where he worked in nebraska having their babies while they waited to go in for slaughter, which messes up the whole process, as you can imagine. that seems kind of disturbing, and you like to and especially it was weird because i was in a part of the country where you still see billboards where aborted human fetuses sometimes on the highway. to see that just in front of me inside the factory was upsetting in a way i would never have expected. you get out of the habit of meat unless you are a farm area, and you realize that lives, something important --an animal's life and the labor and pain of

all the people who got the animal out there. and it left me appreciating meat a little more. host: from kansas, a republican, go ahead. caller: yes, i am calling to tell the gentleman i don't suppose he ever read the bible, but if he had read the book of , versus 14-r seven 23, jesus declared all foods fit they are givenf thanks for. and prepared normally. , it you can take a liver can drop on the floor. have you ever heard of washing it off with water? of course. this is the company employees not following the company's own rules, and the company took that liver, put it in a pale,

and i am sure dispose of it properly, sent it to cat food, which is what is done if there were deliver flukes in the bile duct. everything gets used sooner or later. me say, i do heard indeed give thanks when i eat meat. his story is on the front page of "harpers," the way of al flesh: undercover in slaughterhouse. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is all for "washington journal." we will be back at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we now head to the bipartisan policy center in washington, dc, discussing about drones and the rule of law and war.

>> good morning and thank you all for coming today. i am the director of the homeland security project at the bipartisan policy center. we are glad to see you all here. the homeland security project new jerseyby former governor tom kean and has a core mission to be inactive bipartisan voice on homeland and national security issues. we are glad to have in the

audience one of the homeland security project members, john gannon, up here in front. today's event is to have an important discussion, and we are glad to have an esteemed panel with us. the threats facing our nation are not going away. as we predicted in our report in online radicalization that we released this past december, we need to use all the tools at our disposal to meet and forth that threat. one in particular is the reason we gather here today. the use of drones, unmanned aerial vehicles, has become the center of a brewing controversy. today we will hear from a number of government officials and activists and current reporters who are experts in the use of drones and targeted killings. to kick things off, i am very pleased to welcome current homeland security project cochair tom keene -- thomas

kean. lee hamilton has provided extraordinary bipartisan leadership in creating a safer, more secure nation, and we are thrilled to have him/her today today to introduce today's discussion. -- to have him here today to discuss -- to introduce today's discussion. >> thank you very, very much. both lee hamilton and i are very proud to be part of the bipartisan center, addressing all sorts of questions now from energy and debt reduction to housing to health and democracy. never weree me, bipartisan approaches to these subjects needed before. we are proud to be part of the center and head that project on homeland security. one of the great challenges we are all facing is the use of drones and targeted killings. it is a real challenge. now, we have to talk about how

to engage our enemies abroad and respond minutes threats here at home. we have always done that in the past in this country through some sort of a legal framework. we need that legal framework in order to have this kind of discussion. now, another thing lee hamilton and i agree on is one of the keys to a great democracy is transparency. we recognize the use of drones and targeted killings is a very difficult subject, one that the havecan public deserves to tackled, and we have to tackle it in a transparent method. he have some wonderful people here today to sort this out with you, experts who will build deeper into the questions raised by our government's use of drones and targeted killings. these are wonderful panelists who represent an array of opinions and will offer their thoughts on how best to create a legal framework and how to administer these kinds of programs, at the time when

technology is continuing to evolve and the threat to our nation, as we know, is continuing to evolve, we will stay ahead of both. that means our capabilities must continually improve. it also means that the actions a solidmust result in legal foundation for those actions. the government has the responsibility to keep us safe and secure. that is their number one responsibility. and keep safe our democratic way of life. what they have to do so consistent with our laws and traditions. i would now like to invite my , long-term hurley advisor to myself and lee hamilton, a very important member of the 9/11 staff and the moderator of today's discussion to introduce our panelists. mike is also an attorney and may have seen a drone or two in his time. mike?

>> governor kean, thank you for the kind words. today's subject is "drones and the rule of law and war." i will ask our panel members questions and then open it up to you in the audience. more on that when the time comes. to call this an all-star panel is a bit of an understatement. our panelists are a constellation of national security experts who have fought and reflected deeply on the issues at hand today. among them out i feel like a guy who splashes paint on houses, paintingtle aspects of s let me begin by introducing the palace. john bellinger is a former legal

adviser at the u.s. state department and former legal adviser to the national security council. regularlyand writes on security law issues, recently testified before the house committee on the subject of drones in the war on terror. john, happy to have you here. seated to john's left is the director of the aclu's national security project, dedicated to ensuring that the national security policies and practices are consistent with civil liberties and human rights. of has litigated cases - targeted killings. a lecturer in law at columbia law school. phillips l echo is the associated dean of university of college of arts and

sciences, was the executive director director of the 9/11 commission. he has served on national emissions and task forces and has written books too numerous to mention. "drone" hashe word been mentioned once or twice. and mark is the national security correspondent for "the new york times," the co-winner for the pulitzer prize on reporting for -- he had is which of a recent book is on point to our discussion this morning. here is the book. i recently read it, and i recommend it to you all. let's dive right into the subject at hand. i would like to turn to john bellinger. you have been in the arena on so many of these issues, and if you could be -- begin by framing some of them for us, the legal

policy aspects. >> thanks, mike, and thank you to the bipartisan policy center for putting this together. when i testified before the house judiciary committee a couple weeks ago, i started and ended my testimony with a plea for more bipartisanship. as we all know, one of the saddest byproducts of 9/11 has been the national security issues have become so divisive when we really ought to be pulling together. democratss do this to and democrats do it to republicans, and drones are yet another one of those. at the creation of the legal basis for the use of drones. i was in the white house in the summer of 2001 when we developed the armed predator and were thinking about using it against al qaeda leaders. in fact, osama bin laden, if we could find him. so i was responsible for

developing legal framework. i do think as a general matter, it is permissible under both under theaw subsequently developed law giving us the ability to use force act. al qaeda leaders planning attacks against us. the main legality of the program, as both the bush administration and the obama administration have practiced it, i think are correct. the devil is in the details how and the problem we don't know a lot of the details. -- the obama administration would never have guessed four years later that they would now ,e being accused of war crimes have the aclu suing them, have the human right's counsel conducting investigations of whether the obama administration is committing war crimes and violating international law.

a british group has sued the british government for supposedly sharing intelligence obama administration, resulting in the death of a man in pakistan, so four years later, the obama administration is now finding some of the same charges that were leveled against the bush administration. the couple of years ago i wrote an in "the post," called "will drone strikes become obama's one, m o?" -- obama's guantanamo?" at the time i wrote that, i did not really think that drone strikes could have become guantanamo. i think this is a real problem for them. they have been grappling with the issue through a number of officials -- john brennan, harold koh.

others have issued a series of speeches generally explaining the program, the problem is -- and this is my real point here -- no other country in the world has at least publicly agree with the legality of our drone program. that is not a good place for the united states to be. it may well be that there are a handful who are cooperating with us that believe it is legal or they would not be cooperating. but right now the united states is isolated as the obama administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes in four different countries, killing more than 3000 people, and the rest of the world is finding not very controversial if unlawful. they have given the obama administration the benefit of the doubt for four years, but as we now go into a second term, i think they are now beginning to become increasingly restive,

and the challenge for the obama administration, as it has been for us when we enter the second term of the bush administration, is now trying to convince the rest of the world that what they are doing in terms of counterterrorism policy is in fact lawful. so they are rapidly on the back foot. the obama administration -- i know they are working with this inside the white house to do a better job explaining the legality of the program, who they are targeting, why it is lawful, and why the rest of the world should in fact agree with what they are doing. in a moment i would be happy to get into the more of the legal details, but that is where we are right now. >> thanks, john. i'm a take you, mike, and thank you area much to the bipartisan policy center for having this event and inviting me. let me start out in the spirit of the center with agreeing with a lot of what john bellinger has said. the targeted killing program

rate is profoundly important, has profoundly important legal and policy questions, and the public debate is crippled because we do not actually have a lot of the information that we need in order to determine the full extent of where the program is being carried out, how, against two, with what investigation, and what measures to prevent harm to civilians. let me also start out with another point of agreement. often a straw man is created thomas the idea that -- is aeated, the idea that -- as legal matter, i don't think drones are per se unlawful, but as a policy matter, they have raised a family important questions because they are easier to use without risk to be. forces, and they may

able to use -- to be used in places where we are not otherwise at war, as has been explained to the american public where we are at war. it also becomes a legal issue when you talk about who is using the drones. it has been widely reported that the cia is using drones. the cia' program is secret is one of the worst kept secrets in the world, undermining our legitimacy to make that claim. but it takes us to the question using this weapon or any other weapon, because ella copter airships have also been used to carry out the program of targeted killing, and that is really what the heart of this debate is about. is deeplyow troubling, and i think there is

a general feeling amongst international law scholars that the use of lethal force is permissible under international law, human rights laws, in response to -- maybe permissible in response to a specific and concrete threat. in the law of war context, in an armed conflicts, it would be permissible against civilians who are directly participating in hostilities, as the terms are defined under the laws of war and as long as other law of war requirements are met. what has been made public in speeches by administration officials -- and i appreciate that those speeches have been made -- as well as the white paper that was first leaked, is that those are not the standards being applied. if you look at the white paper alone -- remember, this is a white paper that was reportedly a summary of the memo used to justify the killing of a u.s.

citizen who is a senior operational al qaeda leader, or alleged to be one. the restrictions the white paper onognizes -- for example, what constitutes an imminent threat, the capability of capture, the law of war requirements -- when you read the white paper, you realize they are permissions. it turns out that the senior high-level officials making the determination about whether lethal force may be used does not need to have, for imminence to exist, according to the white paper, actual evidence that a plot is going to take place, and all of a sudden the imminence requirement is read out of existence. it is vastly elastic. something similar happens with respect to the requirement and capture. recognizing now is

that the requirements that at least what we know with respect to u.s. citizens raise at least significant concerns from our perspective, more than that about the legal requirements, whether they are being abided by. if we have that concern with u.s. citizens, we should equally have that concern with noncitizens. one u.s. citizen has reportedly been publicly targeted, three others have been otherwise but, as senator graham said, there are reports that approximately 4700 noncitizens have been killed. and i think that there is -- there are fewer things that are more likely to undermine the legitimacy of our country as well as our national security than even the perception that we are not abiding by the rule of law with respect to noncitizens as well as our own citizens alike, and that we are in

different -- and that we are indifferent to civilian casualties. to the legal standards of who can be targeted. what is the process by which those decisions are made? who is a senior high-level official, who reviews the decision-making of senior high- level officials? and who should the public hold accountable? who are militants or the civilians who have been killed out to the extent that the numbers are known, they should be disclosed. to the extent that identity is known, that should be disclosed as well. we will not be able to move forward with the kind of debate ast we expect of ourselves any liberal democratic society, one based on checks and balances, without that fundamental transparency which is necessary to accountability

not just in court but public accountability in the public sphere. >> iq. thank you.-- phil, your views question mark, -- phil, your views. >> i am actually not here as representative of the administration, and none of what i say should be construed as representing the views of anyone in the obama administration. between those two pillars, let me navigate a path. i would like to take a moment and explain to you an argument -- how toto do conduct warfare in this strange way. the united states has been involved in a global armed conflict with al qaeda and its affiliate organizations now for approximately 15 years.

