>> sidecar. they are only 11 and a half but when they are older i would. >> next question. >> you were talking they are saying that we will have self driving cars. >> another reason why i jump in is because of self driving cars. -- we think that it is a fundamental change to transportation it will occur, that having a network where you can get access to our ride plays very well to self driving cars.

>> i would add that many people in the industry are arguing that good platforms for autonomous vehicles are actually these. a selfidea of buying driving car might be a little scary, but going to a city car share, which can be a factor, maybe they'll want to buy because of range anxiety, but that could be a good place to sort of prime the market for electric vehicles. >> we have the largest program going. currently only have 20 vehicles. i believe we will double it. the first six months that we had our initial 10 vehicles out fully fleet, some are electric vehicles, we had over three house and -- 3000 unique

individuals trying those cars. we think that car sharing, we are also putting in charging stations for public use and car share use in locations that will allow us to do that. >> did they go on to become buyers? >> we suspect that we have had some short-term membership that we're looking to try out. we are happy that way. >> we have found in our research that individuals who have a life change need to move to the suburbs, they have a child or something like that, they often by a vehicle that they were driving and car sharing. >> this whole idea of sharing and variety, it is intrinsic to the whole sharing experience. if you are -- one of the things

that is attractive about using someone else's apartment is that you get to connect. it is variety. in it is not the same old holiday in. you get to try different vehicles. you get to meet all of these interesting people. it is part of what makes it fun. it is not just the same old thing every day. wax -- >> i would never buy one, but i felt: help driving those things around. does this model translate to rural or suburban america? the ford f1 50 is the best- selling truck and america. moving up to the suburbs? >> i believe it will. i think that the stronghold for

the systems will be urban areas. just because of patterns and how people are going to be gravitating more and more towards urban living. but i do think that through phenomenon like peer-to-peer car , fractional ownership, the idea that several people: a vehicle, and all this connectivity that is provided, there is really not a reason why these things can't spread to other areas. this is the next great challenge for the space. can we move this into other location that -- than just these areas. >> did you do research or benchmark on what is happening ?n europe you had to companies one in germany and one in france.

did you check why it is so big there? i do not know if he is here. has hadof car sharing limited success. all over year. it is a denser population. >> they also have institutional governmental support. i'm talking about regulatory and policy support. that helped tremendously in europe. thes a great example of sort of public framework encouraging these kinds of innovation. -- i shouldn't

they areumber -- doing millions and millions of riders. they are doing very well. >> that started out of colleges. i saw one today for someone going to greenville from san francisco. that is something that is really growing. >> that is right. today is our sixth year anniversary of a corporation. it started initially focus on colleges and universities, a critical thing with respect to carpooling, getting a critical mass. a large enough user base. the original model of the company was focused around colleges and universities where you have a dense population of

people that are often going to and from the same destination. and we were left with the evolution of that with mobile technology, the ability to do these things in real time, rather than plan a week or so in advance. >> we have to end it there. we have been talking about car sharing and ridesharing. , thank youchinson all for coming. [applause] >> thank you.

>> in a few moments, president obama and chris christie to her parts of new jersey that were hit by hurricane sandy. ken walsh on his new book about the lives of the american presidents. then the discussion of online radicalization and violent extremism. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the bipartisan policy center looks at immigration and border security. a discussion on attitudes about legalizing marijuana. >> i begin with integrity because it is so essential to who and what you ultimately will become. many of you have a career path in mind. many of you have no idea where you will end up. a few of you may be surprised

by where life takes you. i certainly was. in the end, it is not only what we do, but how we do it. tweeting to start with this breed give me one second. i'm a professional. this only take a second. when i woke up this morning and started writing my speech, i was thinking about my -- [laughter] my first month on campus when i was a freshman, and the football when -- went into that team number one rank. ira membern -- there was this excitement on campus. we went up there and we lost our first game. there was this crushing disappointment afterwards. i would like you to think of that soaring expectations followed by crushing disappointment as a metaphor for your next 20 minutes with me.

