to making work the principles that they just enunciated. i will quote -- there are a lot of good essays in this booklet. my favorite before i saw it

here, this is from justice brier who talks about judicial independence on page 12. he said, ultimately independence is a custom, institutional expectation. to build those requires time and support not only from the bench but the communities where they serve. we are talking about a culture that respects the courts, trust the courts, and that is part of what law is about and why we are here. >> terrific. >> democracy is not an end, it is a means. is about process. the barometers of what is a healthy democracy like the kind we try to get established in other places and to reserve our own country are two things. what is the ability to choose

for ourselves who will make the laws we live under and second is to establish justice at the very beginning of why we treated the constitutional system we have, to establish justice. it is also to make sure every citizen has a day in court in front of a fair and impartial bench. >> we have kicked this to you. >> i think i would offer an answer to the question that suggests that the mission of court is the fulfillment of the state oppose a constitutional obligation to its citizens to provide a fair and impartial forum and for the vindication of the individual rights. >> thank you. that concludes our discussion.

[laughter] now what i will ask you to do is a free-for-all. put your heads together. you have already begun to do it. what are the essentials of this system? what are the non-negotiable is? what are the primary things that without it would not be able to function. let's see what kind of list we can put together for the next few minutes. who would like to begin? >> i was going to say i will take the pragmatic approach again and suggest resources are essentials. one of the things i learned in my experience was leaving a state court system and working with state court systems a round the country is that, courts are no longer a small private affairs. they were once local courts existing in small communities. they are now large complex

organizations and the share of volume than 95% of the judicial business that president robinson elated to translates and close to 50 million filings' exclusive of traffic in state throughout the year. without adequate resources, those cases cannot lead to just resolutions of dispute. >> speaking of numbers, you shared a number with me in an earlier discussion of the difference between the amount of federal cases versus the amount of states. >> when you translate the 95% -- in a single year the federal court saw about 385,000 cases filed per year. in the state courts nationally for the same period of time, that is for the whole country. in the state courts the aggregate number was over 47 million cases. it is truly staggering in

proportion. i do not mean to be disrespectful to the federal courts, but they do not do as much work as we do. >> how about the power of judicial review? we have a great exit from alexander hamilton that says without the ability of justice to strike down unconstitutional laws the people cannot be supreme. it is crucial -- here it is. no legislative -- camby ballot. the servant is above his master, the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves. this does not suppose the judges are superior to anyone else, the power of the people is superior. when it stands in opposition declared to the constitution, the judges should be for the

latter rather than the former. they represent the fundamental values of representing the constitution. >> resources, judicial review, you had tried to get in there earlier. >> i was going to mention the concept of transparency. i think people have to feel that the courts are doing their work in the public space. you can debate the finer points of this. i think one area of concern is the privatization of justice to the extent that dispute resolutions move outside the courts into the hands of private arbitrators or whatever, that is fine for efficiency and probably works pretty well much of the times for the parties. it cuts out the public. i think that is something we

have to keep in mind. >> i was going to vote for transparency as well. i would say it is transparency of not only the process of judicial decision making but selection. i think the public has to be able to feel and see justice. justice is not something you can hear about by rumor. you have to encounter it to believe in it. the public has to feel not that they necessarily have a direct role in the selection of everyone who sits on the court, but they can see the mechanics at work that show how judges gets elected, how they -- know behind the curtain selection of judicial officers. because we want to have this level of respect for them and to put them in this position. that really requires this be transparent to the public. the transparency issue is important.

the open court, the idea of being able to walk in and sit down and watch any proceeding and watch a justice on the bench engage in oral argument or preside over a trial is critically important to our sense of the courts as being real, as being real democratic institutions. and to the legitimacy of the bench. anything that happens behind closed doors leads to rumor and innuendo. i think clinton is being charitable. i think the move towards the privatization of litigation is a danger to our democracy and a danger to the legitimacy of our justice system. the more the public does not see the board mischief can happen and more the appearance is we do not operate in a system of transparent justice. >> appearance matters because it erodes trust if they don't -- >> trust is essential.

it is the lifeblood of the people. >> i would pick up on the transparency. i think that is very important. i think one of the ways that you judge what is most valuable is when you look at what is under threat. it is important that the people have confidence that the system of our courts is fair and impartial. when you come before the court, you are going to get a fair hearing. it is not predetermined. to the extent that at the state level there are people who run for office -- the court system is within a democratic system, the fact we have people going before a court knowing that the judge got supported by some person, some lawyers or other people that might come before

the court or on the other side really undermines the ability to have trust in the outcome. the idea we run political campaigns with individual contributions i think is a serious danger to people being able to have confidence they are going to get a fair consideration. >> in the absence of trust, the public will not be willing to give the courts the resources that the courts need. it is a death spiral if you go down that route. the public will only support that which they value. >> i would add a third dimension on transparency. i have spent the last 10 years of my life engaged in a judicial administration. the courts have also got to be accountable to the public for

their use of public resources and for their performance. it implicates judicial performance evaluation, which is very much accepted within the state court systems. not so much on the federal side. and the notions of performance measures for the court as institutions has gained a lot of traction in this notion that we are about the public's business and the public is entitled to know how we are doing. >> can i ask a question about transparency? i discussed the latest approval ratings for the u.s. supreme -- i just got the latest approval ratings for the u.s. supreme court. they are at an all-time low, at 52%. is it obvious -- and this is

after health care, before immigration. >> a public opinion poll? >> is it obvious that transparency -- >> maintain a mistake. -- the mystique. people have less respect. >> this program is being shared with viewers across america on c-span. prue has been knocking at the door of the supreme court -- who has been knocking at the door of the supreme court. what do you think? is this good for trust and

respect for the institution? or does it pull back the curtain and expose the wizard? >> i do not want to suggest that people watching congress feel very good about it. i do not think the cameras have that a fact. they have a very negative effect at first and that members of congress are aware of the cameras. they were playing to the cameras, but after time, you forget they are there. i do not think it affects what members of the court do. i think it does make the citizens realize that the people on the bench are human beings. they are not infallible. their grammar may not always be right, or they may seem mean in a question they ask. there is probably some of value

to maintaining the mystique. it requires you to have a lot of trust. there are some things that to having everything being open to public view is not always best. i have argued in terms of congress, one reason you cannot compromise now is because every meeting, at every meeting between house and senate, it is open to public view. you cannot do the kinds of things -- >> because you appear weak if you compromise publicly. >> i would like to take issue with that comment. i think the supreme court is not a good model for assessing the way courts late with the public and the way the public relates records. for example, in state courts, we

have cameras full-time in all of our appellant on trial courts. the business of the public gets done. public approval ratings of the judge's is much higher. i think it functions in an entirely different context. >> what would the difference be? >> id seems to me that what jeff is talking about is not just the presence of the argument, right? we did not have cameras in the courtroom. he is describing the approval ratings having dropped after the arguments have been interpreted by the media. he is not talking about seeing the the argument on c-span and being able to make up your own mind. the various sides had spun whatever they are going to spend. on one hand -- to spin.

when we are very young, we think our parents are perfect. we can infantilize the public and say, let's keep it all mysterious. but in a functioning democracy, it is important that we not infantilize the public. i do not think any harm would come to the supreme court by having cameras. most of the cases are not that interesting and scintillating. they are all you really hearing about the once the media thinks art interesting and important. their only hearing about the sexy cases. that is only a one aspect of transparency. we have to be very careful. transparency and how they are selected, transparency in the process. that could be cameras in the courtroom or having an open court that people can come into. but it is also judicial decision making appearing in writing, showing us what you have done. summary of opinions where we do

not know what the opinion is, we do not know the basis of it, that is a transparency issue. there are multiple levels of the court revealing itself, showing how it works, showing how it thinks. it would not be corrosive of public confidence. it would support public confidence. our tendency is to think that it is just the cameras. there are a myriad ways in which december imports -- the supreme court hides behind a veil. >> the various dimensions, the layers of the onion. this is a very complex topic. we will not do justice to it in two hours. it is impossible. we could spend all day, but we will talk about some of the things that you are interested and. eventually, we will come to your questions as well.

you may start wanting to think about which of the various aspects of would like to focus in nine. that will be your opportunity to do it -- focus in on. that will be your opportunity to do that. all of that other stuff sounds great, but you have to pay for it. that seems to be a basic theme in the world and in america right now. i want to ask you about that. i want to think in terms of how do we characterize the challenge the courts face. is this a crisis? is this uneven? when you look across the country and you look at the justice system and you get back to this fundamental component necessary resources to fulfil the constitutional mandate, to provide the checks and balances, where do we sit?