al qaeda knew it was engaged in armed conflict before the united states agreed that it was in it. forcefullys able to impress on the united states government that it was in such a lee most rob strikingly beginning in august, 1998. -- probably most strikingly between august -- beginning in august, 1998. whether it can be conducted with remotely piloted vehicles in many countries around the world. let me offer you two different paradigms for how to think about this problem. in these paradigms, i will try to make this very clear, and maybe too clear. you need to do three things. first you need to define what is the doorway through which i must enter that allows me to kill these people? what is the doorway?

second, having passed through that doorway thomas i have two defined which people i can legally kill as a government. having defined that, i must set some sort of standards of evidence and circumstances under which people so defined can be targeted. now, there are two contrasting approaches for how to answer all three of these sets of questions. one approach i will call and on- conflict/law of war approach, which i support. the second is what i would call a constitutional/self-defense approach, which worries me. let me just explain the way these two approaches work. for the doorway, if you are in an armed conflict approach, the

doorway is and must be a public doorway. the country knows and discusses that has entered into this armed conflict. the congress debates it, the congress in may pass an authorization for the use of military force expressively -- especially authorizing the government to wage war and enemies around the world. this is a healthy attribute of a democracy. under the constitutional approach, the doorway is some entity or person poses an imminent threat to the united states that allows us to defend ourselves. that doorway need not be public. that determination can be concluded in secret, whether or not the government has determined that it is in armed conflict with some larger entity, and that this in other

words rises to the stature of a war or warlike thing, rather than being a person or group of people who are dangerous to us in our secret determinations. can see the significance of these paradigms, and if you parse the administration public statements on this issue, you will see references to both of these paradigms. what you are hearing from me is a strong argument about the significance of one and the dangers of the other. now, the second standard i theioned -- what about definition of the people who you can kill? under a law of armed saylict standard, i must the bush administration badly mangled this definition. and indeed did quite a lot to discredit it. ofexpanded the definition

the term "enemy combatant" to given ornyone who has might have been seen to be given some sort of material support to a terrorist organization, equating it with other standards of u.s. domestic law, often in guantanamo of litigation. that is very permission is -- that is very pernicious because the enemy combatant standard is very important, someone who our military can lawfully kill or capture without a lot of advance notice. that is a determination that should be approached with care. now, properly defined, an enemy combatant is someone who, as international law experts would put it, is directly participating in hostilities. dph is sometimes called the

standard. to its credit, the obama administration has publicly dph standard and in my view has restored credibility to that kind of approach. credibility that was tattered when the obama administration entered office. ,n the constitutional paradigm the definition of who can be killed does not use necessarily these law of war determinations and doesn't judge whether that person is a member of the larger engagedith who you are with in armed conflict. mentions the threat posed by the individual. it is way, you'll notice potentially pernicious in some ways. at the same time, it begins

assuming annexed ordinarily high standard of intelligence and evidence about particular individuals that is rarely attainable in practice. , thatt the third level is, what evidence and circumstances you need, we have a great deal of experience and a lot of people who are well trained on the application of the dph standard of enemy combatants. that is a result of 15 years of warfare, of this is now a standard that a lot of people understand and know how to apply, and they know how to second-guess mistaken applications of it. we have had a lot of trial and error with this. we have had some seasoning in how to make judgments about this. ,n the constitutional standard because it will turn on evidence and circumstances so related to this individual determination, assuming that the government involved is one of

good will and does not want to abuse its privileges. it is going to want to set very high evidentiary standards. the irony, then, as i look back, for instance, on the years around 9/11, is there is a level at which we are a little spoiled about the intelligence we might have about certain people in areas we have been watching very closely now for a long time, areas that we now know better than people living in fairfax county know the street map of arlington. i am serious. so don't assume that that evidentiary standard is going to be met in other situations we will encounter. that evidence may look a lot more like that pre-9/11 story, where if you read the 9/11 commission report you will see all kinds of uncertainty about someone there, who else is ,here, judgments had to be made

repeated questions came up in 1998 and 1999. should we shoot? and in every decision after the first, the decision was made not to shoot. now step back. i am basically offering a paradigm, you will notice, that is very public about how you get in. applies fairly well understood standards about how you work it. but then takes into account the inherent uncertainties of warfare in making judgments about when you can strike. but that is because the country has decided it is in a war and candidate that decision. in the other paradigm, a pure constitutional paradigm, you can bypass an aumf, you don't need an aumf, you can make these to constitutional determinations,

and you can make this less open to the public, less open to debate about with whom we should be at war. simultaneously, because of that, impose standards on you that actually make it harder to deal with the sorts of enemies we may encounter in the future, whether , what would we have liked to have been able to do in libya last year, if we had had just a little bit more information than the information we had, and had more assets on the scene. let me stop there. >> thank you, philip. mark, you thought deeply about these issues and investigated them. give us the benefit of your thinking. >> thanks, mike, and it is terrific to be here. i was a last-minute addition to the panel. when the original rembrandt was going to be here. i am honored and appreciate being on this panel. i come at this subject to

friendly than anyone appear. i am the only person who is not a lawyer. even the former cia guy is a lawyer. and a national security a portable -- security report where we are getting added basic question about what is happening now and what has happened in the past on these issues. we are all sort of basically trying to ask the same questions and get some answers. in my reporting for " the new york times and also in my book is try to basically describe as much as possible the history of this secret war that has been waged since 9/11, as philip points out, because he really is a war and it really has been in secret. since those early years.

know they now we broad outlines and contours of the war in iraq and afghanistan, but what is happening in pakistan, what is happened in yemen. in other parts, places like somalia, still, those stories need to be told, and that is what i have been trying to do. hina that we do focus on the idea of drones as a there is thee science-fiction quality to it. there is the aspect of, although there -- although they are not robots, that they are robots carrying out war. the deeper question is obviously how they are used and the idea of targeted killing or not so targeted killing in places where at least officially the united states is not.

so that is what i have written about, how this way of war has become sort of the default way the united states does. it was begun by the bush administration, in overtime if you are looking at targeted killing killing, the bush administration went from primarily a capture strategy and interrogation strategy two, ther a few years, detention and interrogation program, especially with this cia, really started to tail off and the policy of killing started to escalate, and the obama administration came in in 2009 and has expanded in many ways. it has been i think the most important story, to understand how the obama administration sees this way of war, out has conducted this way of war.

-- how it has conducted this way of war. also the question of, will there be repercussions to how -- or blowback to this war being conducted. john mentioned earlier that he thought that using drones to isl off al qaeda leaders certainly lawful, and he supported it. i think that what we see these days in many cases is drones being used on targets that are far from senior al qaeda leaders, and in many ways al as ithas -- al qaeda existed on 9/11 is a shadow of what he was. the questions we have to ask our things like, what is the bar for targeted killing? who is being targeted? is it al qaeda? is it al qaeda affiliates? are they enemies of the state of

pakistan, of the state of yemen? is the united states the counterinsurgency air force for yemen or pakistan? these are questions that i , but are being answered obviously we still need to know more about because if this is really the default way of doing business, if this is -- if we don't expect to see another afghanistan anytime soon or another iraqi anytime soon but to see -- or another iraq anytime soon but a lot more somalians, i think everyone agrees that there does need to be greater transparency, greater public discussion on these issues, and sort of greater accountability for how the war is being waged. i still find it striking that, as a reporter, when recently i was covering the john brennan confirmation hearings and john brennan was being confirmed as

cia director, to find that -- i was struck to find that the members of the senate intelligence committee who are the dozen people in congress who are authorized to have the highest level of classified levels of intelligence inside the government do not have the memos, the legal memos that are underpinning the targeted killing program. the white house makes the point that congress is not entitled -- they are. as an outsider, it is striking to me that members of the intelligence committee was formed after the committee ,nvestigations of the si 1970's the agencies do not have these memos. not having these memos significantly limits their ability to conduct oversight. i think if that is the position they are in, i think it is a lot tougher for citizens, people not in government, to really make

informed judgments about what we think. and i hope for more discussion in the future. >> mark, thanks very much, john an. just yourina, reaction to what phil laid out question mark, i take a slightly different angle. one, a couple things about the debate is really not about -- we talk about drones. the problem is not the use of drones. people now start saying the problem is targeted killings. it is actually not the problem, targeted killings. if we are in a real war, with germany and japan in world war roman to and we developed a weapon in wench one could only kill a single person rather than one couldin which

only kill a single person rather than engage him in that is wonderful. that is legal, that is good. it is not actually that targeted killings are bad. when lawful and legitimate, they can be good. the issue here, and this begins to fit with what philip is saying, is that there is a fundamental disagreement around the world, which i experience when i was a legal advisor, as to whether the united states really is in a war at all. we are only the country and the -- we are about the only country in the world that believes we are in a conflict with al qaeda. i spent part through years as legal advisor in the bush administration engaged in the dialogue that was kicked off by the 9/11 commission, and one of the 9/11 commission recommendations was that we need to work with our allies to develop common standards for detention based on article three. what is now going on around the world is a different debate with the rest of the world about not

the tension, because as mark said this administration has decided they do not want to do detention anymore. the bush administration got in trouble with detention, so they are now just going to kill people. the issue is not the targeted killings. the issue around the world, and i see a number of members of embassies here, is is the united states in an armed conflict around the world? can you be in an armed conflict with the group? with a group that goes on not just in one country, in afghanistan, that any lot of different countries? through successive administrations, the bush and obama administrations have been unable to persuade our allies that after the initial phases of the afghan war that the united states remains in an armed conflict with al qaeda that allows us therefore to use lethal force against members of al qaeda around the world. this is where what i am talking

about fits together with what philip is talking about. from the rest of the world's perspective, it is not the law of war versus the u.s. constitutional law. other countries apply a paradigm of human rights law. we do not think we are in a war, and therefore to the extent that the united states may use force lawfully under international law, one has to apply human rights law paradigm, meaning that one can only target someone who poses an absolutely .mminent threat under a human rights law paradigm, other countries would it can be shown someone in pakistan is willing to launch an attack in pakistan is unwilling to do anything about it, the united states has the right to self- defense. but where we can kill members

of al qaeda know my bro where they are, and the rest of the they's perspective, -- were very surprised to find the obama administration adopt this that conflict paradigm european countries in particular thought was going to be dropped like a hot potato as soon as the obama administration came into office. and to not only continue the war paradigm but to wrap up the use of drones. , at leastth philip from a u.s. versus international perspective, there are paradigms, i would say there is a law of war paradigm that we are applying versus not a constitutional paradigm but a human rights law paradigm from the rest of the world. >> hina? >> one way to think about it is the constitutional standards and the human rights standards are very similar, and with what the constitutional rights allow -- i'm a set that aside little