>> more stories and advice for graduates. including fbi director robert mueller, and rick scott. business leaders, including twitter ceo and apple cofounder steve wozniak. >> president obama joins governor chris christie tuesday to see how the city of new jersey is recovering from the effects of hurricane sandy. this is 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president of the united states, please welcome governor of the state of new jersey, chris christie. [applause] >> good afternoon, new jersey. i want to thank all of you for braving the weather and being out here today.

this past weekend has been an incredibly important weekend in new jersey's history. we all came together as a community over the last seven months to a door and begin to recover from the worst storm this date has ever seen. for all the folks here, the local officials, the county officials and everyday citizens of new jersey, the credit goes to all of you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to lead you and welcome back to the jersey shore for the summer. [applause] this is been a community effort. everybody working together. from the minute the storm hit, we worked with local mayors all up and down the jersey shore. everybody came together. republicans, democrats, independents, we all came together because new jersey is more important in our citizens

lives are more important than any kind of politics at all. i wish the sun was shining like it was on sunday and monday but as barry parker still a great to be whether it is raining -- but asbury park is still a great place to be but it is raining or shining. the enthusiasm, the spirit of the people of this town, you can just feel it. everybody is ready to welcome america back to the jersey shore this summer and so am i. two days after sandy hit us, the president of united states came to visit visit new jersey into the damage for himself. and to pledge his support and support of the federal government.

to help us recover and rebuild. seven months later, we know we have made great progress. but we still have so much more to do. so many more of our families need to get back in their homes. so many more of our businesses who need to get back up and running. so many of our citizens who just want their lives to go back to normal. i am thrilled with the progress we have made in the last seven months. we got a chance to show the president some of the earlier today up in point pleasant. i also made sure he understood there is still a lot more work to do for the people of our state and i am not going to let anything or anyone get in between me and the completion of the mission to restore and recover our great state. [applause] on behalf of the people of new

jersey, it is my privilege to introduce the president of the united states of america. [applause] ♪cheers] ♪ >> hello, new jersey! [applause] it is good to be back in jersey. i love you back. let me say thank you to governor christie for the introduction

and the great work he has done here. your mayor, ed johnson, is here as well and have been working tirelessly on your behalf. we have three great representatives in congress of new jersey, rush holt, frank pallone, donald payne junior. last week, my advisers asked me, they said mr. president, do you want to spend next tuesday in washington or would you rather spend it at the jersey shore? [applause] i have to make some tough decisions as president but this was not one of them. i appreciate that. governor christie and i just spent some time on the point pleasant boardwalk.

i got a chance to see the world tallest sand castle being built. we played touchdown. i played a little frog bog. and governor christie's kids talk with the right technique for getting the hammer to get those frogs in the bucket the way i was supposed to. and of course i met with folks still rebuilding after sandy. we all understand there are still a lot of work to be done. there are homes to rebuild, businesses to reopen, landmarks and beaches and boardwalks that are not all the way back yet. thanks to the hard work of an awful lot of people, we have wonderful shops and restaurants

opening their doors. i saw what thousands of americans saw over memorial day weekend -- you are stronger than the storm. after all you have dealt with, after all you have been through, the jersey shore is back at it is open for business and they want americans to know that they are ready to welcome you here. i've got to say, if they ever let me have any fun, i would have some fun here. [applause] i was telling my staff on the ride over, i could see being a little younger and having some fun on the jersey shore. [applause] i can't do that anymore. maybe after i leave office. [cheers]

i think a friend of mine from here once put it pretty well -- down the shore, everything's all right. [applause] he's the only guy the president still have to call the boss. other than the first lady. but for generations, that's what this place has been about. life isn't always easy. we are people who have to work hard, do what it takes to provide for our families. when you come here, everything's all right. whether you spend a lifetime here or at weekends or a summer, the shore hold a special place in your heart and a special place in america's mythology, america's memory. when i was here seven months ago, hurricane sandy had just hammered communities all across

the east coast and lives were lost or it and homes and businesses were destroyed. folks were hurting. i remember something chris said. the resilient all new jersey citizens have. you kept going. these towns have a special character. not just in the summer but all year round. in the moment the hurricane hit, first responders worked around- the-clock to save lives and property. neighbors open their homes and hearts to one another. you came together as citizens to be billed -- to rebuild. and we aren't done yet. for somebody still trying to get the business up and running or the home rebuild, we don't want them to think we somehow checked a box and moved on. that's part of the reason i came back. to let people know we will keep