is crisis hyperbole, or is it accurate? >> it depends on what you mean by it a crisis. despite crisis you mean that we are at a juncture -- if by crisis you mean we are at a juncture in which we have to reexamine the way to and which we have been doing business, then we very much have a crisis. >> when i think of crisis, the british are coming. is this an emergency? are bad things going to happen if we do not pay attention? or is this more of a technicality? >> in some places in this country, bad things are happening. the aba -- made a stab at

collecting the empirical data about the impact of the loss of funding in state courts around the country. it is not universal. north dakota at has so much oil money, their courts have not been suffering at all. but other places are suffering. they are reducing salaries for judges. state judges in new york, until recently, -- >> what does that mean? >> what it means in the state of florida, for example, they attempted to assess the impact of the inability to get foreclosure and other types of commercial cases to the court in a timely fashion am. the damage to the economy is close to $10 billion. not to mention the human costs associated with people who cannot get to court promptly. there are people suffering in

very real ways. >> the operation, the administration of the courts, but there are problems with the ability to afford getting good competent counsel for the indigent, access to justice is compromised because you do not have the access -- and i know in the private law firms, some of the pro bono operations are being cut back. that is an important place, too, or lack of funding compromise is the ability of some people to get a fair hearing. >> are dead in the state court system suggests that in domestic -- are dead in the state court system suggest that in domestic cases, 75% of the cases filed, one more parties is not represented in that litigation. they can get a hearing, but whether they can get a fair hearing is a big question.

>> there is also the question of the conviction of the innocent. dna exoneration, 250 people exonerating because of dna evidence. studies have found a persistent pattern of the failures of badly organized lineups, poor genetic and forensic data, a failure to record interrogation, unreliable testimony from jailhouse snitches. all of these things could be alleviated with money. >> are you talking about buying better science? >> ubalde in better witnesses. -- buying better witnesses. you have access to the best brand of science that exists.

>> i do not want to get caught up on the semantics, but the crisis word is in play. this is a public presentation, people who are new to this subject matter, this is an opportunity to engage them. how big of a problem are we describing to them? >> my colleagues have listed many examples, but can deny that it is a fundamental miscarriage of justice. the real criminal goes free. this is something that people of all persuasions can unite around. because it can be fixed, i think it is fair to talk about a crisis. >> in the budget question is a question of priorities.

-- any budget question is a question of priorities. it will come incarcerating millions of people, so many state budgets, the prison budgets are eating up everything else. there is a great lobbying effort on the part of the prison industry, both the private companies, at the guard's comment -- the guards, lobbying against a more rational incarceration policy. >> prisons are profitable. >> that is right. >> a source of livelihood. another thing that occurs to me is that on the federal level, the immigration act adjudication crisis, which is a crisis by any measure, is eating the federal courts all live.

-- alive. there are many deportation cases. in the second circuit and ninth circuits, the immigration cases are now something like 40% of the entire caseload of those courts. that system is so badly broken that i know a number of federal judges that are in despair. i have heard judges say he has trouble sleeping at night, realizing that there is no way to administer a fair and impartial and informed justice to immigrants because the lower courts do not even have to give a reason. there is nothing for the federal judges to go on. it is a horrible problem.

millions of dollars could better be spent on a more rational immigration policy. that is not our mandate. >> you teach, you give grades. what if you were grading the system on fairness and impartiality? the state court, the justice system. >> i am glad that linda raise what she has raised. i think it is not very helpful to simply talk about the funding of the courts. once you start discounting our justice system, you are in trouble. if you start trying to mark down around your justice system, you get what you pay for. there is a bigger question about the allocation of resources within the system. linda has pointed out some of the problem. but they go all the way to the very beginning.

all the ways in which we have all -- in which we have overloaded the system with criminalizing certain types of content that do not require the kind of attention and resources that a full-time judge has to bring to bear in a case. if we look at the practices of prosecutors, there is a wonderful article about misdemeanor cases. and the kind of pressure of people, innocent people, to plead guilty. we get to look at the conduct of prosecutors. we have had a number of supreme court cases and the last three years in which prosecutors have become notorious for not handing over evidence, resulting in the incarceration of individuals, including those on death row. those are just the cases we hear about. how we are using our resources in the system, the way in which

we are responding to an emotional need and the public. we are not running our criminal justice system in a way that we should require of any system. that functions on fact, what works, logic, the best trained people. i do not think we are doing that. a haven't used our system -- violent crime strikes an emotional chord in all of us. it does require a second look at how we are allocating resources. if we want to allocate them towards violent crime, that makes sense. there are a lot of ways we are allocating our resources toward non-violent crime that is taking of the time and space of judges. we have an imbalance in allocation throughout the system. if we want to talk about resources to the courts, we have to begin to take that hard look

-- we cannot operate business as usual. we have to say, what do we need today in this century, in 2012, to run a competent, independent judicial system? how do we do it in a way that honors the money of the taxpayer? >> i think that is an important point. she is absolutely right that our system is focusing great resources on low-level non- violent crimes rather than a violent crimes. this makes us an allied air when it comes to western democracy. in europe, there is -- the intrusiveness of eight government invasion should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. that is to be enforced in the american system by juries at the time of the founding. deskannot search someone's to identify the author of the

pamphlets criticizing king george. increasingly, we have seen the court's second there should be no proportionality principle. the supreme court said that you could arrest someone for an erroneous speeding offense, and take them to jail, and strip search of thethem. unless we can get back that sense of proportionality -- >> how did we lose it? >> some of it comes in ways in our reaction to what we see as spikes in crime. >> fear? >> absolutely. all the data demonstrates that crime levels in the united states have dropped. they are at the same level that

we had in 1966. why is our incarceration rate so out of whack? we have to a million people in prison. we have a justice system that is overwhelmed by non-violent criminal offenses. if we no longer have the spikes and crime, when are we going to read calibrate so that we are using our resources appropriately? we should be learning from the past. >> one thing we are illustrating in this discussion is how it is impossible to segregate these issues. the overlap in rates that are very complex. -- in ways that are very complex. >> from my perspective, it is a frustrating discussion. the judges in the state courts in this country find it almost impossible to have any impact on the public policy discussions that you have identified.

we make contributions. there is a new move towards evidence based sentencing that originated in the state courts. we do not get to tell legislature to read calibrate its emphasis -- re calibrate its emphasis on harsh punishment. we do not get to have an impact on the executive branch agencies, who are constantly seeking to aggrandize the industry. >> when you were chief justice, did not feel you had a call on a bully pulpit to talk about policy? was that inappropriate in your situation? >> you have to be very careful. there is such a line between policy. we did do it with evidence-based sentencing.

the executive branches are dragging their feet like molasses. there is only so much you can do. >> we start talking about overburdening the courts with minor crimes. there is also the question about prosecutorial discretion. we do have a problem, in my view, with prosecutors who are overzealous, who are too quick to take things into court that do not rise to that level of concern. that puts the burden, they said we will bring this to court, that just adds to the workload. >> whatever issue we focus on, i want to get back on this bigger picture about understanding these issues. and why they are understood or misunderstood. just brought up the supreme

court, and joining the rest of the branches of government. the survey showed a lack of positive reaction to the notion of judicial independence. is that correct? is that a correct characterization? what i am wondering, those of you who'd teach about law, practice law, are you doing enough to communicate these issues to the public in a way where they get it? they do all the things that we need the citizenry to do to create an effective justice system? >> i think you are asking a great question. i do think there is a lack of understanding of precisely what the judicial function and role was supposed to be. i think we have become so overwhelmed with politics and by the horse race of politics,

the encounter that most citizens have with the justice system is usually traffic court. the personal encounter, frankly, it is with the judge at the lowest end of the totem pole. the reality is, that is the justice the people encounter. most of us do not sue someone and most of us are not sued. even the civil system is not the spot. if you judge did based on people's actual encounter with the system, the reality is, that is not what is shaping people's views about the court. they are having bad encounter, they are coming out of that encounter, and they have their story. sometimes it goes well, sometimes it does not go well. but what is happening is that there is a story that is being

told about who judges are and to the courts are. that story does come from the supreme court and the media's attention and focus on the court. confirmation hearings and the process of confirmation hearings has penetrated our thinking. that is how people begin to get this idea of whether we want them to be independent, whether we don't, whether they believe in abortion, those are the things we associate with judges. in reality, the 47 million cases do not have to do with those issues. we are totally skewed. it is completely at odds with what the reality is for most judicial decision making. >> the federal government's performance and the mainstream media is giving justice a bad name. >> it is. i will hold us responsible, too. most of the cases we are focusing on, if you are in

maryland, -- for the most part, we are teaching cases in federal court. we are teaching the supreme court cases. students tend to know what a lot is and the highest law of the land is important. that emphasis actually skuas of the view of the public -- skews the view of the public. >> ok, linda is next. >> i do not think the problem is what we teach in moscow. i do not think the problem is top-down media. i think the problem is the problem which sandra o'connor has developed -- has devoted her life to, the lack of education.