bit and pick up from there john left off about how the rest of the world not only does not agree but i think from our perspective we have to be concerned about the precedent that we are setting for the rest of the world to follow. not just with respect to the use of drones, to the legal conductk in which we targeted killings. perhaps we can discuss this. in a very literal sense, when we talk about the signatures trikes and such, there is no question we are talking about targeted killing in a literal sense. but going back to the precedent- setting standard, there is no question that multiple other countries, nonstate actors, will have access to drones technology. whatever standard we claim to use today, we have to accept that other countries are going

to cite back to us tomorrow. while we can accept that terrorism is a global threat, the idea that we are engaged in a global war on terror which allows an executive branch, regardless of which country's executive branch it is to declare people unilaterally enemies of the state and order their killing without judicial review before or after the fact is one that we must at least debate and seriously consider whether that is the kind of world in which we want to live. it used to be that our country condemned what we now call targeted killing. it will be the case tomorrow that other countries will carry them out. we look to ourselves as a standard setter for international law, the rule of law. we undermine our status, our

legitimacy, and our ability to argue for the rule of law approach if we don't recognize that limitations that we want today -- that we might want for others are ones that we have to recognize for ourselves. and there i want to talk very quickly about some facts. said,ality is, as mark the majority of people who are being killed now are not senior- level al qaeda leaders. they are lower-level insurgents who do not necessarily pose a threat to the united states but may pose a threat to pakistan, yemen, and other countries. at the most -- at the least we need more information and debate about where we are committed to being at war, why, and for what reason in order to be able to really have sound policy going forward on these issues and an informed public debate based on which u.s. people can let their

policymakers know what their thoughts are. , any response to to whata has said -- john has said? , i do not disagree entirely with john. i think the two paradigms are important in the american context. but reacting to both comments, i have to observe that country's under attack are the ones that get to decide whether they are at war or not. whether or not that is a legal principle, i will make that observation as a historian. country's under attack will decide whether they are at war or not. if they think they are at war, they will act accordingly. came to shanghai and blew up its holdings and

killed thousands of chinese citizens tomorrow, it would not matter what president we had said or what labels we had applied. if the chinese thought that came from people oversee, they would act as if they were at war, and they would use 100% of their available power to attack the people who had caused that. to the absolute limits of what was possible. were,erever those people they would do that. frankly, so would any other government that felt a sense of ility to its citizens. >> i have a couple of buttons i would like to pose myself. mark mazzetti, we have talked about the legal aspect here, the legal frameworks. on the policy side, as well,

does the use of drones and targeted killing, when we think about long-term potentially doing more harm than good -- john bellinger, you made a similar point toward the end of your recent testimony to congress, so i will come to you next -- a kind of a brief answer, mark, if you can't. wei think this is something will find out in the years ahead in terms of, as i said before, blowback for what is being done now. at this point there is anecdotal evidence of the radicalization happening as a result of drones strikes in yemen and pakistan. one of the more famous cases is in may of 2010 when faisal shows shazadhazel -- faisal tried to blow up trucks in time square. i know that john brennan has

said there is little if no evidence of radicalization. i think making firm judgments on on what right now about the impact -- it is a little dangerous. i think, though, that if the cia is doing its job, they should be doing very thorough sidesis on the analytic about what the other side of the cia, the operations side, is doing, and the impact that the drone strikes predominately are being carried out by the cia, are having on the views of the people in pakistan and elsewhere. and will that be more radicalization? will it mean more tax -- more attacks, attacks directed by what is left of al qaeda, or things like the boston bombing? we still do not know too much of the brothers that carried out the attack, but certainly we

all agree we may see more of that in the future. so what does that mean? >> john bellinger, just a very quick response. , i was mostly quoting people that were more knowledgeable than myself, like stan mcchrystal. my point was to know that people who really are in the know are concerned that our use of drones, well effective on one hand -- we certainly, one can quibble whether every last person ought to have been targeted, we are knocking out a lot of al qaeda leaders. but is it reaching the point of credit -- of minimal returns? general mcchrystal's point is that we don't understand how much of the united states is becoming hated around the region because of the of drone strikes. my concern as a lawyer is that we are also losing support of our strong allies in europe, who really were willing to give

president obama the benefit of a doubt in a way they were not willing to give president bush. these drone strikes have really ramped up the european public, their parliament, their journalists are putting pressure on their governments to say why aren't you saying anything about this to my are you sharing with the american administration, are these things legal? these are really echoes of guantánamo, so fill is right that any country that is attack has a right to decide if they are in a armed conflict. but it becomes a serious problem for the united states, who needs the support of our allies and is committed to the rule of law, if none of our allies really believe that we are in that armed conflict. where philip and i really worked very hard in the second term of the bush administration was to get out and do a better job in the second term than we had done in the first term to try to engage our allies in dialogue, explain to them what we were doing, explain to them for

example why one can detain people under the laws of war without charging them, which is something that we absolutely did not accept. ,his administration problem because they feel they are on the side of angels, is that they have not had to explain themselves. we had been attacked, everybody ought to be behind us. we got into a deep hole. philip and i know that we worked hard in the second term of the bush administration to convince our allies that we were doing the right thing. these are exactly echoes what happened. the obama administration now finding itself maybe not in as deep a hole, and they have the support of their allies, but they need to get on top of this and explain to our allies why what they are doing is legal, why it is permissible under international law. , philip, a very quick response from you, and then hina, a

response from you, in that you have talked briefly about the number of dead. >> i think it is time to have a debate about the public authorization of military force that the congress passed into his house in one. that was 12 years ago. that is the corollary of my argument. it is time to have a renewed debate about are we still in a war, or should we move this into another paradigm that maybe treats this as something less than a global armed conflict because of the different size and character of the enemy we face now. i think it is an appropriate time for that. if this year is not the right time, 2014 as our posture in afghanistan, which really was -- foralytic event that which the congressional legislation was passed in the first place, that we can move

into a different phase. i think we are entering a period where it is time for renewed public discussion of these issues, of what framework really is appropriate for this particular set of people. >> philip, you have anticipated and answered well a couple of questions i have had. , if you canthose just comment on this issue. >> last week the senate judiciary subcommittee headed by senator dick durbin and ranking member ted cruz had a telling hearing on these issues. and to the extent that folks have not looked at the statements there, i would urge you to do so. -- two issues.ue desk i don't think even with those explanations are allies in europe or elsewhere in the world will agree that this war based framework is one that

accords with international law. so we really have to think through the fact that we have to ratchet set down and abide by the laws of war, which i think allow us to maintain our security and do so in accordance with a set of standards that the rest of the world recognizes and that we helped establish. what happens when we don't? one of the testimonies that i thought was most powerful last week -- and kudos to senator durbin and senator cruz for inviting a very first time a young man to discuss the human cost and consequences of targeted killing operations in yemen. this is an exceptional young man. he comes from a remote village who has learned english and went to university as a result of u.s. scholarships, and to high school here for a year >> sees himself as an ambassador of american values and principles to yemen,

and six days before his village, drones were used to strike it. what he had to say was up until then what people knew about the united states was based on his love of the country and his talk about american values and what it meant to him about this nation. now what they know are drone strikes that killed someone that he and other people think could easily have been captured by yemeni forces, and that instead of this capture what resulted and a realfear, backlash against the united states. so we need to hear more from people who are actually impacted on the ground to inform what otherwise might be a sterile legal argument and recognize that, as i think stanley mcchrystal said, general mcchrystal, that what may appear to thes to us here,

perspective on those on the receiving end is very much like war. that is part of what we are doing and what we have to consider going forward including whether we want to expand authority at a time when the public is tired of the blood and treasure that has gone into war-based endeavors, and when our policy makers are telling us that al qaeda and other organizations have been decimated. it is a debate we have to have, a debate we have to have more information to have on an informed basis. >> thank you, and i would like to open it up to your questions. we do have microphones. wait till the microphone comes, then please state your name and organization. if you would like to direct a question to a particular panelist, these do so. .he>> john gannon

>> thanks, great panel. john bellinger mentions the obama administration was making efforts to clarify this issue. i have read those speeches, and it seems to me what i have read is more of a rationalization for what we have done rather than establishing a critical framework for where we need to go. a couple of questions have come out of that. what is it with regard to roles and responsibilities? i think no one has any trouble imam, but when we go to his 16-year-old son two weeks later, we learned that that operation was not conducted by cia, which was supposedly in thege of this, but by department of defense. on the issues of roles and responsibilities and accountability that comes out of that, what is the legal foundation for either of those agencies or departments to be involved, and how do we get that clarified so that we can have

clearer policy and then embed that in law? the final point is about the international implications from a legal standpoint. if you look at the migration of the technology, it is proliferating. it is not just an issue of our values and our standing in a representative of the world. we will be threatened by this technology ourselves if we do not establish international law that establishes the use of this capability. so how do we move to imbed into domestic law and get into the international arena and establish international law that will rain in this? i would expect any president to use whatever capability is available to him or her at the time of an attack. i would also expect in history shows we usually do get our senses as history goes on and we have to bring this in and in

bed and law because we are country of our rule of law. if we can make their responses concise the weekend as many questions as possible in the remaining time. the administration's i am reallyat arguing it is they need to go further to explain the expressed -- excise legal parameters if there what creeks break -- persuade other countries to go along with us. the administration has not felt the need to do that. also, if we want to constrain other countries from the use of drones, we need to be extremely precise in what is a lawful use of legal force -- lethal force and unlawful use of lethal force. i pity the state department

spokesperson when china or russia uses a drone and a spokesman has to stand up and tap dance and say that was actually an illegal targeting killing in contrast to all of the lawful targeted killings. the reason that is difficult is we have not been precise. that is a challenge for the administration to explain in more detail. again, i have talked about the echoes of guantanamo. in some ways i see echoes of the cia interrogation program, which was the reaction, perhaps an overreaction to 9/11. now we have the drone of strike proposed by a cia puts the white house and a difficult position of saying no. on we need to get these better footing in the second term. on the roles of emission point, i think the administration hasn't made it clear it intends to move towards

greater reliance on the department of defense for the conduct of warfare income 20% 3. i support that. >> very quickly on this point, it was one of two recommendations that was not ultimately adopted, which was to take military function out of the cia and give it to the dod. if anything not only was not adopted, but the office ended up occurring were the cia has become so much a military organization the court mission is using droned strikes in targeting in killing the terrors as some center has become part of the agency. so we will see -- there has been indications the administration wants to move back into the other direction. we will see what happens. there is no question one of

the most unsympathetic characters you could have in connection with being a poster boy for these public policies. the reality is if not him, what about the next as an in person after that. right now the administration takes the position in response to the transparency freedom of information act that we cannot confirm or deny we actually with respect to the due process challenge, the administration takes my challenge the killing of three u.s. listens cannot be subject traditional review. this is in essence a political question. we profoundly disagree, but that is of very dangerous proposition for a system of