going until he finished. [applause] if anybody wondered whether the shore could ever be all right again, you have your answer this weekend. [applause] from belmar to seaside heights, folks were hanging out on balconies and beaches. shows were sold out. kids were eating ice cream, going on rides, going to eat more ice cream. guys were trying to win those big stuffed animals to impress a special girl. the jersey shore is back in business. the work is not over, though. some months ago, i promised you that your country would have your back. i told you we would not quit until the job was done and i meant it. i meant it. [applause] greg fugate, the head of fema,

he could not be here today but i want to thank him and his team for their ongoing work. imo was here before sandy made landfall. they are still here today. -- fema was here before sandy made landfall. they are still here today. since the storm hit, we provided billions of dollars to families and state and local governments across the region and more is on the way. even as my team is helping communities recover from the last hurricane isn't, they are already starting to prepare for the next 13 season -- recover from the last hurricane season, they are already starting to prepare for the next season. i want them to visit a website called ready.gov. make a plan. it is never too early. we also have to remember that

the building efforts like these are not measured in weeks and months but in years. this past thursday, we announced billions of new relief aid for new york and new jersey transit agencies carried that is why the army corps of engineers is working to restore beaches and strengthen the shores national defenses. that's why i joined governor christie and your representatives fighting to get a relief package through congress. we will keep doing what it takes to rebuild all the way and make it better than what it was before. make a stronger than it was before. make it more resilient than it was before. [applause] so jersey, you still have a long road ahead but when you look out on this youthful beach, even in the rain, it looks good. you look out over the horizon, you can count on the fact that you won't be alone. your ella citizens will be there

for you, just like -- your felow citizens will be there for you, just like we will be there for folks in breezy point in staten island. and we will be there for the folks at munro, oklahoma, after the devastation of last week. [applause] part of the reason i wanted to come back here was not just to send a message to new jersey but the folks in oklahoma. when we make a commitment and we've got your back, we mean it. we are not going to finish until the work is done. that's who we are. we help each other as americans were the bad times and be sure make the most of the good times. so let's have some good times on the new jersey shore this summer and next summer and the summer after that and all year long. america, bring your family and friends, spend a little money on the jersey shore. you will find some of the friendly folks on earth, some of the best beaches on earth.

even after a tough couple of months, this place is as special as ever. everything still all right. thank you everybody, god bless you. god bless america. [applause] ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

♪ ♪

♪ in an ♪

♪

>> a discussion about the lives bubble. house >> we are back with the senior white house correspondent, author of the new book "prisoners of the white house: the isolation of america's presidents and the crisis of leadership." guest: i covered the white house in 1986. it has always struck me how abnormal it is. it is completely alien to our everyday lives in the united states. it always struck me how does president obama cope with this? president obama caused the

bubble. the everyday life is so different. there are so many ways that the president is isolated, security, people not bringing him the bad news many times. trying to protect him in the sense that the idolizers have felt. it is something they have had to deal with for many years. host: given the headlines that we have seen, is this a factor in all of this, the isolation of the president? guest: i have been thinking about exactly that since those stories broke. i think what happened in some ways is that the president misjudged the intensity of the reaction. i am sure he knew there would be an intense reaction when they came out. i think he was isolated in the sense of misjudging the intense

reaction of conservative hawks on the benghazi issue. he misjudged the intention of the reaction of the media on the records issue and on the fox news monitoring of james rosen. the irs issue in particular has resonated with people who are worried about the irs anyway and wondering whether -- the president had to see there would be negative reaction but it was the intensity the reaction indicating the bubble. host: how does the isolation factor play out in negotiations with congress? guest: having dinner with members of congress, playing golf.

president obama can be a little aloof and does not reach out naturally beyond his inner circle. he does not have relationships with a lot of the old he is now cultivating. we have had some very difficult times in recent weeks. i think the problem is the relationship side. he is not done this consistently. as a result, it almost looks like he is just doing it for show. i think he has 4.5 years now without the relationships and it will be difficult to build them in the last host: we are talking to ken walsh.