there is for a good research that shows that the more people they know about the court, the more they are willing to support the court. to the extent -- i mean, you cannot blame the whole thing on no child left behind. to the extent that the only thing that matters is math and science and you have people coming out of high school that cannot name the branches of government -- >> i am too depressed to go on. >> what do we think that what looked at? i have three kids. i looked at their textbooks. for the most part, they did learn, they learned about the justices. in eighth grade, they had reports about -- a course that was devoted to american government. i am wondering, what are the

components that are missing? >> specific things that need to be taught better not being taught. >> your kids are lucky. i think that is rare, to be honest. " they were in public school in baltimore. >> part of the problem is the government is treated like a necessary evil, at best. you do not have eight -- >> it is underfunded. >> i have been but justice o'connor on several occasions when she talked about this. there really is a problem. there may be exceptions, but there is another problem. when people are judging what they think of the courts. i will tell you now that if, for

whatever reason, president obama, has the opportunity to appoint somebody else as his nominee for the supreme court, before the appointment is made, before we know who is going to be, all the democrats will be for it and all the republicans against. if mitt romney wins, and you have a republican president, and he is able to name someone to the supreme court, all the democrats will be against that nominee and all the republicans before the nominee. that is not the way he used to be. he used to be a very different system. some of the most important justices in our history were overwhelmingly approved. that time is gone. people are looking at the justices threw a political prism, and that is helping to

undermine them as impartial arbiters. >> to what degree are the courts themselves responsible? it is wrong to focus on the high-profile cases, but when you have a court striking down by 5- 4 votes with the five conservatives appointed by republicans, campaign finance reform, affirmative action, and health care which could transform the court in the eyes of the republic, that is hard to get back. when roberts took office he expressed frustration with the 5-4 decisions. he said he thought that would be good for the country. so far this success has been mixed. there has been some success, but this is why this is such a

moment of truth if it chooses -- >> would you be critical for the court to deciding the health care at an immigration cases, where the ruling would be made easily on the eve of a presidential election? >> they had to take the health care case. they did not have to have three days of oral arguments. >> for the election? >> yes, because it was right. >> evarts decided when rowe came down -- >> this problem is exacerbated in the state court said there were 37 states engage in contested election of their judges. it is ironic, because the election of judges was regarded in the mid 19th century as a

reform effort against the elitist, corrupt appointing authorities who had been appointing judges under an appointed system. what turned out to be the 19th century's reform has been the 21st century's disaster in that judges are forced to the politicians, they are forced to seek contributions that undermined the trust and confidence of them, and that has been helpful and documented that fact, and something that has been -- another thing sandra 'connor has been focusing on, one of the most startling things to me, having been on the bench for a great number of years, last year for the first time there were no fewer than five

challenges to judges in high courts in state retention elections. you have to go to the bit 1980's in california to see that kind of challenge. >> it seems like there was a time when they are criticizing justices or judges was something people were careful about, because they did not want to undermine the system. [applause] [unintelligible] newt gingrich, by questioning the authority of the president, goes back to jefferson. [unintelligible] >> what has changed in the massive -- is the massive amounts of money judicial

elections. the reality is as much as i laud efforts,'connor must she has had a convergence, she was a part of a car bomb in a case -- and she has come back in. it is wonderful. [unintelligible] i want to point out is not just the elections themselves. there was to conduct elections that can deal with the problems he talked about -- non-partisan elections, public funding -- there are ways to deal with that said the process, the reform that the jacksonians wanted to have, you have justices who present themselves to the people. the problem is we have allowed a

free for all in judicial elections, and now citizens united will ratchet it further up. a case out of west virginia that the supreme court said that judge at recused himself after he had received -- an election had been supported by $3 million from an individual who had a case before that judge on the west for jeanette supreme court. west virginia has an unusual disclosure law for independent contributions that mistakes do not have. we learned about that one case, but we do not know about the other instances where this has been happening. four justices on the court, including the chief justice, thought it was ok for that west virginia supreme court justice to sit and hear that case of that individual who had donated $3 million.

we have a real problem at the state level with judicial elections. it is not just the word " elections," is how elections are conducted, and that is money, money, money. >> if you could position ourselves in a place where you can be seen, and those of you have a question, if you scratch your nose you may get to a microphone. we will come to your questions soon. let's continue up here as well. >> to underscore what happened in iowa this last election, the missouri plant, the merit selection was the gold standard for the state courts. it was the goodest the good government ideas. now is it gone? >> it is under attack in places

like misery. >> there is hope this montana case would be an opportunity for the court to reconsider citizens united. there was evidence that corruption was so great. the hope is maybe justice kennedy might see a way that saying if citizens united formally stands, judicial corruption -- >> i want to make sure we started out this conversation by listing things we thought were essential. i would not be myself if i did not say diversity is what of the things critically important, and diversity of all kinds. we still haven't a circuit that has only had one woman on it. we have racer will diversity,

gender -- we have racial diversity, gender diversity. the very narrow profile of supreme court justices that we have -- we have a latina print court justice, three women, and we do not have justice who had engaged in private practice. thurgood marshall was the last justice who engaged in solo practice. we're talking about a narrow background. most have been ben appellate judges. -- have been appellate justice. stevens was the last justice to serve in the military. narrowalking about a slice of individuals serving on the highest court, and we have ongoing diversity problems brought the federal appellate

system. also it throughout the state system. that is critically important because that goes to the public sense of confidence in the judiciary, the sense that it is not closed off, not a select group, and it goes to the quality of decision making. we want all kinds of people to serve said their experiences can interact and we can get the most informed judicial maki decisionmaking we can. >> you brought it up in reference to the courts not being a democratic institution. >> i think they are. i have a book called "the most democratic branch." the courts play an important role in checking the minority. especially the first amendment. when you look over history, the courts have tended to follow

public opinion rather than challenge it. on their repair occasions -- on the rare occasions where it goes against the public, -- think up around -- think of brown v. board of education. >> what about those who say that the events of the rule of law against mob rule and a democracy would mean not rule? >> it took filled said -- de toqueville said lawyers are -- i prefer the quotation from hamilton distressed it is not following polls, but enforcing

fundamental values that a majority of the country has come to accept over time. that is why in vendor -- interventions are important. they have to be used spiraling. when they believe they can impose a contested vision of justice, they also get into a lot of trouble. that is what debates are important because questions of health care, campaign finance, this is a think that the country is divided, and if you put your thumb on one side of the scale, you provoke a lot of popular reaction. >> that is the point of having lifetime tenure. they are supposed to be able to take the heat. they're not supposed to calibrate between the two sides and say i do not know if the country is reidy. -- ready.

the institution is a critical part of a democracy. i meant it is not a -- >> it is something that operates outside of democracy? >> the apparatus that treats the court and keep the court there is democratic. it does not mean every function court has to the majority rule. >> i think of it a step beyond in the sense in not view the dahlias of the people -- the values of the people, the extent that judges are performing the function of vindicating those values, they are and the the kate the values of the people come at what is more democratic than that? that is the sense in which i agree. >> there are standards that have to be upheld. i had the opportunity to do a book review of one of -- books,

and i read that and i did not know if he knew what the constitution was. [laughter] >> did you include that? >> there is some fundamental here where the purpose of the court, regardless of the makeup, diverse or not diverse, is to apply what telling law is, because it is not the lawmaking branch. and try to make it representative of the community at large and what the committed the now thinks would be good policy, goes contrary in my view to the purpose of the court. >> this is an important debate. it is right to embrace the traditional view.

liberals and conservatives used to embrace it, judicial minimalism. they should only second-guess decisions when arguments were clear. it is interesting the tradition that is embraced, bipartisan at the turn of the century, does not have a lot of constituents today. you have people advocating for a robust judicial powers. >> you might say activism. >> i would to say activism. >> you want to say something about this notion of democratic institution? >> you have to define democracy system wide. even though a light tenured federal judge is not held accountable for this decision or that decision, there is an ultimate political accountability that resides in the president who appoints these

people, and you can look at the evolution of the court from the mid 20th-century on as a series of actions and reactions that helped inform -- president nixon ran against the warren court. it is easy for politicians to demonize the court. there's a political dialogue within a democratic framework of what is going on about the court. that is one thing i will say. i often got a question about the supreme court is secretive, mysterious. i think somebody mentioned this earlier, one thing the court has going for it is they do give reasons. the case is but to be very interesting, because anybody who will vote to strike down the affordable care act will have to give a reason that is not simply a political rhetoric. that will be pretty interesting.