checks and balances that the executive branch may be able to unilaterally take the life of a u.s. citizen and not beach of debt -- subject to judicial review, even after the fact. >> in the back. >> >> thank you very much. thank you for a very interesting panel this morning. i have a question for philip. it is a hypothetical question. but i hope it might help me to better understand the argument for the international legality. if al qaeda was to get its hands unlikely, but if it were and use them to attack u.s. military sites here or government offices involved in planning attacks, what would be the international legality of that, given that the u.s. is engaged in a mutual act of war

with al qaeda, and the other being response to an imminent threat. if al qaeda was to satisfy the requirement, would that passed the international legality? >> i do not know if you want to respond to the guardian. [laughter] >> we are discussing warfare with remotely piloted vehicles against people with directly- piloted vehicles. >> [inaudible] >> there is nothing in international law that prohibits people from going to war against the united states. there are consequences from it. would be legal to go to war and legal for us to wage war against the people who did that. >> governor king. historians through history

when we have had wars we have suspended civil rights. we have done things profoundly illegal, sometimes regretted them afterwards but that is what we've done during war. we've never had a war that has lasted 15 years. the idea you can be extra legal for this time and have a program like this that kills people -- i tried to follow this. i do not even know who authorizes it. i do not know if it is john brennan or a military man or who it is, let alone legal framework for the rationale for this kind of thing. i worry very much that as this technology spreads, we have throughout history been a refuge for revolutionaries. we have people that his stick of government and we make a home for them because we often support what they're doing because it is in favor of democracy. we have done that since our

earliest days. does that mean some other country has the right to target them on american soil? >> yes? moment. >> i was in pakistan and october. the foundation for fundamental rights interviewing a lot of the families impacted by the drone strikes. it seemed quite apparent the signature strikes you mentioned were quite a significant proportion of the strikes. i did not understand the legal framework for that. people keep using the word targeted killing. that is clearly not targeted killing. this is patterns of activity where they do not know who the individual is. how is that justified? think that is one of the

concerns that even for those of --that bank some john starks that some drones strikes are illegal. on the one hand they have said and the president has said he is personally approving drone strikes at one point a year-and- a-half ago. there were stories to suggest the president was personally poring over the target list and approving them and they were reserving the targeting only for the people who opposed the most significant threat, and that does seem to be inconsistent with the so-called signature strikes of people who bear a certain signature. not know enough about what the rationale is because the obama administration has some explaining to do. and they have not explained what they're doing for it to be criticized.

that gets to a point that almost all of us agree with, which is if we do not want to get further on the back foot around the world and inside the united states, the administration needs to explain who they are targeting and why and what the rules are as john brennan said. -- john gannon said. of the to take this out pakistani context, let's propose your talking about a signature strike against the taliban encampment and afghanistan. everybody knows the united states conducts military operations in afghanistan against the taliban. then you would say, might say, how do we know it is the taliban and afghanistan? well, there are intelligent indicators about things people have observed that cause people to conclude it is an encampment of people directly participating in hostilities against our forces. and we make judgments.

we have made hundreds, possibly thousands of those judgments in afghanistan and iraq without getting into any place else in the world. not all of those judgments are always accurate. in war never are. there is an arcane that terminology about signature strikes, and signature strikes in a way are the kinds of strikes that military's conduct out war. then you get into the arguments of what are the intelligence indicators that provide compelling evidence that these of the people in combat against you. are three major problems with signature strikes. one is it is a form of lethal force operations that may be conducted and war. this is further away from what is locally referred to as a hot battlefield. not clear the administration is

abiding by a direct hostility standard or even what the definition is. i was very struck when the former u.s. ambassador to pakistan was asked what constitutes a militant who can be struck here. he said an e-mail between 20-40. one-manressed to say militant is another man's chump who went to a meeting. the legal issue with signature strikes in this context is it threatens to turn up the perception of civilian status on its head. civilians have up resumption and war and outside of it of not being tartabull. i agree we do not have enough information. we certainly need more information but there is a real threat to their being conducted in armed forces. some of them are not, some of them may be. the final concern is, how did that lead to the counting of

civilian casualties? if people are categorized as militant vs civilians and we do not know who the cia is killing until after they're dead, what is the counts? what is the basis, and how do we know and what are the numbers? we still do not know that. i am a little bit concerned the pendulum is swinging too far in one direction. as someone who was actually the legal adviser for the national security council before and after 9/11, who responded to all of the 9/11 commission request for what were you doing prior to 9/11 to make the country safe and why did you not do enough? i can tell you on behalf of someone who has been in the white house, these are difficult. of these things are on one side of the spectrum. you arether hand, if

the president of the united states and advisers warned to make the country safe, your cia director is giving information that suggests there are threats against you that another 9/11 could happen and you knew alsong -- do nothing, you have a problem. i am sure the administration looks back and looks at the commission after the 9/11 commission suggestion that not enough had been done and is mindful of that. although all of us have raised concerns about drone strikes, i do not want the pendulum to swing so far as to suggest these are not incredibly difficult decisions as the president of united states and advisers. >> thanks, john. i know there are many more questions an audience but what we are -- but we're up against a hard deadline. it is very difficult to summarize a panel like this because the issues are so complex. legal policy and moral.

here,ing we all agree on it is probably time to reconsider and revise the use of military force. possibly for broader discussions and a greater role. i am hoping you all agree with this. in we do not know what is going on behind closed doors. i think our reflect the views of the 9/11 commission that a greater role for congress in all of this is important and will help educate the public. i would like to ask carried back to come up. -- carrie lamack to come up. >> thank you all for coming today. thank you for the bipartisan policy center for putting on this fantastic panel. thank you to all of the panelists. a special thank you to salicylate and the communications team for putting

together this fantastic event. we hope to see you. we will have a lot more discussions about very important topics. i think these issues are something we need to keep the public focus on so we appreciate being here to be a part of this. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> as this hearing comes to a close, we want to let you know on the companion network people have a set -- senate judiciary hearing on ground warfare - 2.ne warfare on cspan later this afternoon president obama will make a couple of personnel announcements. the president intends to nominate veteran congressman mel watts.

the government regulators that oversees the anime and freddie mac. he has chosen a formal -- former wireless lobbyist -- lobbyists. is from north carolina and a democrat. he will replace the appointee of george w. bush who has been a target of housing advocates and democratic lawmakers. also, the president plans to nominate tom wheeler, one of his top campaign fund raisers. we will have the president's announcement scheduled for 2:15 eastern. the chair of the house homeland security committee announced a hearing for may 9 examining the boston marathon bombings. and the implications for homeland security. this is just a day after the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee pledged to investigate the

attacks. writing that the homeland security chair said yesterday the panel is still waiting through information request but has promised to hold hearings on the bombings when the time is right. the house and senate are out this week for a district work period. live coverage when they return next week on the c-span networks. new georgeour of the of the bush library and museum. leading this is the former first lady laura bush who will described the design and construction of the exhibit. here's a preview. know, yourell husband have a lot of critics. will this change the way people view his presidency? >> it is not meant to do that. it is meant to explain what happened in those eight years of history, to talk about all of the different things we faced as a country and his choices and decisions he made to respond to

whatever the challenges were. i think people will learn a lot. i think there are a lot of things people do not know. the generosity of the american people. i think there are a lot of interesting things people will learn about they did not know before. i think it will give them an idea of what it will be like to be president. and there are successes and failures. , andlike in anyone's life certainly our presidents are human and we will have the same sort of record. >> hasn't met expectations? >> i think people will find it very interesting. we tried to include everything. includee you cannot every single thing. we have not even talked about our support for dissidents and the whole freedom movement that is part of this wall i am looking at behind you. thee will also talk about

nation's presidential library system and how they're funded. ais year introduced a rare -- bill to require libraries to disclose the names of donors. plus highlights of the presidential library coverage throughout the years. reaganthrough the library with nancy reagan. tour ofou can watch the the new george w. bush library tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> there are two infamous prisons in the western u.s.. one is the cuban territorial prison. the other one is alcatraz. there is something in our culture, our consciousness of what it would have been like to be in a prison like this. and the territorial prison was considered to be a model and

humane institution in its day. this was the solitary confinement cell. any major infraction, talking given netguard, not your respect to the authorities , if they could not deal with you, the dark cell could deal with you. of all the treatment, this was the place you did not want to come, because you did not have a latrine. you got bread and water once a day. occasionally more than one person in here. in one great big prison breakout, there were 12 people in here. we have no proof of this that black,guard in the pitch you would feel something coming down the air shaft and could have been us scorpion or snake. that is something not

documented. 1909 the1876- territorial prison was more than -- was home to more than 3000 prisoners, including 29 women. this we can discover the history and literary life saturday at noon eastern. sunday at 5:00 on american history tv. supreme court justice clarence thomas -- clarence thomas recently talked about his life and career. he discussed race in america and the inner workings of the supreme court and gave advice to law school students. he is joined by the dean and the judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. the story of your life growing up is really a remarkable one. do you know which part of west

africa your family came from and how they ended up with georgia? >> i think they lost the itinerary. was in the 1700's. i do not think anyone quite knows anything. much was underwritten. i have no idea of much of my own genealogy. some of my relatives told me we do not want to know. but, the answer is no. it is unfortunate. that is one reason why in the last few years we have tried to focus on trying to retain some of what is left of that culture.

country, you see the fine buildings, the sandstone buildings, the beautiful architecture. there is much of an effort to preserve those things. there is another part of culture, of people who aren't preferred, of people who had a caste system, would be the untouchables. their culture was just as rich. it was just as important, just a central. the effort to retain that, or to record the is not there. we would spend more time on aristotle or socrates, more time on frank lloyd wright, but on the and j did i do not think -- but none on the unlettered. you look at the barrier islands -- that is where my family is

from. some people may have heard from the term fiji. that is because those of us who were from those islands also -- most is bordered. -- one of the slurs grow my way was fiji. i was proud to be fiji. i have never been ashamed of where i am from. i think it is a wonderful culture.

the people are wonderful people. >> treasurer pam -- family speak the gola gola language? >> he spoke the exact same wing was. i am from a different island. that is where we went to live. it is hard to really do it. it would be similar to west indian dialect. when i went north in the 60s, people would ask if i was indian. i would have no idea what they were talking about. it was not like i had travel to the caribbean. my wife accuse me recently of -- she said i was beginning to talk my language again.

anyone who is from that part of the country or ethnic groups back into that group speaking the king's english. otherwise people will say you think you are better than us now. there is this delicate balance. that is one thing, when we went north in the 1960s, you had to move in and out of cultures. you moved into the white culture. then you moved into the urban culture. moved into the northern culture. then he went back to your home culture. it you talk to buddies one way, you talked to her parents another way. you might be speaking at three or four different languages every day. i wasn't going to say anything. i am willing to bet you that just can't immediately talking your

pittsburghese, but if you are in a conversation, you slide -- what led which are you talking? i have always been respectful of the people who spoke it. i still, i love it. i love going home. as soon as i crossed the savanna river, finally i am home. when i stopped in washington dc, i was going to go home. i only went to law school to go home. finally i was going home. i've been been stuck in this place for 30 years. it was kind of other people or trying to prevent me from going. what do i care?