we are speaking of what has happened with other presidents as well. how will this isolation play out? guest: every time we have some type of security problem, of course the assassination of president kennedy, the security got much more intense. the assassination attempt on president reagan. the 9/11 attack. it never goes back again. it is very strict. even as someone might president obama who does try to break out of the bubble does that, how human of an interaction can you have when their are all these bodyguards everywhere. there is this atmosphere of this person has to be protected at all times. it is very intimidated to people. president obama says one and the mistakes he made was that he was stuck on the white house too

much. he is trying to get out more now. i think that is smart. it runs into the problem of the security going around him and the sense of the awe of the president. people just feel this is a historic figure it no matter who was president. you get that very year toward human interactions. host: you write that obama has tried to avoid isolation. he's the first president to make use of the new technologies of social media --

guest: it is interesting. other presidents have tried to meet with his friends. president clinton gave out a fax number, old technology. we like this speech, we think you should do that. he did collect them in a little anteroom and he did response. other presidents have tried to do this. president obama the new technology very valuable. it is important. host: if you are talking to your supporters, how is that making you or giving you an idea of how to relate to other americans? guest: that is a very good

point. often when they are under pressure they turned to their loyalists. that is a problem. then you do not get that wider view. sometimes they hope their friends will give them the straight talk, candid evaluations. a lot of people i talked to say before they go into the oval office to see the president they get very stern. and they say i'm going to tell him he is doing or that wrong and then they do not do that because they are intimidated by the president and the oval office itself. so many barriers to the president getting the basic information is a real problem. host: does the bubble make the president seem out of touch or unable to govern? guest: in some ways it is owed. certainly the presidents are out

of touch in several ways. they try to stay in touch. he will read 10 letters every evening, often allow. let's follow up on this and that. one fellow will write about not getting social security checks or something. the day after he will be flooded with calls from government officials. it can cause a remarkable response to read presidents have used letters for many years. franklin roosevelt pioneered the fireside chats when you would talk to the country on the radio. he would get tens of thousands of letters and would respond to

people. some of the letters you can find online. i have a number in the book about people who knew that he had polio and his legs were paralyzed and did not know the extent of the disability. they would write very poignant letters. mother saying my child has polio and i have to carry my child around. we were inspired by your efforts to struggle against polio. they were very poignant letters. they get in that sense of people paying attention to the president and that he may be able to make a difference. host: anthony here in dc on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have always felt that president obama is relatively young in national politics, not like some of his congressional leaders who have been around for the last 25 or 35 years.

i always thought he had a decent report with people like brian williams and steve croft. what is your view on that? guest: that is an interesting point. you brought up brian williams and steve croft. they are not white house correspondents. he tends to be okasan on network anchors, commentators, the people who run the frontline white house reporters. and giving interviews, he tends to be choosing the bigger name people particularly on television. i do not think he has given an interview to the "new york

times" correspondent in years. is he communicating with the people who cover him and theoretically know him best? the answer is no. i do not think he has a lot of relationship with front line white house correspondents. that is a problem. it benefit in two ways. the president can put his message out day-to-day. i always say when you build relationships for people, you know who to trust better and who not to trust. the media is not monolithic. this is important for a president to make the distinctions.

the second thing, the president and staff can absorb in the relationships, what the media are up to. what is important to the media. an early warning system as to what stories are on the radar. the white house does not do as good a job as they might. host: you do not think it is effective? guest: i do not. host: is that the problem of the president or his staff? guest: it filters down. over the years, beginning under president clinton, they want information to be german through their public relations staff whether then have the reporters talk to the principals who make the decisions. it used to be that you would sit down with the chief of staff or the national security adviser or others. that is much more difficult now. everything has driven through

the communication staff, the press office staff. seven of the issues. some have the issues. some do not. host: does this lead to isolation as well of the president? guest: it leads to a distance that is not helpful. that is part of the problem. it is multifaceted. there are many aspects to this. i think they are left in this quandary of how they break out of the bubble. some presidents have done it better than others. host: the bubble is the topic here. joe you are next in reno, independent caller. caller: one thing is a lack of managerial experience. president obama is probably the least experience president we

have ever had. he does not understand management style. just like he was not informed about all this going on, i think if a manager or the lack of management will cause a bubble, it will not do anything else. what is your opinion on that? host: that is a good point. presidents without a lot of management ability or can make up for that i surrounding themselves with those that have management experience. i think there is a question about how much president obama has done that. a lot of people would say the reason we turn to governors going back through jimmy carter is that they have management experience in government. president obama was senator for a relatively short amount of

time. that is not an executive branch job. it is a legitimate criticism that he did not have experience. the country knew that and elected him. the president should make up with that by bringing those around him. i am a reporter and not a pundit and so i do not take editions on policy. president obama does have this type of management. the question that arises is whether they are well serving the president by affecting him too much. you saw that particularly in some of these investigations that are going on and the internal revenue service issue where he was kept in the dark. that is not good.