in congress, entire agendas can disappear but that a fingerprint. the court on the record disposes of any case that comes again. it does not get lost. >> can we get them in the hands of these willing participants? >> i want to add a footnote. that is to accentuate a real difference between federal and state courts. state courts are all making institutions in their common-law function. at least one scholar wrote an interest in article which suggested because of their more democratic ways, state courts have more latitude, that judges deserve more latitude that federal court judges come up with respect to their constitutional interpretive function. it is an intriguing notion.

i do not know what it all means. >> judge durham into the conversation about local courts, and it seems to me this panel is uniquely qualified to begin a movement that would be the professional edition of what we do in digital -- judicial system. but state courts are applying lot to the facts, and it is the fact finding that takes time, evidence come out witnesses, experts and all these things. i remember the dean of new york city law school at of the supreme court in the state of new jersey, he had a court that was in disarray, and in all facts, judicially inefficient.

if we look about it now and the ability to secure independence for judges and respect for the courts, and to solve the financial problems, we might look to try to perfect what we do and better what we do, more efficiently and more effectively, to apply a lot to the facts. and the facts to the law. find ways in justice courts, municipal courts, to actually give the judge what the facts are, as have been listened to come up by somebody else or are rife that so you can handle four more cases than you could before, and it would be reviewable, it would be transparent, it would be at the lowest possible level. it would be where all the country, most of the people of the country interact with the judicial system. you could take in light of that

discussion on judicial efficiency, and apply law the facts. >> judge vendor built was known as the dean of judicial administration. it is one reason i'm so passionate about administration, because i think it is the case that the abstract questions and the work of judging has to be done well, but the work of managing the courts also has to be done well. particularly, with respect to the need for resources. we have no business asking for resources if we are not well organized. >> i want to thank the aba and woodrow wilson for having you guys out here. we have had an interesting conversation this afternoon. my question goes to something about you spoke about earlier, dna testing, and it has cleared

a lot of inmates trick their states that have pass laws you cannot get dna testing, does that is the way but wall is in those states, and i want to know what your thoughts are, because if you can do it across the board, all the states, then you would address, one, you would not be imprisoning someone who is potentially innocent, and you would reduce the overcrowding and the costs, the inmates, because no one wants a jail in their back yard. >> does anybody know why states who do not allow what do not allow it? >> i think it is resources. the u.s. supreme court said there is no federal constitutional right allowing access to dna. the supreme court although most states to provide a, the

constitution did not get a right to it. your question raises the possibility of a federal solution. can we imagine congress creating a national right? even this dysfunctional congress, this really is something that is not especially expensive, and which everyone on both sides agrees is a basic matter of justice. to the degree there is interest in the room, let's try to -- there are a bipartisan movements the innocence project is good, and if you go to their website you might find ways to get to lobby congress to pass that right. >> perhaps it is not need to suggest there is not prosecutor politics straight the interesting find out the --

going back to the court funding issue and the relation between funding and transparency and about our own inefficiencies. we are caught in this dilemma about how we can be honest about how inefficient we are. courts are not perfect institutions because there are so many non efficiency of values to which we ask cry. how can we convince the public and funders there are ways with relatively small investments that would result in increases in access to justices, and how we can be transparent about our problems without the and resulting in decreasing funding as punishment. >> one of the things i think speaks to the point that you have race, is there is this bizarre, strained right now in american discourse that somehow we have too much justice.

people have too many chances, and this is some of the dna stuff, too, too many, too much, and you have another trial. i think it is a sense -- i do not think people really truly understand what the elements the is central elements of a justice system are, the ways in which we have cut corners that create the kinds of problems i think that results, and that is what i meant when we had to look at the whole system. the dna testing piece is one piece of it, but the question of prosecutorial discretion and the impulse to try and achieve high levels of prosecutions, this many, that you get credit, and prosecutors are supposed to do justice.

instead, the incentives are for how many people you can convict. we're operating in assistant where the supreme court -- we are operating in a system with the supreme court ordered a state to release prisoners because of overcrowding. you have a case that was decided and month or so it could go where the supreme court said we have 14 million arrested each year, and that jail officials have discretion to strip search any one make arrests, whether or not that individual constitutes a threat or not. we have all kinds of cases where prosecutors have withheld evidence. there is something wrong with the narrative, and it is harming citizens and individuals and the innocent. it is harming the respect we have for the justice system, and all that is harming the efforts of justices who do need the resources, who are trying to make improvements, who are

trying to make the courts system work better. people are reacting and responding, but until we begin to unpacked all these things -- he asked if we were in a crisis -- where any crisis in our criminal justice system. when the things i just described happened in the last three years, we are in a crisis, and we have it stopped and the calibrate and figure out how we get ourselves into a narrative where our ideals, which we should be prepared to spend as much as we need to spend on, can go first and our fears and a second. >> just that the state level. we find out from the justice department that exculpatory evidence being withheld from defense attorneys and defendants, and i mentioned earlier about prosecutorial discretion, abuse. that is a very real problem with the number of prosecutors who believe it is their job to convict.

there are people in this country and i hope it is very few, but i doubt that, who would take the attitude, of course they are guilty. they would not have been arrested if they were not guilty. it really takes some push against the argument that there is too much justice already, just put an end to it. that is a significant problem. >> this is something that is very flawed and problematic. is there a real cause you could identify or a place to start that would have the most impact moving forward? >> proportionality in criminal sentencing. >> that has to be advanced through the legislative process. you have to figure out a way to

generate a commitment on the part of lawmakers to address those. >> you are right. when the supreme court had a case in which a prosecutor at without information, and after being released, the jury deliberates for 35 minutes and says he is innocent. this is after 14 years on death row. he then sued civilly, an opportunity to create a disincentive to withhold this kind of evidence. he sued, the jury awarded him $14 million, and the case this to the supreme court, and the supreme court says he cannot win because you say the prosecutors knew and did not understand they were supposed to provide exculpatory evidence -- that is not good enough. $14 million is wiped out, even though a jury of his peers

agreed. it's the story of the life of a man a prosecutor's office the story. it would provide a disincentive for prosecutors to do what prosecutors are doing, withholding exculpatory evidence, failing to train prosecutors, and it can happen with a legislature. the court recalibrate the system. >> at this wonderful decision a few months ago, where the where says you need a warrant if you're going to track someone's movement if you put a gps device on their car. the justices disagreed about the reason, but all nine said there was a degree of privacy in

public, and they looked forward to the next case. justice sotomayor said we need to reexamine expectation of privacy for all purposes. the courts could do nothing more to protect privacy than examining that third-party doctrine. one thing courts can do is interpret the constitution, and when they do it they can protect privacy in a meaningful way. >> greater thandurham simple justice durham said cox if a supreme court nominee were to say that in the confirmation hearings, they would be. for arrogance and a misunderstanding of the justice

system. we do not seem to only have a partisan conversation about the world of the courts. we're having a completely irrational conversation in which she cannot say simple truths. every nominee who goes up there for confirmation hearing and every senator who sits on the other side at the table knows we have a common law system, knows the role of judges is to make laws. i am not just venting. my question is, is there a way apart from partisanship to have -- and whose job is it -- and i -- whosend the press deal job is it to say regardless of what side you're sitting on, we need to have a rational fact- based conversation about the courts? how do we get back to having a conversation in which we say this is what the courts did, this is what everybody wants to

do, and this is how they function? >> we cannot handle the truth premise. >> i am not sure people can handle the truth. >> i was still in the blanks with other issues. you could ask the same question as it relates to rational discourse about a lot of things, not just the course. the reason i make that point is perhaps we're talking about something that is more fundamental and not just unique to the courts. >> iron remembering a comment at that time is gone -- i am remembering a, that that time is gone. i am on c-span, so i will -- [unintelligible] >> there is an old joke about it is safe to write to congress

because congress does not right back. that is truer of the judiciary, because they make their decisions, they did not speak outside of that. that leaves it vulnerable to this kind of irrational attack. my real question is, do you see anybody in society whose responsibility it is to promote the truth and a no rational discussion about it, if the judiciary cannot, and a lot of people in politics will not? >> i have someone -- stephen colbert. he has more influence. people are getting their news about courts from him. when he goes after the court for citizens united, and start his own path, he interviews justice

stevens and beats him up and a playful way and ask him if he regrets any decision, and steven on tysve this interview -- [laughter] what he is a post it as a satirist, let promoting the national discourse, that is part of the equation. >> i understand your question and i think we may be at a tipping point where it may be headed back and the other direction. the last confirmation, people did not watch to the degree they had watched. ratings had started to go down. even the networks stopped covering it. they did not do gavel to gavel. to the extent it has become a kind of performance that people are getting turned off, and we may have reached the to the point. it would take one senator on the

judiciary committee in each party or even not who was doing their job pipit the confirmation hearing is a job interview. if i would interview somebody for a job and i said things like to you eat peanut butter? no one would allow me to get away with that. we do allow this with the confirmation hearings. i think the public as at that and has to end at. i think a courageous, this person doing their job to go up there and ask the person that is responsive to the position that the person is seeking. it is interesting to me that some of these questions to me are critically important. i have a whole set of civil procedure questions i always wanted asked, because i think it is a place where the courts have an enormous influence. the roberts court has shaped a lot about how litigation gets managed.