>> we are fortunate to learn about your home life in georgia. which is really a very touching book. tell the audience who your grandfather was, and what he meant to you wish mark what did he mean to you? >> it is embarrassing to sit here and watch that stuff. i did not want to write the memoir. people have a tendency to re- create us in public life. i think i owed it to my grandparents to leave a record, and the people around me, all the people who made up this wonderful world, that we somehow sweep over because we have to have a narrative of how

tolerable it was. these were good people who try to make you lead a decent life. iowa to them to leave a record. my initial plan was to record it and leave it. to leave it in my papers. i still have the entire manuscript. it was only to leave an accurate record. eventually, i was told, it is probably good to put it in the form of a book. then i made the fatal mistake. i signed a book contract. [laughter] that sentencing your own self. i sentence you to a book contract. that was really -- talk about an eighth amendment violation. [laughter]

once i got started, it was very hard. it was two pages a day. everything you do. your homework. you push yourself, you push yourself. having to relive it, think about things that you hadn't thought about for years. having to dredge up memories and pains, to put it on a piece of paper. you live your life. you give it your best shot. there are things that, we have all said it, i just want to get it behind me. i am through that. i'm going to put it behind me. >> some said about writing opinions. [indiscernible] >> let me ask you, specifically about the nuns where you were

educated. what did you learn from them? >> a sister was my second grade teacher. i had a chance to go back and think all of my teachers, and to have a totally separate life. also, the ones who were just so sweet to me like sister mary. my second grade teacher, i never did make contact. sister mary said that when we arrived at saint benedict's, gas with the cast-iron, you set to buy two and little tiny desks. she made a stand and repeat why did god make you? god made us to know and serve

him in this life, and be happy with him in the next. all the philosophy, nietzsche, kant comes back to what she said. they made us believe that we were inherently equal. that was a main stay. it is him and you see me repeat over and over. equal. told under all that was in the face of said we were inferior. they held us to that standard. those who are old enough and he

went to schools probably probably remember those exams. achievement test that you took at the end of each december and in may. those measured where you stood with the other schools. the nuns had held rb to the the fire. my favorite nun, my eighth teacher, she is still alive but not doing very well. she's at a retirement home. she was, when i was in 1962, i performed very well and high school entrance exams. i've always done well academically breathing that is god's gift. she said, you lazy thing.

she was right. i was kind of sliding by. i never forgot that. she called me out. fast forward to 10 years ago. i was there intent to fly visiting her with a friend of mine. a very dear friend of mine. i met him through tom, who graduated, a wonderful man. we were there with sister mary. she was in her 90s at the time. she still is. she said, when i die, this goes to the sisters, this goes to my relatives, this goes to this person. he was ambassador to the vatican and with me at the department of education. we were there with sister mary. she was in her 90's at the time and still is.

she said when i died this goes to the sisters. this goes to our relatives. this goes to this person. took the photograph of the two of us. and she took this photo of the two of us, and she did this to her chest. this goes to my coffin with me. to say that this photo, it that is just a bus, they will go there where she is to lay. >> they made you take latin. my children might see this program. always wear underwear. [laughter] >> oh boy.

>> that is what i learned. >> oh my goodness. i cannot believe you just did that. i see virgil just spinning. at any rate, i was required to take latin to go to majoryou had to learn latin. i repeated the 10th grade to take latin. it was very aggressive and quite difficult. i took latin am a three years in high school and one in college. my only regret was i did not take greek. i would not, if i had to go back, i would take more music.

i would take more mathematics. i was good at sciences. i would probably take another course in physics and chemistry. rigorous education, and the people who required me to educate myself, or prevented me from avoiding education, our fabulous -- our fabulous and what they help me do. people don't run out and say it let me take latin. you say you're required to take latin. you are required to take philosophy. you are required to take metaphysics. you're required to take ethics. as what i got. i say think offer the people who knew better than i did, and required me to be better than i would have without their invites.

that is the beginning of my education. out of that, they taught me to read more books, to think about things. to be willing to listen to people who are thinking about things. and to continue that education process. latin was like a spelling bee. back then, there was this faith that if you're given a chance to go to the right school, we could do as well as whites. we would hold our own. this was proof positive. i was the only black kid in the high school for two or three years that i was there. this was in the 1960s. his point was, this is exhibit a that we can hold our own at any time.

it was important. it was encouragement to the few people who were at meetings that their efforts were worthwhile. >> holy cross was a critical aspect of your education. surely making that difficult transition to massachusetts. you talk about that as a difficult time in america. you describe yourself at that time as an angry young man. what were you angry about? >> the same thing that every other black was saying. we had a lot of problems. race wise. the question is, how do you respond? how do you deal with it? when you are young, you do with things by what? you lash out, criticize, savings to people. you you do it in a way with a lot of emotion and a lot of passion.

i think one of the values of being educated is you find out how do you channel that passion? how do you deal with difficult things in a way that is constructive, as opposed to the way we dealt with things. >> as all the judges and lawyers know, we are still suffering with a lot of angry young men who find themselves in criminal justice systems. do you have any theory as to what the chief contributors are to that national problem that we have? >> i started mine career in washington in the early 1980s pointing out something that bothered me. the 1980 census. the breakdown of black families. it is not because i had a solution. i am not someone who tries to have a theory each year.

i do not do that. i do not claim to be god or anything. but something said in those numbers that there was a fundamental change in the structure of the black family, and the one thing that was stable, even on an extended basis was at least you had a family. he you had a lot of other problems. you had a family. when that was gone, what are you left with? i looked over data. the penetration of drugs in our lives, of addictive drugs. you can, when i read petitions, i read 9000 a year, for 21.5 years. every crime is drug-related. from your work as a district

judge, you see these young people with no families, no education. we pointed out those numbers back in the 1980s. one of the things that has happened is that if you do not toe the ideological line or narrative, then you are not listen to, for pointing out that the family members were not good. i was cast as blaming the victim. dismissing the obvious. we have a problem. by the solution? no. any solution, you have to accurately set up what the

problem is. you do be willing to say what it is and try to deal with a preview go to the doctor. the doctor you want to have an accurate diagnosis of the can have a constructive and positive diagnosis. ofway, i do not have any those solutions. my heart is broken because i worked in the inner cities. we've been trying my entire adult life to just be honest with people about it. they came with urban renewal. look at our neighborhoods. they came in with this program, and that solution, and this and that. all of these theories and programs. i go back to my neighborhood. as soon as i drive in, my heart is broken. where i grew up, i could walk to school. i knew everybody.

everybody, we were poor but proud. i would walk to the 6:00 mass three quarters of a mile in the inner-city. who would let a little kid walked three quarters of a mile in the intercity to serve the 6:00 mass today? i'm not getting into the very complicated. i am asking a simple question for you i can walk to serve the 6:00 mass with my bookbag on, and nobody ever bothered me. and you do it today question rick something has happened. i not have a theory. i do know that we should at least fess up and say that something is wrong and then deal with it and not try to turn into some kind of political fodder.

>> let's talk for a second about your time at gl. you have an open about talking about a business. i think you still have this 15 cent cigar sticker on your degree from yale. why was it unsatisfactory? >> i probably should have been more respectful of my years at yale. i took a lot of positive from yale. did i have disappointments? yes. the sticker had less to do with my experience than what i thought you would mean, how people would perceive it. that there is this assumption that when you graduate, you are a certain level.

of course, we should be realistic that they were discounted. we know why they were discounted. the $.15 was put there so that i could get a job with it. it is hard to be upset when my grandmother used to say, some doors closed, but god opens other doors. how could i complain? yale is mixed. i have a deeper appreciation for that now. i should've asked respite early on. the sticker was point -- put there out of frustration. i did everything i was supposed to do and i cannot get a job. how was i supposed to feel? i have student loans. i was frustrated. i was very upset. yielded not make it better. >> you wrote later in your opinion in a case called jenkins, you wrote "it never

ceases to amaze me that the courts are so willing to assume that anything that is predominately black must be inferior." >> it speaks for itself. it is true. our schools were closed because people said they were not as good because they were all black. i do not believe any of that stuff. i went to all black schools. i lived in all-black neighborhoods. i had a wonderful life in those neighborhoods. people think you are making it up. you are trying to paint the south anyway it wasn't. they have a narrative. i was moving back home when i stopped in dc. i still wanted to get back.

my high school was not inferior. my neighborhood was not inferior. my church is not inferior. my family was not inferior. i never believed it. i never will. i do not think you need to start from the armistead if something is predominately one group or another that you can make these broad assumptions about whether or not it is inferior. if i were to ask you today what school, what university produces the largest number of black doctors, or black going to medical school, which would you say it is question mark -- which would you say it is? it is xavier. xavier has been considered a predominantly black school. they should ask how they do it. >> wasn't on your radar to go to a historically black college?

>> yes. i was dumb of all white schools. i was angry. 1968, dr. king had just been assassinated. i was done with it. i understand people's reactions when they are angry. i was angry. i got home, and my grandfather kicked me out of the house. the only school i could apply to was holy cross. holy cross saved me. i was going to savannah state college. >> had a that come about? >> the mythmakers that come up with these theories. it was because of my chemistry she called a friend of

mine who was already at holy cross. them to send me an application. i got accepted. i got accepted because i had almost a straight a average. then the myth makers came up with the myth that i was recruited, i was not recruited. it was serendipity, if you're not religious that i ended up at holy cross. >> your career takes off, did you set out to be politically active? did you say i might have an opportunity as a young conservative and move up the ladder? >> i never called myself conservative, that was another putdown in the 1980's when they named us black conservatives to

show we're sort of like some vile thing that occurred. but we did not call ourselves anything. we were just people trying to think about difficult things and offer a point of view but point of view. i found it fascinating. if people are told they can only go to one neighborhood that is wrong. if you're told you can go to these schools, that's wrong. to think certain things. that is bizarre. at any rate, i was never politically involved. i don't like politics. that's another thing, i'm interested -- i thing about things. i think about philosophies or things in that happen in society. i don't know how you can tell someone something and make them believe it. i don't like it. \[applause]

i certainly was not republican when i came to d.c. i became a republican to vote for ronald reagan. but that was about it. i voted in law school -- i voted at 18 because i was from georgia. i voted for humphrey in 1968 and mcgovern in 1962 and i thought they were too conservative. \[laughter] it was again, trying to think things threw. i was more of a libertarian. i was triesing to figure things out but -- trying to figure things out but you're black you are not supposed to think about things. that's bizarre. why did we go to school? give us a the list of what we're supposed to think and that saves time. we just read, what am i supposed to think today? >> so you went from humphrey to reagan -- should we anticipate

some future -- >> no. i returned to the way i was raised. i went from -- if you want to deviation from the way i was raised then a return to the way i was raised. as my grandfather said when i was involved in all sorts of radical things my boy, i did not raise you to be like that. i did not raise you to be disrespectful, uneducated, etc. he would -- when i came home talking nonsense as he called it, he would get up and leave the room because i was so far off the charts in his mind. >> before president bush was elected had you envisioned>> oh, god no. the judge is the last thing.