host: should he be like reagan and admit his mistakes? guest: i think he should. i think the country respect that. they want that. people have an understanding that president to make mistakes. they want him to own up to that. every president is reluctant to do that. i think the country does respect that. host: how did ronald reagan view the white house and isolation? guest: he did not need the kind of liberation by going out to dinner or social event. he was happy to be in the white house with his wife nancy and

this love affair. they loved to be with each other. he was happy to be there. some very interesting stories about that. what reagan did is he did have advisers around him who try to keep them informed about the country. that is very important. he revived on presidential pollsters who are very important in keeping a president in touch. he did not forget his roots. he got a lot of criticism for a guy that hung out with rich people and corporate leaders throughout his adult life. he used to be a hollywood star. he always remembered that he came from a middle-class background. they need to always remember that and not feel that they have risen so far above that they're

not connected to it anymore. host: queensville, new york. independent caller. caller: how do you recommend in regard to piercing the white house bubble when there is such a transformation of realities for the president and the first lady that the president doesn't go to the kitchen. he gets on the phone and says get me this now. when he goes to the american people he goes to the press corps. the better option is to talk to the american people with town hall meetings directly as opposed going through the press. no offense.

how do you seek to pierce the bubble? guest: you mention staying in touch with reality. a senior adviser to president lyndon johnson many years ago wrote a book called the twilight of the presidency which i was following up on with my book. he said one of the worst problems that presidents had was keeping up with reality, and that is worse now. to me, what presidents need to do and in my concluding chapter i have prescriptions for this, it has to be a sustained effort to keep in touch as a priority. it cannot be just occasionally. news conferences are one way a president can keep in touch by seeing what is on the minds of the media, interviews. but also you mentioned town meetings.

that is very important. president obama has tried to go out and see people in their homes. he went to falls church, virginia not long ago and met with people. even that is a problem because of the notion of awe and how many people are candid with him. pollsters are important. presidents can get a decent sense of the country from polling. it can be overdone. i think president carter overdid did that with his pollster, which i talk about in the book. another thing is keeping in touch with popular culture. you mention the idea of president obama keeping in touch with sports. you see this again and again, the notion of presidents keeping in touch with sports. it is a way of doing what americans do to relax, and they get a sense of popular culture. so he watches sports center,

watches games from the teams he used to pay attention to in chicago. he does pay attention to that, so that is another way. but what i am getting at is there are a lot of ways to do this it is a multifaceted approach. presidents need to really work at it. some do and some did not. president obama does try to work at it. in a recent case that we mentioned, these scandals, where perhaps he was not as intense as he should have been, but presidents have to really stay with it. that is one of the important things i hope people will draw from the book. host: everyone thought obama would be this consensus-builder. guest: i think that president obama came into washington not really realizing how intense the polarization was and would be. he has become a polarizing figure. i think he really was hoping not to be, but i think because of the policies he has adopted a because of the stubbornness of

his opposition -- i am not saying that necessarily critically, people polling obama do believe in the opposition so i do think that is important, but i think that he has been unable to reduce much of the polarization. i think you are going to see a lot more of that after the initial phase of this charm offensive is over, which is not having much of an impact of moving his agenda through. he has to pay if it back -- he has to pivot back to a strongly partisan approach. a year from now how much it will look much different. he will be really hammering at the republicans to get them out of the control of the house, move that to the democrats. i think you will see a much more partisan approach as time goes on. host: this says maybe we should lock him in the white house, stop wasting money jetting around for these photo ops.

guest: people are divided on the photo ops. some people feel that it is important to for instance, today president obama will be in new jersey at the jersey shore with governor christie, a republican governor who has been critical of president obama. now he is taking some criticism from conservatives for being too close to obama. but he is visiting people who have been victims of storms. he was visiting the tornado area in more, oklahoma, and i think people feel that is a good thing to do -- he was visiting the tornado area in moore, oklahoma. i think getting out of washington is important, and that is part of the insulation the president who stays in the white house too much becomes a prisoner of the white house. they have much more difficulty staying in touch than they should.