the questions are never asked. i understand they do not seem sexy. but in cases where the courts have done it, they are all interesting on their facts about the people did not focus, and congress should be helping people understand. what is the real power this individual will have what does the supreme court do with the judicial conference what is that power to have the power over the body that makes litigation? one or two people could begin to recalibrate us -- it has always been crappy since we have egun a public conversatifirmatn hearings. >> we have time for one work

question. >> how are judges cutting corners? is it summary dispositions s? it's a matter on relying on law clerks, and do i sound bitter? [laughter] >> it is a trial -- at the trial level in the state court, there are enormous pressures on judges. the famous adage justice delayed is justice denied is true in a sense it is better to get that decisions now that you can go ahead and appeal that and much better reason decisions after the judges had time to considers that comes that in a year or eight year and a half. they're probably -- a level of

attention and care in this trial courts that are overwhelmed with filings come out understaffed with support, and do not have enough judges to begin with to do their work. at the appellate level i do not think there is a crisis in the state courts system. i stand to be corrected by people with more experience to run the country, but we are such a tiny little portion of it functionally and financially that i do not think it is an issue. then tthe comment about immigran courts, that is a real issue whether these cases are getting any attention at all. when you look at the volume, i saw one study that suggested given the volume at the administrative level, it is too and that half minutes per case. >> judges are the sizing dozen

cases -- the judges are deciding a dozen cases a day. >> you plead or you do a nol p rocess, the judge has a fee. you pay the money, right? there are people who cannot pay the money. they end up not being able to pay the money and and up getting arrested. is that part of it? i wonder where the scale for that feat comes from? -- for the fee comes from. >> it is legislative. in many systems, the money from fees and fines could directly into the general fund poor they are allocated to things like court security or other court

functions. it varies enormously from state to state. there are issues to help people who cannot pay, but i am sure millions slip to the cracks. the fee question is interesting, and because when the crisis hit, a lot of state courts look at increases in filing fees to fund court functions. sometimes you hold your nose and do what you do not believe in, but the notion that the justice system in the united states should be funded by the people who have to come to court and you set is as anti-democratic a principle that i can think of. courts have done it at of desperation, but i know of no state judge who believes in it as a moral proposition. >> that will have to be the

final thought rat. this is a fantastic panel, and the aba always does a terrific job to bring together great minds. i want to bring back bill robinson. [applause] >> what a program. this has been a special occasion, but still think about, what to consider. this brings to the conclusion our program. please join me in expressing our per station to john and these distinguished panelists for this wonderful discussion. [applause] on behalf of the aba i would like to leave you with a thought, after thanking you for joining us and making this a wonderful law day conclusion to our celebration and an expression of our concerns, that if we did not realize it before,

we certainly realize now after this discussion, that an independent, fair, and impartial, adequately funded court system is the key to constitutional democracy, and constitutional democracy is the key to freedom, because no courts, the justice, the freedom. thank you, all, a very, very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> you can see this discussion on court later in our program and also in the video library at c-span.org. president obama is in afghanistan. he and hamid karzai have signed an agreement. the president making a surprise visit, saying the deal will allow the u.s. to wind down the war but stand by afghanistan and its people. the president spoke to troops in afghanistan. he will address the nation at 7:30 p.m. eastern. earlier today, mitt romney former new york mayor rudy giuliani appeared together at engine 54 in midtown manhattan.

here is what they had to say. >> i am honored that governor romney came to this fire house on the anniversary of the binination of somosama laden. this far house is of special importance to me. this is the place where we have our first press conference, right here in this spot. it is a fire house that has suffered more than most, not only losing some money on september 11, but back in 1995, three firefighters died, first when i was mayor. as far house has pay its fair share, and i am glad governor romney selected this particular fire house as a place to pay firefightersu fivr

who were the first responders to this terrorist war against us. we have to be vigilant about this. governor romney understands that and has been a leader in the effort to make certain america remains safe. it is a great pleasure to welcome him here. we had a wonderful time with the firefighters. there always very candid. they gave the governor good advice about how to conduct this campaign. they enjoyed the peace out the governor brought from the pizzeria right here. they had a very good time. >> thank you so much. it is good to be here and he is a man respected and admired by members of this station. the mayor indicated 11 men lost their lives on 9/11. this is a place of significance for the people of new york, but

also for the people of the country. i was happy to be here with the mayor and express our appreciation to the men and women who served in the firefighters and months first responders in new york and acknowledge the special place this is. i remember being with the mayor on december 24, christmas eve, in 2001, just a few months after 9/11. the olympic torch on its way from greece and then through atlanta and coming to new york was brought into the city. we brought in by boat. the families of some of the victims of the 9/11 tragedy, firefighters and police, families, joined us in that boat. we took the olympic flame and went out into the harbor. we stopped in front of the statue of liberty. we all sang "god bless america" together.

then we brought the boat back to the harbor, back to the dock, and took the torch, and the mayor actually ran the torch that they come across the ice at rockefeller center, and we lit a cauldron that bird. for a day on december 25. it is an honor to be here today to knowledge these men who have served as first responders. this is on the anniversary of the day when osama bin laden was taken out, and we respect and admire the people who were part of that, from the president who authorized that attack, to the intelligence community that worked on it for so many years, to identify where he was. of course, to the members of the armed services that took the risk of going into pakistan and removing one of the world's worst characters.

we are happy to take questions. [unintelligible] of course i would have ordered taking out osama bin laden. for us. this is a person who had done terrible harm to america and who represented a continuing threat to a civilized people. i acknowledged a year ago that the president deserved credit. i continue to believe that and would have taken that action myself. [unintelligible] i'm sorry, pardon. no, i think i said the same thing as joe biden, which was it was not eve of the president to announce he would go into pakistan. we always reserve to help right

to go anywhere to get bin laden. there are many people who believed as i did it was not even on the part of the president to say he would go into pakistan pit it was a fragile and flammable time. i thought it was a mistake of him as a candidate to announce he would go in, rather to say we reserve the right to go where we feel is appropriate to security interests the united states and to track osama bin laden. [unintelligible] i am sorry, i cannot quite hear you. >> mitt romney, you are a racist! >> it is appropriate for the present to express to the american people, that you he has

come that he an important role in taking out osama bin laden. politicizing it and try to draw a distinction between himself and me was an inappropriate use of the important event that brought america together, which was the elimination of osama bin laden. the mayor and i had a nice chap this morning. we talked about progress that city is making. it is an extraordinary story about the number of murders that are down in the city. you have to look at what new york has done to this mayor and under mayor bloomberg and saying is this a remarkable place, doing a superb job. there are numbers that were surprising to me. he described the life expectancy of a new yorker is to three years longer than of an average america. -- american. that is something that most people would not recognize, but

this is a great city. thanks, guys. thank you. >> may i ask you one question? >> i appeared with president obama when he came here last year to honor his decision. a respected his decision very much. i give him great credit for it. i wish he would not use it as a source of negative campaigning. i think that is a big mistake, and i think he is mis charatcterizing what mitt romney said. it should not be our only priority. different ing in directions. thank you, mayor. >> i believe the president at

the right to take credit for it. i give him credit for it. i do not think he should use it as negative campaigning. it is quite clear that mitt romney, anyone else, would have made the decision president obama made. he gets credit because he would have gone blamed if it went wrong. thank you. [unintelligible] i have no idea. i will repeat what i said before. [sirens] thank you. >> mitt romney and former new york mayor rudy guiliani before it was announced the president

is in afghanistan, a surprise trip, signing an agreement with hamid karzai outlining long-term u.s.-afghanistan partnership. that happened earlier today. the president will speak to the nation this evening coming up in about 40 minutes, 7 pop 30 eastern, we will have that live -- 7:30 eastern, and we will have that live on c-span. martin dempsey a definition for the word "victory" in afghanistan. >> i would like to know your definition for the word "fig victory" in afghanistan.