i did not envision myself living in washington. i think you are called -- those of us who are former seminarians or religious they understand what i'm saying, you think you're called to do certain things. when you are called you're supposed to do it. i would say to myself just don't call me. \[laughter] you the president calls dick thornberg, two of his aides called me in 1989. i forget the two at the end of the breakfast they said some people are interested in you being a judge. that was the beginning of the process. i believe when you -- when

you're called, the president calls you to do a particular job an its the right thing you are to do it. if i had to choose what i to do, no i would not do this. >> do you have a dream job? >> i wanted to be priest. >> after you left -- >> no, not really. my wife and i talked about it, prayed about it, i could have made a lot of money. i could have done lots of things. but i didn't want to do that. i didn't go to law school to make money. i didn't go to law school to be famous. i went to law school to go back to georgia and do what i wanted to do to be a priest. i wanted to go to my neighborhood and be a leader. a young woman said to me yesterday that she was naive. she said i'm proudly naive. you can call it idealistic or naive.

whatever. you do well in order to do good. when you have a chance to make hard decisions, if you're called to do it, you're bound to do it. you must do it. you don't have that choice to wimp out. >> on that topic, justice thomas mass, when the controversy erupted with the anita hill statements that was a difficult thing for you and your family did you think of withdrawing? >> i never run from people who i consider or circumstances that consider bullies. i don't believe in that. not in playing sports, you stand your ground. that did not make sense to me. you're going to do all of these things to me because you don't agree with me. thank goodness, the people in the country are better than the people who claim to be better

than everybody else. \[applause] >> soon after your swearg in at the white house, you had the -- swearing in at the white house, you had the opportunity to speak with thurgood marshall. did can you share some of the things you got to talk to him about. >> he was a delight. peoplenteresting when have these narratives about public people and you actually get to meet that person. the man was a delight to meet. it was supposed to be a 10- minute meeting and it lasted for two and a half hours. if you know him, he will regale you in stories. it was laughing and stories about his travels.

both he and his family have been just delightful. she is there at the court frequently and she's been a delight. >> what advice did he give you? did he talk to you about the interaction between the justices? what to expect going into did he tell you anything about the interaction with what to expect going into that new environment? >> are you know what is really interesting? have you noticed when supreme court justices who are nominated, the only people who say anything about what future justices are supposed to do? the only people who can say anything are people who have done the job. no one who has not done the job presumes to tell anyone how to do it. it is a humbling experience. of whent the pictures i was nominated. look at what this job has done to me. [laughter]

you do not presume to tell anyone else how to do it. he told me exactly the right thing. i did what i had to do in my time, and you have to do what you have to do in your time. >> did he tell you anything about collegiality? leading narratives is when the justices come down with 5-4 decisions in some of the more hot button cases that there is tremendous acrimony, etc.. is the court a collegial place? has it always been the same in that regard during your tenure on the court? >> i can only speak for my 10 year. for those of you who have been to the court -- actually for those of you who have not, the walls in that building our masonry and they are that sick. an insight that i don't have more and in road

that i don't have, i have not seen all this acrimony. and you make hard decisions, of course there is disappointment, there is probably -- you are exasperated. but i have not seen all these fights. at the end of last term, i read someplace where someone said that justice scalia was yelling or making noise or something, everything but banging the walls or something. he is my next-door neighbor, and i thought he was doing fine. you know, he is a hunter. he is probably figuring out some way to kill some unarmed animal. disappointed. it is a hard job. but i have not seen all this. the worst that i have seen has been in the opinions. the edgy opinions. that is about it. but, no, i have not seen it. there are times when people get upset because i think people work hard, they feel strongly

about their opinions on these things, but how many of you -- put nine of you in a room with very differing views, and pick any hot button issue. pick abortion. put you in a room, you have different views. how long do you think you can get along? throw in some more issues. just keep throwing you more and more hot button issues. see how long you survive together. people cannot sit in a room and talk about it, and they are not even making the decision. they just have an opinion. they storm away from the thanks giving table or the dinnertable, andm out of - restaurants, they are not even making a decision, they just have an opinion. the constitution, the country, the process, the court is much more important than they are. and they somehow keep it together to decide cases

appropriately. and to get along with each other in a civil way. any other and justices close friends? >> justice scalia and justice ginsburg are close friends. i tend to be more of an introvert and stick to myself. i come in early and leave in the afternoon, work at home. i am close to justice scalia, a friend, but not nearly as close to him as justice in berg is -- as justice ginsburg is with him. they are very, very close. you know, i think people are very respectful there. people are respectful but they have very different lives. i like opera on the radio. some people like to go to the kennedy center.

i am a cornhusker fan, so there are not a lot of those around. i have to fight for my rights up there. i like sports, with my kids. i am very close with my law clerks. i am very close to my wife. >> did you ever expect to see an african-american president during your lifetime? is this something you thought what happened? >> oh, yes. i always thought they would be black coaches, black heads of universities, maybe again, as i said i am naïve. but i always knew it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites, the elite media, because anybody they did not agree with they would take apart. , unfortunately. you pick your person, any black person who says something that prescribed things

that they expect from a black person, they will pick them apart. , pick just pick me anyone who has not gone along with it. i always assumed it would be somebody the media had to agree with. >> have you met president obama, had a chance to speak with him personally or in passing? , he visited the court. i do not do a lot of washington. i am not into politics, so there are not that many occasions. i shook hands with him at the inauguration, just very polite, but i have had no in-depth conversations. >> was that a courtesy visit he was paying to all the justices? >> all the members of the court. >> is that typical of all the presidents question mark >> president clinton did it. he is very personable. in recent years, yes, they stop by. the president-elect, and shake hands with members of the court.

and they meet us as a group. >> obviously you and president obama have a lot of different opinions on things. do you have any common ground on things with him that you could share with us? >> you know -- >> you want to take the fifth? >> that is hard to say. what him and grounded i have if president bush, 43? i am not into politics. i don't like politics. i do my job. i have common ground with some of the appointees, say with justice ginsburg or justice kagan. we are doing the same thing. don't politics, i just like politics. >> do you issue it intentionally in terms of media and things like that? i have found a lot of judges just don't keep up with the news the way they did when they were

practicing law. >> i just don't like politics. [laughter] i am just done. i don't like politics. i like history, things of substance. i don't understand politics. scuba diving.tand when i think of scuba diving, i think of drowning. [laughter] so i am not against it. i am just not going underwater. >> in a minute we will ask some questions that have been supplied by students. i did want to ask you this, though. all the current justices on the ivy leagueded elite law schools. do you think it would be healthy to have that kind of diversity with some justices from smaller loss was like duquesne university or something like that? [applause] >> you know, i finally -- finally you are on things that i

like to talk about. i agree with that. it is all harvard and yale, and they are wonderful, wonderful people. they are just really talented, good people, but i do think that there are more -- i have been all over this country, and there are more people, smart people -- this school was for immigrants. it is like holy cross college. there is something valuable about these people who live in these little neighborhoods and work their way out. i tend to hire kids from modest backgrounds and from the smaller law schools. as i told you earlier today, my lead law clerk was from lsu. i have had clerks from rutgers, from george mason, from creighton am a georgia.

i like clerks from modest backgrounds. i am from a modest background. i truly believe they are special. kids who for some reason keep at it every day in spite of the odds get up every day, nobody gives them a break but they keep going, there is something special about that kid. this past weekend, i am very much involved with the organization horatio alger's association. one of your students are involved in that. the students come from very bad circumstances, and yet their grade point average as a group, 107 scholars we picked, is like 3.97 or something. some rare grade point average. these kids live in homeless shelters, their parents are drug addicts.some of them emancipated selves. what kind of resolve does it take to keep going? it would be wonderful to have those kids as members of the

court. i think they would have a different perspective and add something to the court.>> speaking of duquesne, the school was founded and is run in the spirit of priests. you mention in the book that you frequently prayed to the holy spirit when you were faced with difficult and challenging times. why was the holy spirit important in your life? >> it is hard for me when you say "the priest" i always thought of them as the holy ghost fathers. i'm trying to be modern. i'm not trying to very hard. [laughter]although i do have an ipad. [laughter] that's only because it was forced upon me. i just think -- i'm one of these people who still believes it is through grace that you do lots of things. it was my grandmother, that

when i go home and i was angry and upset and fighting with my grandfather she would pull me aside and say son, say your prayers. or i would have problems and say son, turn it over the lord. it was always the same answer.i really mean it. i was not being glib when i said to you i didn't have any political transformation. i just went back home. willou just read my book you see that i had issued the legacy that was given me, and i simply went back and embraced the legacy they gave me and part of that is the way we do things and the faith we have. part of that is, of course, is the trinity. so as you say, let the holy ghost speak through me. i was at mass, the feast of the assumption, which was oddly it israted on monday. usually march 25, but anyway, i was there, and the theme of the homily was humility. that we have to be humble to

receive this. i think it is very important, and the way that we do things. that is as deep as i can explain it but it is all important. >> we have a few questions from some of the students, justice thomas, so i want to read a the first isese. from kristi gamble, one of our all-star third year day students. the question is, "did the court 's recent decision upholding the affordable care act produce any hard feelings among the justices since there were such shown different views on the subject?" >> no. >> ok, check that off. >> you know, it would be enormously prideful and presumptuous of me to assume that i have the right answer. i have an opinion.

i do not have the gospel. i give it my best shot and that is the way i approach the job. yes,y to be candid with you. you get exasperated. but was there hard feelings? no. i don't have hard feelings about a lot of things. if i was going to have hard feelings it would be on race issues. then you wouldn't let me in this room, ok? that's a reason why we offload these things. i don't have enough -- i don't think that it is appropriate for me to be angry with people who if you different opinion. ,ead my dissents, i always say "i respectfully dissent. i respect your right to have a different opinion." in this society, think about it, as much as -- i just read when

something is said about me, most of them are white, they assume what they know what i think because i'm black. they are upset with me because i don't think what thethink i should think. isn't that bizarre? i'm not going to follow that and be presumptuous enough and say i disrespect justice ginsberg or justice breyer or justice scalia if they disagree with me. i respect their right to have a different opinion. >> this question is from a second year student. >> are you outing people? they are in my class, so it is ok. this one is always asked. the media has made a big production about you not speaking in court. repeatedly a two second comment you made made national news. what is your philosophy about the role of justices at oral argument? -- rst of all,

>> first of all, my philosophy is never watch it, you never hear about it. [laughter] this is the first i heard about that. thank you. i don't follow it much of this stuff.i think that we have become a cacophony. when i first went on the court there would be a series of questions by one member of the court. others would listen as this person asked a few questions in succession and had a series of mini conversations. that is helpful. it allowed people -- each to have a turn to talk.today it is just -- my goodness, everybody has a question. i don't have a question about everything. there are some things you let go. but i just think there are too many questions. i think we have capable advocates and we should let the capability advocates talk. >> that is an old fashioned view, right? >> the 1990's.