caller: yes, [indiscernible] sexual assault in the military. the commanders are setting the tone from on top. the men are taking the lead from their commander. why does the media not find that on the scandals that are underway? guest: i think you are starting to see that. i think perhaps there should have been more of that from the beginning. you are seeing sort of going back again and again to the idea of why was the president kept in the dark, which his aides say he was, on some of these scandals? shouldn't the president be taking more responsibility tom and shouldn't he be blamed for things on his watch? but i think that is happening. you may feel it should happen sooner, but i think, certainly if you look at how the briefings

are going with what i said -- with white house press secretary jay carney, a tremendous amount of outrage within the media on these, particularly the ap and james rosen fox news sort of snooping and spying on the media and of the irs issue. so i think there is an accountability factor here that the are applying to the president. i think that is happening. host: this headline on usa today is obama at war with journalists? they have president george w. bush's spokesman that does not agree with the obama administration often, but when it comes on the leaks of classified ad -- information, he is on the same page. here is the quote --

guest: i covered eric fleisher and i'm not surprised he made those comments. he was very much in the line of message control and so on, which i'll press secretaries tend to do. he is sort of showing solidarity with jay carney, the current white house press secretary. this is tension between the media and the white house. in this case, we have not had this kind of aggressive, you know, militant going after leakers, in my experience, but it is also part of a wider picture of the white house perhaps not responding as quickly or as candidly to questions, driving the questions through the press operation rather than the policymakers, which we talked about earlier. any idea that if there is a bad story -- we do not expect if the story does not make the white house happy, they will come back at you as a reporter and

complain. but you solve this with bob woodward not long ago, about him being bullied or an intent to intimidate them and backing them off of a story. it is a bigger picture than just the scandal coverage. there are a lot of tensions with the press corps that might not be apparent but really exist. host: the editorial page of the wall street journal -- the administration wants to decide when reporting is legal in national security cases. they go on to say that all this is also reason to be suspicious of mr. obama cost other new media culpa, his support for media shield law. it includes national security protections which reportedly would not have protected mr. rosen and fox news. any such law that lets government define who is practicing this way thus deserving a shield. guest: these are good points.

a lot of media folks like the idea of a shield law. as a reporter i think it is a good direction to go. this particular legislation has questions, not the least of which defining who is a journalist. does the government now define what a journalist is? that covers a lot of anxiety among folks in the media. the idea of how does the legislation come out and will it have much of an effect on protecting or shielding reporters? i am not confident that that would have been very effectively. but the white house is sort of using support for the shield law as the notion that we are really on your side in the media more than we might seem to be. but i think we have to the how this legislation goes and how much is watered down, how much they white house supports it being watered down. that remains to be seen.

host: joe in the mask is, maryland, democratic caller. -- in damascus, maryland. caller: i read an article about the presidents that were intellectuals. madison, lincoln, wilson, carter. they added obama to the list. diverse question is, how do you think think that the fact that he is an intellectual plays into this perception of aloofness? the second question has to do with the expectations and biases that people had or have with the first african-american president, i think there is a tremendous amount of pressure on him because of that. i am wondering how that plays into perceptions also. guest: being an intellectual, i mean, i have interviewed president obama a number of times now. he is very smart and very cerebral. intellectual, i think it means

two different people, he does respect the life of the mind and is interested in ideas. if you define that as being an intellectual, he certainly qualifies for that. he does like to dissect things. if you look at his policies or talk to him personally -- as a journalist, many times people are struck by the idea that there's not a lot of chit chat to begin with. he is very no-nonsense. other presidents i have talked to and people around washington, members of congress, legislators, businesspeople, lobbyists, whatever are struck by the idea that he is so no- nonsense. people might expect the president to say, well, how is your family? your daughter in the peace corps? that might be a natural sort of bonding moment or a moment to reach out. president obama does not do much of that. the last time i interviewed him, he said i have been thoroughly briefed, let's have your questions.