>> thank you for asking. i am a student of vocabulary, and there are synonyms out there, victory when success. that means zero in on the one question you asked about why is it taking so long. that is a fair question. i would suggest it is taking so long because we are trying to do it right. i really mean that. could we have started at one end of afghanistan and fundamentally overrun it, stored it, created a situation where we would make it a near certainty that the taliban could not come back because there would not be anything to come back to? of course we could cut. that is not who we all are. that is not what afghanistan would expect of us, and i happen to believe it is not what any afghanistan's neighbors would expect us. we have at starts and stops and

in some cases we have made more progress than others. when i say do it right, it is about building a nation that has institutions to support it over time, and that can provide for its own security. if you are asking for my definition, that is my definition. in terms of my responsibility to do that, it is about building the afghan national security -- two things, creating some space by lowering violence while we build up the afghan national security forces. i just think back from their last week and spent a day with the commandos, and it was one of the more inspirational days of my life, because i saw not only a formation that was capable of shooting, at the right equipment, they knew which sought what they were in and which platoon and which company, but it was more than that. they felt a sense of obligation

to their country, not us. we do not need them feeling an obligation to us. this was very ethnically diverse groups of young men. that is the special forces, and they are had ever been else because we have placed more efficent and assist -- emphasis on them. it has taken time because the business of creating institutions where some had never existed is a hard schlog. >> all the comets and later, also on the video library at c- span.org. we will hear from president obama at 7:30 eastern. it will be live on c-span. part of our discussion from this morning's washington journal on the role of al qaeda one year since the death of osama bin laden.

how strong is the al qaeda threat? guest: on the one hand, there are places in the world where there message resonates quite strongly, such as in syria, and al qaeda supporters are flooding across the border from lebanon to get involved in the fight. in yemen and somalia, things are also going moderately well for them, particularly for yemen. they have been able to take villages. in somalia, shabbab joined al qaeda several weeks ago. in some parts of the world,

outcry that is doing quite good. there are other downsides to the year for them. the arab spring took them by surprise. one of the consequences of the arab spring is that particularly in egypt you have very conservative muslims who are getting involved in electoral politics, which for cockeyed that is anathema. >> there was a piece today that said in london fretted about witnessing -- about missing on a huge marketing campaign. out as the arab spring change the power of al qaeda? >> corp. in london, his focus has been on violence, using violence to spark revolution.

the arab spring, with the peaceful protest, took bin laden by surprise, and he did not have a toolkit to deal with that, in contrast to his deputy, who in the past has called for peaceful demonstrations in addition to pilots. zawahiri better constituted to deal with the arab spring. >> al qaeda is losing badly, and bin laden knew its. he confessed to disaster after disaster. he either etched his leaders to flee trouble -- he urged the leaders to flee troubled reasons. it is harder than ever for their core to execute large scale catastrophic attacks against our homeland.

today it is clear that compared to 9/11 the core of their leadership is a shadow of its former self. al qaeda has been left with a handful of opera to a desperate it is on the pact to its destruction. for the first time since this type began, we can envision a world in which the al qaeda core is no longer relevant. i think he is right paid we could see a time or this is no longer relative. house saw with the affiliate's be gone at par to kelly in yemen where they have gained a lot of ground? -- particularly in yemen were they have gained a lot of ground that it is encouraging to the united states and the allies. it shows that al qaeda is a learning organization. it is not a robot working on a

single path. it is learning from its mistakes. ecb evidence of this learning in yemen. -- ucb evidence of this learning in yemen. it was very brutal in its implementation. it did not play very well with its suny allies. al qaeda is going about things very differently when they take towns. they are careful to give the appearance of helping the inhabitants. they seem to be playing very well with the locals on the ground. whether they be criminal elements or tribes. did they do not seem to push themselves on to the people in yemen. it is just one piece of evidence that, yak, al qaeda does lament the setback.

host: they look at terrorism after osama bin laden. there are those the allied with al qaeda. it looks at five groups. you mentioned yemen. how closely linked are they? what he described is the hydra. -- what you described is the hydra. guest: it to a depend from group to group. they communicate with al qaeda central to some extent. the intergroup communication itis a little fuzzy. i assume they are communicating somewhat. it is hard to say. perhaps we will get more insight when the been modern documents are released earlier this week.

host: he is an analyst at the center for naval analyses. let's get to the phones. caller: good morning. i feel very concerned as an american not just as being frightened or concerned. i feel there is al qaeda out there somewhere. if this country is going to find some ways to make venturing off around al qaeda, we will need to be read the if we were going to

be ready like last time. with this new leader, i would not be surprised that there would be others in the future. guest: it will remain a threat. its ability to conduct operations is greatly diminished. there has not been a major attack in this country since the 9/11. there have been attempts, particularly the plane that of muttalab tried to bring down. it is indicative of how difficult al qaeda has found it had to turn to

calling on individuals. there are no longer to get operatives into this country. it is going to take some time. it is important to say that if we are struck again in a severe way, we have to be careful not to overreact. i think we have seen invading and occupying large countries can lead to an even worse problem. it is a great propaganda boom for militant organizations. they are able to draw more recruits and resources. we have to retool the way we go about counter-terrorism or it will lead to a larger problem. host: a year ago "osama is dead

but how much does it matter?" reflecting one year later, hasn't lived up to your expectations? -- has it lived up to your expectations? >> it is still a gaping hole. the organization lost its guiding light. osama bin laden has been replaced by a man whose track record of running these organizations is very poor. he ran his organization into the ground. it is one of the reasons he had to join al qaeda formula. they carried out some very controversial at tax in the region. i do not think the prospects for al qaeda central are good.

they will not represent a danger to the united states. it will be very rocky for al qaeda central. host: you are on. good morning. i woud like to ask, i have listened to quite a bit of news, and everything, and i especially listen to can start and everything, and i am wondering if our government is aware of the things happening in these arab countries to the christians? there are some in some places where they cannot even pray in their houses because if they find out they are killed.

this is going on in the world today, and the news stations do not talk about this. i am wondering why. guest: i am not sure why the media does not cover it. certainly, our government is aware, and it is worrisome, and the fact that conservative islamic governments are coming into power means more than likely minority christian organizations will see their rights curtailed. this is something the united states government should be raising, but they have to balance that against national security interests which will oftentimes trump human rights concerns. host: olivia, birmingham, alabama.

democratic caller. caller: this is a very intelligent young man you have on this morning, and i appreciate the conversation. it is very balanced. that is what we need in america. to carry them the president's about certain -- to pare down the president about certain things -- the president has information that we would never have. i do not believe in criticizing president bush because i do not know what information he had. we need to stop tearing our president down. al qaida is trying to take out america.

downre not trying to take the democrats, the republicans, or the independence. they are trying to kick down america. bin laden had a deep hatred for the president of the united states, president obama, and once you have him killed. we need to speak together on this issue. guest: it was surprising to me when i worked in government and was looking at the intelligence, how different the conversation was inside of government and outside of government. of course, the public does not have a lot of access to the information resources, and with good reason, and with some of the things the public rightly criticizes based on information they have, are probably things they would see it differently if they saw the big picture. host: jimmy excedrin twitter --

guest: some elements, certainly, but it is difficult to say. in libya, we have not seen evidence of a direct connection with al qaida. some power players in libya were in al qaida's orbit, but did not have direct ties, and their adopted forms of government that are at odds with al qaeda's agenda. in syria, i have read reports that they have some link with revolutionaries, which is to be expected because they have capable fighters able to pass around bomb-making skills, but the death of those connections are impossible to say -- depth of those connections are impossible to save from open sources.

host: michigan. good morning. caller: lately, officials said we are not fighting al qaida. we are prompting them -- propping them up in egypt and yemen. "the new york times" said the fbi was behind every terrorist attack that was thwarted in america. i am in michigan, so i know everything about the christmas day plane. the guy in oregon, the fbi set him up, and he became a fall guy. i want to know if he knows about these contradictions.

guest: by -- i do know that we are not friends with al qaida, and local law-enforcement works very hard to prevent anyone associated with the organization or aspires to be with your position from attacking this country. the current and previous administrations have been focused on destroying the organization. it is true that in the middle east there are many people that sound like al qaida in their theology, and sound like that in some respects in their policies, as long as these people are against the kind of attacks of the al qaeda and are for a pluralistic political system, they should be counted as friends, not enemies.