>> it is true.for many years there were far less questions. >> does it make impossible to judge if --? >> is it more of a show now? i remember being a student in the late 1980's and you can walk to the court with your jeans, t- shirt, and sit there and listen to a couple of arguments. now there is a massive humanity, it is very formal. is that a cultural shift? >> i've said enough. [laughter] i do not think what we're doing is necessary.to decide cases. if you go to argentina, we were there visiting their supreme court a few years ago. the members of the court -- i'm using the numbers i remember i could be wrong. a couple hundred cases a year and i think they have two arguments a year. they have two oral arguments a

year. so if you look at the courts of appeals, you're on the court of appeals. what percentage of your cases decided without arguement? >> about 75%. >> i rest my case.>> a very judicious answer. >> a second year student matt asks, you mention in your book that you prayed to saint francis. were surprised that the pope chose that name? >> i'm more surprised by the former than the latter. [laughter] that's why i don't say anything. i can be a smart alec, that is what got me on the national news. anyway, no -- i don't know. i don't keep up with these things. i'm glad they seem to have a good man as pope. i don't know. i just go to church. >> here is a question

from bridget daly, a third-year a student. without discussing of this -- the merits of the same-sex marriage cases argued in the court, do you believe this is the sort of issue that should be tackling -- that the supreme court should be tackling rather than a legislative branch or the states? >> i'm not going to say anything about that. >> a for effort anyway. >> i shouldn't -- there's no way i can comment on that. [laughter] i'll be back in the national news. [laughter] >> well, ok, let me try this one. >> nice try. >> you live in virginia and married to your wife, a white woman and the supreme court struck down a virginia law that prohibited an interracial marriage. was the court correct in wading into that issue? >> if you read the court opinion, is clearly a racial

classification face -- a racial classification case. that is pretty much it. if it is a racial classification, it is a racial classification. i try to, if you go back and look at some of the things i have written i have tried totalk about racial classifications. we have to be really careful. some things we're careful about classifying people by race. why? because we like classifying people by racial classification. some people like to segregate people by race. this is another racial classification. it says, this is right at the heart of the 14th amendment. this is what it says. this is what it was meant to deal with.anyway, i know this is leading, trying to lure me into -- >> that is what we are training them to do. yeah, but i have been doing this a long time. [laughter]

you grow up in the inner cities, you hear a lot of guys, people try to sell you a lot of stuff. >> justice thomas, as you mentioned, and as those who read the supreme court's opinions no, you are an ,xtremely polite dissenter certainly perhaps the most polite dissenter. kelo,,se called involving property rights, you wrote the following. " something has gone seriously wrong with this court's interpretation of the constitution. citizens are safe from the theernment in their homes but homes themselves are not." that struck me than the typical justice thomas. was that a case that you felt particularly strongly about? >> i said seriously awry not seriously wrong. [laughter] i'm nitpicking. no stronger than other cases.

intook a lot of property law law school because property is for poor people it is something you did have, particularly in the south. so i tried to understand property. who do you think would be most vulnerable in taking cases? a well-heeled real estate lawyer? a well-connected businessman? or a poor person? where do you think they would build a highway, through a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood? where do you think they would let people have an industrial development? i think that we should be very, very careful with words that change when use becomes purpose. what is a purpose versus a use? a park is a use. can a purpose be a bigger tax base?

can it be beautification?can it ?e earne urban renewal you're taking people's property and the constitution uses the word use and not purpose. what i was trying to say that something is wrong. something doesn't make sense. i wasn't angry, i did not personalize it. i said the court. something is wrong with what we're doing and it is, again, kelo, she didn't have anything. she lived in that house. you say -- you were talking about neighborhoods, this lady lived -- that family lived in that house 100 years or so. that's all she's got. if it does not protect her, who does it protect? >> we would like to end with another question from a student.

this is from lindsey, a first- year day student. i think it is a great question to end our session with you on. she asks, what do you tell young men and women who are entering the legal profession today? >> oh, my goodness. the world is different from when i started out. i did not have good advice for myself. i try to give advice to my law clerks to try to tell them, there's going to be challenges out here. i had my share and i can't claim to have reacted in an appropriate way a lot of times. i was very negative, cynical. i listened to a lot of the wrong people. i wound up being not constructive or positive. i just encourage them to no matter what try to remain positive and try to remain -- remember why you went to law school. i can still remember my -- sitting on my 30th and 31st

birthday in st. louiscataloging why i went to law school and issuing the things that were not appropriate, such as i am in it for the money and look at the dreams i had. i said write down why you went and remember that and try to remain positive and pass the bar exam. [laughter] i know they are going to giveme the hook, but c-span will just cut you off. i just wanted -- first of all, i want to thank you all. i want to say to the students that sometimes when you get a degree you really don't know what you're going to accomplish. i mentioned the young man -- i mentioned tom.

he introduced me -- when i was at eeoc, to another young man who was a student at the time mark. mark would then go on to be absolutely the key and instrumental in my confirmation. he's the person with whom i spent the most time during the most difficult times. he was a kid who was educated here. whoever educated him, which ever professor educated with him, which ever professor's dealt with tom, i want to congratulate you. the product of your work, the honorestty, the energy, the integrity is all embodied in this young man. i want to thank you for inviting me here today.i don't do as many speaking engagements as

probably i should, but it is an opportunity to speak to people who understand why we do well in order for people -- in order to do good. continueourage you to thinking that way and doing things that way. so thank you for putting up with me this afternoon. [applause was bracken >> a couple of personnel announcements coming up today. president obama will nominate veteran congressman mel watt to head up the federal housing agency, overseeing freddie mae and -- freddie mac and fannie mae. will have the president's announcement scheduled for 2:15 eastern here on c-span.

tonight the tour of the new george w. bush library, which officially opens to the public today and was dedicated in a ceremony last week. leading the tour, former first lauraarbara -- first lady bu bush. >> your husband had a lot of critic. will this change the way people ' view his presidency question mark, i don't know that it will necessarily change the way, it is meant to explain what happened in those eight years of history, to talk about all the different things that we faced as a country and his choices and decisions that he made to respond to whatever the challenges were. i think people will learn a lot. there are a lot of things that people don't know, like the aids relief program. the generosity of the american people funded. there are a lot of interesting things that people will learn about that they didn't know before.

it will also give them an idea of what it is like to be president. there are successes and there are failures, and it is like in anyone's life. we all have that. and certainly our presidents are human and have the same sort of records. >> has it met your expectations? >> it has. i think people will find it very interesting. we have tried to include everything, and of course you cannot include every single thing. we have not even talked about our support for dissidents and the whole freedom movement that is part of this wall that i am looking at here behind you. our tour ofatch the new george w. bush library tonight at 8:00. we will discuss -- we will follow that with a discussion on the presidential library system and how these libraries are funded. we will talk with congressman john duncan, who introduced a bill that requires libraries to disclose their donors.

a walk through the leg and libraries -- through the reagan libraries, including with first lady nancy reagan. all that tonight starting starting at 8:00 eastern on c- span. people think she did not participate much, but that is not exactly true. she was very involved. bedroomin her own upstairs, across from the president's office. able to hear what was going on. she was very active. she was able to calm him down. of course, she was the grandmother of the house, as well as taking care of her daughters and grandchildren. .> now available on our website to in monday for our next program.

>> joint chiefs of staff chairman, martin dempsey said yesterday that the u.s. military would be prepared to inlement a no-fly zone syria. it is not clear if that would produce an ideal outcome. he spoke to people at a christian science monitor event. >> i am dave cook from the monitor. our guest is general martin dempsey. this is his first visit with our group and we are grateful to him for making time in his busy schedule. he graduated from west point in 1974, and since then has served his country and a wide range of places and positions. early in his career he was an english professor at west point. more recently his assignments have included being commander of the first armored division in

baghdad, deputy commander and then acting commander of u.s. central command, an army chief of staff. general dempsey and his wife have three grown children, all of whom served in the u.s. army. please, no live blogging or tweaking, no filing of any kind while the lunches under way. there is no embargo when the lunch is over except that c-span has agreed not to use video of the session for one hour after the lunch in, in order to give those of us in the lunchroom chance to file. we will start by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments and then move to questions around the table.

>> first of like to thank you for your service, and some of you may know that from 1969- 1971, they've worked on ballistic missile defense, of all things. you also have two sons currently serving, and we thank them for their service. this day in history, in 18 03, the louisiana purchase, so kind of the opposite of sequestration. we will glance off that, and just let me tell you briefly about my recent trip, because there is always some trip that i would describe as recent. i am back three days now from my fourth trip to the asia-pacific,

and my first visit to china. it started in seoul, went to beijing, ended up in tokyo. i described it as a trip with the theme of assurance, starting and ending with our allies in seoul and tokyo. assuring them of our continued commitment, and then stopping in beijing to assure them as well that we will continue to work toward a commitment that the heads of state made to find a new relationship. we have not actually agree on the definition of a new relationship. you will hear all kinds of phrases used. i did not get into the taxonomy of the whole thing. i simply said yes, we think it is an opportunity to forge a new, more positive relationship,

but it has to be done in the context of our existing relationships, not as a blank sheet of paper, if you will. i think the message resonated. i came back committed to doing our part, although this will be clearly beyond just the military instrument. i got off the plane and we have the other issues that are lingering, whether they are mideast or budgetary issues. we are trying to sort all that out. it was a very useful trip and one that i found to be kind of encouraging. with that, and with full recognition that when i come to lunches, i don't actually eat lunch, i admire land. i would be happy to take your questions. >> we had senator mccain last thursday and he was arguing that our priorities art upside down on how we are going to take care of airline passengers and what

we don't take care of our national security. he felt that there was a danger that we would not be keeping good and qualified and talented young men and women in the military who are all considering getting out because they see no future, at least a predictable future, which is the least we owe them. how would you assess the impact of the sequester on military morale and retention of the best and brightest? >> that is the other reason i travel, is to get out of washington and to go visit soldiers, airmen, marines, and coast guard. on this particular trip, beside the senior leaders in seoul and tokyo, i met with military members serving there. i also stopped in alaska both coming and going and did a town hall meeting. it is on everyone's mind.