there was nothing more personal than that. that is his prerogative. but when you interview him or people talk to him, he doesn't seriously tried to answer your question. he does listen. he tries to explain himself. you see this in press conferences. he comes back to a question often and says, well, let me be even more clear. you like that in some and are interviewing. people like that in a president. the question is, in situ cerebral? people? it remains to be seen. i think president obama is qualified as an intellectual. some people do not think that is so good, by the way. they think a president should be closer to an everyday person in his outlook, but whatever. as far as being an african american, in talking to a number of president obama haas advises, they feel that being an african american sort of cuts

both ways. some people will never get the past of the idea that there is an african-american president, they do not like this, a sort of racial part of that. other people will be drawn to president obama because he is an african-american, and of course he is a historic figure in that way. i think it does cut both ways. i have seen presidents treated very harshly. every president i have dealt with. look at jimmy carter, how harshly he was treated. bill clinton was impeached. there is another side of this that is not racial at all. weis just the polarization have is a country and some people, his opponents, will not give the president a break or a benefit of the doubt. that has existed for a long time. host: what about the schedule that presidents keep, and does that lead to isolation? as you said, president obama is all business. if they are just getting

through the day and trying to do it as efficiently as possible -- guest: if you look at the president's schedule, it is backbreaking. we do not think presidents should get colds or get the flu or get a headache. it happens to everybody. or slow down, every president gets a cold, people think the president is showing some kind of weakness or his health is bad. if a president cancels an event for one reason or another, he is being lackadaisical or he is sick. it never ends. the president and his schedule is nonstop, back-to-back meetings and talks in public events and travel. really a backbreaking schedule. i think president obama has a very, very busy schedule. he is a relatively young man as president still. he seems to handle that very well. but this is part of the idea of idea of trying to break out of washington him of breaking out of that routine at the white house. every president i have covered, and this goes back even before reagan, who was the first president i covered, they just

feel desperate to get out of the white house. they fight so hard to get to the white house, and once they are there, they're desperate to get away from the place. because they want some semblance of normality. that is part of why they go on vacations away from the white house, even camp david. presidents are just so eager to get out of washington and they are so happy when they do. you can just see it in their physical appearance. they just feel liberated. part of it is the routine you are talking about. a break from that backbreaking schedule. they feel a little bit more liberated than they would in the white house. host: you write president harry truman famously called the white house the great white jail, and bill clinton referred

to it as the crown jewel of the federal penitentiary system. a rock obama says one of the biggest mistakes he made during his first term was confining himself in the white house too much which a limited his understanding the real america beyond official washington. guest: just a couple of quick points. president obama -- there is an instance where i describe that a friend of president obama came to the white house with a new hybrid car. presidents do not drive. the secret service do not like them to drive anywhere. this is one of the little things that presidents mess -- miss. so his friend said, would you like to get behind the wheel of a hybrid car? the president felt it was a great idea. so he did. he drove it up and down the highway. the secret service was up and down. he joked about it later saying that was my joy ride, up and down the driveway a couple of times. saying this is the extent to which i have some personal freedom in this job. the other thing i wanted to mention is the family. president obama tries to have dinner with his family, his wife and malia and sasha, his

daughters, at six: 30, and other presidents have done this. aey love to have family time sort of a way to get out of the bubble and get another view of things. but his daughters are young girls and are not very impressed with what he has been doing that day, daddy has been on television. when they have dinner, it is like what every dad goes through many times. i have gone through this. somebody and classes being mean to me. my teacher gave me a b and i should have gotten an "a." i'm not sure the girls get very many b's, they are very good students. he feels this is very refreshing. also his wife is a strong person in her own way. i talk about first ladies in the important role they play in grounding presidents. they are one of the few people around them who will say that was not such a good speech today or, you know, you need to focus more on this issue or that issue. first ladies do that where

staff members often do not. host: of course, as you know we are focusing on first ladies in a new series. here is the website for it on c-span.org. first ladies -- and flights and image. every -- if you are interested in the role they have played over the years, go to our library if you have missed them so far. you can interactively play with this part of the website as well. guest: i am sure you are talking about this in the series, that eleanor roosevelt had a very important role she played for frequent roosevelt depression and world war ii. franklin roosevelt had polio so he cannot travel as much as he wanted to. eleanor served as what he called his eyes and ears. she traveled around the country