host: talk about what is happening domestically. what do you see as the threat from internal efforts, whether they are americans or people able to come into the country? guest: i did not think the threat is that great. the fbi has done an excellent job of monitoring elements in the united states better support of of al qaeda. some people will get through, but we have not seen them able to have a large scale attack. some nots will always sign up, but i have been surprised that we have not seen more attacks over the last 10 years. i think it goes to the skill of local law enforcement and the fbi, and it goes to show that the muslims living in this country, who many people are suspicious of, it deserves

credit for turning their back on al qaeda's caused. host: a story in "the new york times." host: california. independent. caller: bill, i would like to take the caller from michigan's question one step further what evidence do we really have that osama bin laden was involved with 9/11, and furthermore what

evidence do we have that the fairy tale about him being killed last year -- what evidence do we have to support that when numerous military people like oliver north has said that he died several years before that? guest: i cannot speak to the latter question. they never showed us a picture. some would be suspicious. i trust the government in that respect. regarding osama bin laden's responsibility for 9/11, he claimed it repeated the after the fact, so i take him at his word.

host: bin laden," papers show fears for al qaeda's future. he pondered changing the name of his network. what are you looking forward to reading and learning from these documents? guest: i am looking forward to seeing how bin laden functioned as a manager. this is a person who had a lot of time on his hands and there is nothing worse than a board boss because he gets in everyone's business. the leaks we have seen suggest he was not just worried above where the organization was going strategically, but he was also thinking about what somalia should be planting for their crops. i think we will see someone who was involved in every facet of the organization. it will be difficult, i imagine, to figure out the extent to which people in the field, his field commanders were listening to him.

just because somebody is giving new orders it does not mean they were being. out. it will be a challenge. -- they were carrying them out. it will be a challenge. not all of the documents will be released. i imagine we will get a couple of dozen. it will be hard to get a false sense of his role. host: "the washington post" points out that because he had no internet connection, documents were hand-delivered. you're talking about this feedback. how does the boss find out the work was executed? guest: right. how is he keeping up with current events? host: a former counter-terrorism official is quoted in "the washington post" -- he was not a recluse, the ceo of a global

terrorist organization. guest: certainly. he was not a recluse. this is part of a larger debate about how much bin laden was involved in the organization. i think you'll see these debates resurrected. because there are not that many documents, everyone's theory will be confirmed. host: william mccants is a senior fellow with george washington university's homeland security institute, and is an analyst for the chance for of naval analysis. florida. benito. good morning.

caller: i hear these scenarios about al qaida, but can we worry about the war debt? let's worry about the every clinton rich the hillary clinton war and her feminist -- the hillary clinton were, and her feminist radicals, which put laws in that case men out of their house. host: benito thinks we are off the topic, and this is from

twitter. host: is this still relevant? should we still be focused on this? guest: to the extent that the death of bin laden was important, yes, we should still focus on this. i would like to see the day that people like me who focus any -- who focused on al qaida are irrelevant, but that is not the case, when people can produce a photo-up picture of new york city, even l -- and people freaked out. there is that level of anxiety about al qaida's ability to bring about another attack. it is media-worthy. host: pennsylvania. welcome.

caller: mr. william mccants, are you familiar with "the lives of global g hyde -- the lives of global g hyde? guest: i am. caller: we supported the bosnian president to issue a passport to a osama bin laden in 1992, where osama bin laden visited and at least three different occasions. this was an explosive book exposing what was happening in bosnia. why did not get more attention from the media? on the cover it shows the streets. guest: it is an interesting book, but often this academic work is not remarked on in the media, and it is covering a topic that is not exactly current.

i would like to go to the larger point, and that is the effect of these wars and al qaida's capabilities and the capabilities of other islamic militant groups. a friend of mine is looking at the effects of these conflicts in the middle east, and it is striking that with each of these conflicts, militant groups that get involved game more capabilities. their networks get larger. their ability to carry out operations gets better. that is one of my worries with the arab spring and some of the conflicts that have followed those revolutions, but with the support of al qaeda into those countries, what new capabilities will they generate and how will that affect american security? host: saint petersburg, florida. jim.

independent line. caller: i think we have to realize that you can not change something that has been going on for thousands of years. people have their beliefs and they're willing to die and kill for them. we also have to realize this is a world in and of itself where people are people. it would almost be a blessing if we were attacked from the outside source, outside of all world. maybe we would you night and realize we have limited resources -- unite, and realize we have limited resources, but unbelievable opportunities to grow with each other.

people have been dying for these causes for years, and we cannot intimidate them or change them. people say we have not been attacked for such a long time, but the bottom line is before 9/11 we really were not attacked at all. the fact that we've gone 10 or 12 years, this is not significant. people will die for their causes. they will wait for the right time, and they will do it again. host: we will leave it there and get a response from william mccants.

guest: you will always find some that will sign up for a cause, not saying that they are irrational, but you always find extremists. the question is how many people will sign up? if they have other venues for venting their extremism, will they walk away from violence? i think they will. you will not deter everybody, but i think a lot of the problem, particularly with al qaida is that you have many regimes in the middle east that are quite repressive, but do not allow people a voice in the government, and you have had a series of conflicts that also gives military is a place to meet the military a place to train -- the military a place to train with one another. we've seen a transition to democratic governments, and i think with that he will see a lessening of this violence. host: from cnn today -- host: the story goes on to say that the plots included seizing cruise ships and carrying out attacks. what do you make of this? then also, the level of encryption where these documents were found? guest: al qaeda it is sophisticated and it has used these messages in the past to pass messages to operatives.

as far as targeting cruise ships, it is hard to think of a target al qaida has not targeted. it runs the gamut. the fact they would look at cruise ships is not surprising. host: kevin, boston. democrat line. caller: right now, in america, how hard you think it is for interest to attack when it is so easy for any american to get a weapon on the street. to attack somebody on a public train -- i get on the train every morning. there are a lot of people. i get nervous sometimes.

guest: that is a good point. i have often wondered the same thing, just someone with a handgun going into a crowd. two reasons. there is not a lot of interest in supporting al qaida in that way. not that many people want to carry out violence on behalf of al qaida in this country, and there seems to be a real fetish in the global movement that supports al qaeda for explosives. there might be cultural reasons related to the movement that they prefer explosives over handguns, but i have also been

surprised we have not seen more of it. host: our guest william mccants as a piece in "foreign affairs" today, and it is an update from a story of a couple of months

ago. guest: it is a mixed bag. it is one of their favorite metaphors for evaluating the fruits of their jihad, and if they look at yemen, the could be moderately pleased in what they hope to achieve in the absence of a government in the southern part of the country. in somalia, i think they can be pleased they have been able to bring a large insurgent group into the fold, but they're losing ground there. they could be pleased that their message resonates with parts of the resistance in syria, but just as its message resonated with parts of the resistance in -- >> we're going to hear from

president obama shortly. today is marking the one-year anniversary of navy team seal 6 killing osama bin laden. to the president making a surprise visit. the president has also spoken with the last couple of hours the aire troops at bob force base here he is expected to speak about the mets are so. this will take your phone calls. we will take you live to afghanistan for president obama.

>> good evening. this is more than 7,000 miles from home. for over a decade, it has been close to our hearts. here and afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters of sacrifice to protect our country. today i signed a historic agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defined a new relationship between our countries. the future of which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation. we build an equal partnership between two states. a future in which war and a new chapters began. tonight i would like to speak about this transition. let us remember why we came here. it was here in afghanistan where osama bin laden established a

safe haven for his terrorist organization. it was here where al qaeda brought new recruits, train them, and plotted new acts of terror. it was here that al qaeda launch the attack that killed nearly 3000 innocent men, women, and children. the united states and their allies went to war to make sure that al qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. despite initial success for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. in 2002, osama bin laden and is the tenants escaped and established safe haven in pakistan. americans spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in iraq. al qaeda's extremist allies have waged a brutal insurgency. or the last three years, of the tide has turned. we broke the taliban's momentum.

we build strong afghan security forces. we devastated al qaeda's leadership, taking over this. tonight is within our reach. there will be difficult days ahead. enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. i would like to tell you how we can complete our mission and ended the war in afghanistan. we began a transition to afghan responsibility for security. nearly half of the afghan people live in places where security forces are moving into the lead. our coalition will set a goal for forces to be in the lead for

combat operations across the country next year. we will fight alongside the afghans when needed. we will shift into a support role as afghans step forward. as we do, our troops of becoming home. last year we removed 10,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan. after that, reductions will continue at a steady pace with more and more of our troops coming home. by the end of 2014, the afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country. we are training afghan security forces to get the job done. the forces have surged and will peak at 352,000 this year. the afghans to sustain that level for three years and then reduce the size of their military.

in chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a long-term afghan force. we are building an enduring partnership. they're sending a clear message to the afghan people. if you stand-up comedy will not stand alone. -- stand up, you will not stand alone. it supports afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for the people. it includes afghan human rights. men and women, boys and girls. within this framework, we will work with the afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish narrow security missions beyond 2014. counter-terrorism and continue training. we will not build a permanent

basis in this country nor will we be patrolling in cities and mountains. that'll be the job of the afghan people. we are pursuing a negotiated peace. in coordination with the afghan government, my administration has been in discussions. they made it clear that they can be a part of this feature if they break with al qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by laws. many members of the taliban have indicated an interest in reconciliation. the path to peace is now set before them. those who refuse to what it will face afghan security forces backed by the united states and their allies. we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in south asia. in chicago, and they will express support for this plan

and afghanistan's feature. i have made it clear that they can and should be an equal partner in this process. there are no end to al qaeda's save havens. as we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm time line. our goal is not to build a country in america's image or to eradicate every vestige of the taliban. these objectives would require many more years and dollars. most importantly, many more american lives. our goal is to destroy al qaeda. we are on a path to do exactly that. afghans want to assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace.

but that requires a clear time line to wind down the war. others will ask why we don't leave immediately. that answer is also clear. we must give afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. otherwise our games could be lost. al qaeda can establish itself once more. i refuse to let that happen. i recognize nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to the family of the fallen for a child that will grow up without a mother and father. i will not keep americans in harm's way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. we must finish the job we started in afghanistan. we traveled through more than a decade through the dark cloud of

war. the number of our troops in harm's way has been cut in half. more will be coming home. we have a clear path to fill our mission in afghanistan while delivering justice to al qaeda. this feature is only within reach because our men and women in uniform. time and again, if they had answered the call to surf in distant and dangerous places. in an age when so many institutions have come up short, these americans stood tall. they met their responsibilities to one another and to the flag they serve under. i just met with some of them and told them as commander in chief, i cannot be prouder. we see what is best and ourselves and our country.

our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians in afghanistan have done their duty. we must summon the same sense of common purpose. we must get our veterans and military families the support they deserve and the opportunities they have earned. we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice. as we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew america of where our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. a united america. sunlight glistened of downtown manhattan. we build our future as one nation.

they are up holding human dignity. today we recall the fallen and those who suffered wounds both seen and unseen. their dark days we have drawn strength from their example. the ideals that have driven our nation. a belief that all people are created equal and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny. this is the light that guy does. this time of war began in afghanistan. this is where it will end. faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future. let us finish the work at hand and forge a just and lasting peace appeared may god bless our troops. may god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: live coverage of the

speech in afghanistan are arriving overnight. he will soon depart back to washington, d.c. tomorrow. we want to hear from me. our phone lines are open. this is your line for democrats. 202-737-0002 for republicans and20 and2628-02050 for independence. the president leading yesterday. the white house indicating that he did have some private meetings. this was on the grounds. they were signing the agreement he talked about with president karzai. this was the one-year anniversary of the killing of osama bin laden and also on this

date in 2003 or 2005 when george w. bush talked about the mission accomplished beach nine years ago aboard the uss abraham lincoln. bonn to your calls. -- now on to your calls. caller: i think he repeated president bush almost word for word in iraq. if we're going to take care of the foreign peoples, that is something. i think we should get out. >> independent line. >> good evening. >> my concern is he says he is not going to have a huge basis left in afghanistan. i am concerned about the huge

bases that we have in iraq in the basis we have a round the world. he is talking about the democracy for these countries. this is my biggest concern. corporate america is my concern. he indicated that he can share this. there is the strategy with regard to u.s. relations with afghanistan and our role in that country both militarily and diplomatically. good evening to you. democrat. caller: i am 17. i am not really into this stuff. obama is trying to change

america. he is doinge how what he needs to do. host: thank you for the call. jeffrey. independent. caller: i believe that the most important thing about today is that we must have bipartisanship dealing with foreign policy. even though this is an election year, i believe strongly that it is going to be the key for americans to unite its. this is no time to change courses. caller: what about the criticism turning this into a political issue? i do not buy that at

all. i think since the american for policy has not been good, i filled this president is a brilliant one. i think american it needs to show bipartisanship with for policy. i do not think it's to be debated in the presidential debates. >> thank you for the call. this is running about a 11.5 minutes. you can watch this any time at c-span.org. host: we want to get your reactions to his remarks. fred is on the phone. caller: good evening. what can i say?

every time i listen to this man he gets stronger and stronger every day. he has been a great inspiration for myself. forever you come from, begin making in this great country. host: this was the third time the president was in afghanistan. tweets began to spread that he was in afghanistan. go ahead. we will try walmart time.

after going through the primary process, i am leaning toward this president for the first time. this is made the difference. >> i have been prejudiced in a way. he crossed all that. he brings up some points that the benefit the entire country, setting up the craziness and bringing unity. i am going to have an argument with my brother. the have to give him props. >> thank you. he has been keeping track of these things. he is an individual who chronicles the movements of the president.

the president delivered his address. this is the first time from abroad. back to your calls. barry. in york city. independent line. host: i do not agree to this president on a lot of things. this is what we saw in vietnam and korea. i think he is trying to negotiate a different cause. we are going to pull out of afghanistan a matter what happens. i think his foreign policy is the best thing about this president. >> this is something along the political water cooler that they have been debating over. that is the politics behind the timing of this event and the president's campaign releasing that video with president clinton discussing the decision

to go after been logged in. caller: there are more important things at stake. bush was acting in the best interest of the country. i do not think the president can avoid being political. this is about the seriousness of what we're doing in afghanistan. i think this is worth this address. host: pittsburg. our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i share a broad face of the american public where we are almost sick of war. we do not have to identify our security with afghanistan and have trouble seeing how we are defending in protecting the united states. we have children starving.

we are finding both our enemy and our own military efforts. this is how afghanistan deals with our national security. >> one that you referred to at 8:00 eastern is on our website. you can click on c-span.org.

steve of cnn has this tweet that point out that the president will not get back into washington until tomorrow afternoon. next is john joining us from san francisco. >> i voted for obama. i'm generally sympathetic for him. over the course of events, he has pretty much alienated me. hearing him get a speech, it is impressive how slick he is. unfortunately, he has again and again been a great representative for the military industrial security complex that seems to be of pervasive today. i think it was a brilliant move.

it was pure politics. this was a thing to show that he is tougher than the republicans. he has is all over the world. he is out of control. he is the perfect candidates. none of the democrats, hardly any of them that were opposed to george bush and were out demonstrating, obama has them hook, line, and sinker. he is very impressive. one can only believe that the powers that be will love this guy. he is doing great work for the american empire. dicey of homages flying ahead. >> thank you for the call. this began in afghanistan october 7, 2001. the height of the war, about

40,000 allied troops. they are expected to come home by the end of the summer. that leaves 60,000 troops in afghanistan. the agreement that was worked out stepped over the last five- seven day. the president left today. they are indicating this is about in half an hour for security reasons. the president arrived in darkness. he is expected to leave shortly. our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i think barack obama is going to come aboard and talk on a battleground. this is a very good job.

host: what about the timing of his speech? caller: i believe it is great timing. he sees it as one of the largest. i believe it is a good timing. host: our line for democrats. good evening, tyler. are you with us? we lost that call. we will have more on this tomorrow morning. this agreement is this continuing. the longer term strategy is available online at why house --

whitehouse.gov. these remarks are running about 11 minutes. there also posted on our website. agram airvening, bgara base. for over a decade, this has been close to our hearts. it here in afghanistan more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country. today i find a historic agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defined a new kind of relationship. a future in which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation. we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states.

the future in which war and and a new chapter begins. tonight i like to speak to about this transition. let us remember why we came here. it was here and afghanistan where osama bin laden established a safe open for a terrorist organization. al qaeda plotted acts of terror. it was here from within these borders that al qaeda launched the attack that killed nearly 3000 innocent men, women and children. 10 years ago, united states and our allies went to war to make sure that al qaeda can never again use this to launch an attack against us. despite initial success, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. in 2002, they skate across the

border and established safe haven in pakistan. americans spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in iraq. as allies extreme have raised a brutal war. the tide has turned. we broke the momentum. we built strong afghan security forces. we devastated al qaeda's leadership taking out over 20 of their leaders. one year ago, our troops launched the operation that killed osama bin laden. the goal that i set to defeat al qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild is now within our reach. there will be difficult days ahead. enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. tonight i would like to tell you how we will complete our mission and and the war in afghanistan. afghanistan.