i found that disappointing, frankly. you want to go and hear about their issues related to their service in wherever they happen to be serving, yet what we hear most often is their concerns about their future -- you know, the potential for a future career in the military. for example, if you are a pilot and you come into the air force to fly. if you are not flying, there is a level of dissatisfaction in that. we have a current readiness challenge, because in order to observe the fy 13 sequestration target in the last six months of the year, we have had to go

where you can sweep up the money. generally speaking, that tends to be in readiness and training. i won't bore you with the budget details, you'll just have to take my word for that, but we are in the business this year of finding the money wherever we can find it. that generally draws you to the readiness accounts. so we have our readiness challenge, which is not to say we are not fulfilling our obligations globally today, but in order to do that, we are advantaging those organizations that are either in deployed or about two deployed. everybody else is not training or not maintaining. that's of course is the challenge we will have to overcome. the final point on that, today's greatest challenges could indeed become tomorrow's retention

challenges. they are not there yet, but again, if we bring these young men and women who have been operating in such a significant pace with significant responsibilities and feeling as though they are making significant contributions, and we bring them back and sit them, i predict that will lead to a retention problem. >> i was struck by a quote from you were you said we have been living with unconstrained resources for 10 years, and frankly we have developed a bad habit that we are seeking to overcome. did you think that observation does more broadly about the dangers beyond his personal conduct? >> absolutely. it is not just a cliche to say that when you have all the

resources you need, you know longer have the responsibility to think. we are trying to think our way through this challenge, and i think we will find opportunities to maintain our level of effectiveness of becoming more efficient. you cannot wring that towel out too tightly. we were asked to find $487 billion in the budget control act. there is a point at which you just cannot do that by being more efficient. as part of secretary hagel's --

we are trying to find that now. >> use that chemical weapons to find game changer as rethinking chemical weapons available to us. give us your take on that. >> i did not see the press conference. i was actually in a budget meeting, believe it or not, so i cannot speak exactly the what the president said. nothing i have heard in the last week or so has changed anything about the actions we are taking in the military. we have been planning and developing options. we are looking to determine whether these options remain valid as conditions change. that does not mean that what we

have heard over the last week would not change the policy calculus, both in this capital and in others. but militarily, our task has been to continue to plant, to continue to engage with partners in the region and to continue to refine options so that if we are asked to implement any of them, we will be ready to do that. >> in the wall street journal yesterday, you are quoted as saying in white house meetings that once a year constrained was syrians air defenses which came from russia. can you comment on how constrained both air defenses are for you? >> i am not sure i said constrained. i may have, but the point i was

trying to make, there were people comparing our actions in libya to what could potentially occur in syria. i was making the point that the air defense picture in libya was dramatically different than it is in syria. in syria i think you have five times more air defense systems, some of which are high end air defense systems, higher altitude, longer range. they are collapsed into the western one-third of the country. it is a much denser and more sophisticated system. the u.s. military has the capability to defeat that system, but it would be a greater challenge, take longer, and require more resources. >> fy14 has been called a straight line projection from fy 13.

why did the pentagon ought not to make some of the hard choices in the fy14 request, and do you expect to send an extensive amended request to the hill? >> as to why the budget went in without acknowledging the budget control act caps of sequestration, having been a service chief, i can tell you that the act of preparing a budget is comprehensive, complicated, and tedious. sequestration really did not get signed into law until the first of march, meaning when the deal was not made and the continuing resolution came due, that is when it became real.

it would be literally impossible for us to have done -- we would've had to do two budgets, and that is not possible when you are talking about furloughs. the same people you are asking to do budgets generally are subject to furloughs. it was not of neglect, it was a practical matter, literally what was possible for us to ask the services to do. to your follow-on question, where we now have to submit an alternate budget, that decision has not been made. it will not be mine to be made, but i know that the decision has not been made. if we think about it pragmatically, especially now with the news that the deficit breached is now being delayed. as you know, we thought that was going to occur in july it would provide some forcing function for additional budget negotiations. that has not been swept to the

right. it does not appear that what we are living with out into the fall. there are two choices. we could submit another budget, or if we don't, we will have to enter into some negotiation with congress on how to of the door of those cuts. but that decision hasn't been made yet. >> general, there that has been a lot of talk in this town recently about throwing up a no- fly zone. and without reference to any specific country in the middle east, could you talk a little bit about what goes into an operation like that? i think there is a notion around that it is pretty simple and easy, but what i know of it, it may be a little more complicated. could you talk about that? >> well, no-fly zones -- well, actually any military operation tends to be more complicated

than generally gets talked about in open sources because there are the things that have to occur. secondly, they tend to be more risky. and the third thing i would mention is we are kind of the victims of our own success. we have made the very difficult look very manageable for a very long time. so we do have to be a bit cautious about that. but to be effective, a no-fly zone would have to have several elements. you would have to knock down some of the integrated air defense system of an adversary. although stealth technology exists, to have a no-fly zone, you simply don't penetrate it. you have to control it. at some point you would have to defeat the integrated air defense system. any time we would put an airman over potentially hostile

territory, you would have to have a search and rescue plan. so we would have to have the plan and resources, either by hostile actions or mechanical failure, that we would have the capability to extract them from that situation. you have to assume -- i shouldn't say you have to assume. i have to assume as the military member with responsibility for these kind of activities, that the potential adversary is not going to sit back and allow us to impose our will on them. they could take exception to the fact that we were imposing a no- fly zone and then act outside their borders with long-range rockets, missiles, artery, and even asymmetric threats.

so yes, you can establish a in no-fly zone, and you have to have personnel recovery. and in the region that bounds the zone, you had better have your readiness condition up in the event they would take action against the imposition of the no-fly zone. >> how long do you keep it in place? >> i could go back to operation northern watch and southern watch, and for about 10 years we kept the no-fly zone in place. it is indetermined. by the way, since you are talking about a particular country in that region, about 10% of the casualties that are being imposed on the syrian opposition are occurring through the use of air power. that is an estimate. it may be off by 2% or 3%. the other part is by direct fire or artery. the question becomes if you eliminate one capability of a potential adversary, will you be

inclined to be in a position to be asked to do more against the rest. none of these reasons are reasons not to take action, as i have said from the start, but they all should be considered before we take that first step. >> we are going next to stephanie, and then mark, eric, and others. >> general, thanks for being here. could you tell us a little more about what our troops are doing in jordan? i believe there are supposed to be 200 or so, if they are there, under way? has their tempo increased in the past weeks? do you plan to send more? and quickly, do you have anymore information on furloughs and specifically who will be exempted? >> sure. on our presence in jordan, i guess probably six months or so

ago we placed a forward headquarters in jordan to do some integrated planning with our partners on the defense of jordan, and that relates to the potential for rocket and missile attacks, so ballistic missile defense apparatus. we also wanted to have in place in jordan the communications architecture. we wanted to have a headquarters with, let's call it, the pipes in place for communications, intelligence, all the things necessary, all the satellite feeds, all the things that allows us to take advantage of command and control. should there be a need, or a

desire, or a request to provide support through humanitarian issues, that we would have the logistics piece of that in place, whether it is air field access. again, one of our true distinctive advantages as a military is mobility. so we wanted to do some mobility planning. you asked if their tempo has increased. as you know, we have been rotating people in and out. so as the new team comes in, they will tend to take a while to get up to speed. i would say the tempo probably has increased a bit given the heightened tensions that appear to be accruing around the alleged c.b.w. use. so yes, their tempo has increased. by the way, we have always got besides that 200-man package, we do a lot of training with the jordanian armed forces.

we do exercises with them. in fact, we have one of our major exercises with them coming up. so our tempo in jordan is fairly significance. [inaudible question] >> i did not check it today, but at any given time it is probably something between 1,000 and 1,500 given exercises, train, advise and assist and this 200- man headquarters. you asked about furloughs. first of all, it is heartwrenching to me that we are at a point where we have to furlough those civilian counterparts of ours who work just as hard as their uniformed counterparts, and who often sit next to each other in office spaces in the pentagon. i have said before that of the 800,000 or so that could be affected, only about 16% of those are in the national capital region. these aren't a bunch of white collar guys out there waiting to be furloughed.

these are men and women across america. secondly, we have been doing our best to avoid it. as you know, the secretary of defense announced that that from an initial target of 22 days, we have been able to reduce that because of the reprogram authority to about 14 days, and he has challenged us to keep looking. i don't know whether we are going to find the opportunity to avoid it entirely, but we would certainly like to do so. >> you think 14 is about the most squeeze you are going to get, or do you see it going down to about a week? >> i don't know, but i do know that the secretary has about on a daily basis asked us to determine whether 14 is the number. >> do you have a date when you have to make a decision? >> well, probably -- the date

certain would probably coincide with his strategic choices management review, which comes due by about the end of may. >> mr. chairman, in february, leon panetta created, and you endorsed, the distinguished warfare medal. >> yeah. >> two weeks later a new secretary of defense comes in, and there is a big storm about it, and all of a sudden he has appointed you to rereview the notion of this new kind of medal. and two weeks ago with your endorsement he came out and basically said forget it, it is not a medal. it is a distinguishing device. so the whole issue of precedence even goes away. what happened? >> well, for one thing, i think as a first principle we have to remember that the challenge that secretary panetta gave us was to

recognize the contributions of those who may be remote from the battlefield but having significant impact on the battlefield. we stayed true to that principle. our initial swing at this if you will, to use a baseball metaphor, was that a separate medal would be preferable, and we had consensus among the joint chiefs in that regard. then we talked about precedence, and the precedence became kind of the third rail actually. when we realized that the discussion of precedence was kind of overwhelming the first principle which is look, we really need to recognize these guys and gals, we decided at the request of secretary hagel to look at could we remove this concern of precedence and still recognize those who are serving around the globe but not necessarily in iraq, afghanistan or wherever.

we found that the issue of a device that could be affixed to literally any medal now got us beyond the third rail of precedence. and so we decided that that was a better solution. we took input from the field, whether it was through veteran support organizations, but also did not believe it or not i have a persona in the blogosphere, and my persona in the blogosphere was getting beaten severely on this issue. so we realized that we either had a wrong or didn't roll it out correctly. either way we didn't want to lose the first principle, which is recognize these men and women. now in fy 14, we are going to have another complete review of medals and precedence, and it may come back up, but for now we think that the device provides a better answer. >> a couple of quick follow-ons. the reaction was so strong when

it first came out, that suggests that you didn't go to the v.s.o.'s and others when you rolled it out initially. and secondly, if secretary panetta was in charge, would this have happened? >> we try to collaborate with them on things we know they have a deep interest in. clearly that collaboration didn't reach the level it probably could have, should have in this particular case. as far as secretary panetta, when this all started, when secretary hagel said we had better take another look at this,, i picked up the phone and called him, and so did secretary hagel. so he understood why we were doing what we were doing, and he supports it. >> eric. >> the same thing i did when i was chief of staff of the army and thought it was time to put the parade back in the bag. the first call was to another

general. >> thanks for this lunch. in its letter suggesting that syria had used small a little of chemical warfare, the administration said there was physiological evidence of this. can you talk about what physiological evidence that was and when did that become available to american officials? >> i can't add anything to what you have heard already. there are questions still being answered as far as chain of custody and so forth, but i have nothing to add. > how recently did that piece >> when did it come to the attention of the american government? >> yeah, i don't recall, actually when the intelligence

became available. it was a couple of our european allies, i think, who came upon it initially, as i understand it, but i have to go back and review the chronology. i don't have it committed to memory. >> anna? >> [unintelligible] >> i don't think we should put in no flag zone on capitol hill just for the record. i'm against it. [laughter] >> you just mentioned, too, that the vast majority of what's affecting civilians is artillery fires. just love your assessment on how effective no fly zones would be. the country is pretty washed in ep weapons right now. so two things that lawmakers are calling for. what is area assessment as how they would be effective on the ground in syria? >> well, militarily effective. we could make them more