to see how people reacted to his policies and so on. she became very important to franklin in doing this. they would have long dinners. she took voluminous notes. she almost acted as a reporter or even a pollster. this was before the heyday as pollsters. it was helpful to roosevelt because they had strains in their marriage in this regularity at their discussion of issues in these dinners when she would report back on what she was observing around the country, it became very important in their relationship. it was even more important than fact-finding. she would go to call mine's, go down into the coal mines -- she would go to the coal mines. she would go to poor sections of the cities. this was unheard of at the time. she had an amazing reputation as somebody who was really trying to stay in touch with the country. host: in our first lady series,

it is in two hearts. we will be focusing on eleanor roosevelt on monday, october 21. let's go to deborah, new york, independent. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. congratulations on your publication. guest: thank you. caller: as far as obama's management style and being in the so-called bubble, have you considered that for the first four years he was literally underwater, dealing with problems that were passed on from the previous administration? that would have a whole lot to do with the perception by other people. guest: i do talk about that in the book, that he has had terrible collapses. the mortgage industry, the sense that we were headed for another depression, not just a recession. a terrible series of problems he inherited. and of course he inherited two wars. i am not minimizing bad at all, afghanistan and iraq. so he was faced with crises from the very beginning that he had

to deal with. i do acknowledge that. but i think that any president in dealing with crises, it is important to keep a sense of the pulse of the country. thedn't want to give impression that a do-nothing president obama tries to do that, because i i think he does. -- i do not want to give the impression that i think president obama does not try to do that, because i think he does. it is so difficult for a president to do that. one of the reason, like you mentioned the financial crisis in his first months and first couple of years as president, he is absorbed by trying to deal with that almost our hour. you can imagine how difficult it is to get a sense of what the everyday family in cleveland or out in some other spot is coping with these things when he is just trying to deal with the crisis of the moment. that is part of the point i am trying to make. breakvery difficult to out, especially when the

president is facing these kind of crises. host: west virginia, republican caller. caller: good morning. i am interested in all three of the's scandals that are going on -- of these scandals that are going on. the guy who was the head of the irs, he indicated that it takes so much investigation and such a long time when one of these organizations applies for tax- free status. yet, the half-brother of obama was okayed in about three weeks. ad that organization was little iffy to start with. i have often heard that a fish rots from the head-down. thatinclined to believe

this administration is rotting from the head-down. host: ok. ken walsh? guest: i think with the relative of the president, i think certainly on the notion of the scandals and this irs issue that you mentioned, we have not gotten to the bottom of this by any means. congress has been on a break. i think the houses investigating this thoroughly. there are media investigations going on. this is far from being settled settled. the point about tax exempt status questions the notion of targeting conservative groups, how expensively that was done. the guidelines that the irs has for tax exempt status are difficult. they are vague. it is not an easy thing to do, but we will see if there is a preponderance of evidence that conservative groups were targeted, that their

applications were delayed, they were subject to the usual scrutiny and were asked wes chance that might not have been asked about where they got their money. ofarently batteries questions were asked that the tea party groups felt were out of line. this is being investigated now, so it is an ongoing process. it takes time for the irs to make conclusions about these tax exempt groups and their status, and it takes a long time to get to the bottom of how they do that and exactly what happened in this particular case of the irs. of the scandals that we are talking about, benghazi, the irs, and the media scrutiny, i think the irs is the one that most people have more resonance with. everybody deals with the irs in some way, and a lot of people feel the iris is the leading edge of government abuse. so i think that that is an issue

that people are really going to focus on, more than the other two. host: president obama said he did not find out about that until the rest of us, newspaper reports. you talk about access to information. you said roosevelt understood he could be isolated by his staff and took pains to avoid it. he understood thoroughly the weaknesses of the staff system in the white house, wrote the former white house adviser for lyndon johnson. he saw to it that under no circumstances could people in his immediate vicinity controlled his access to information. guest: right. this is many years ago, so you did not have the information running at the velocity and the volume that it does now. the president could control the information or share the information more easily within the government then than is possible now. but roosevelt was very keen on controlling insulation with his government. a lot of people during that time and other times with other presidents say if you do not

give the president the full story, the president would get very upset and would expect staff to give them the full story. but presidents need to insist on that. theing president obama in dark, as the white house says he was in the's scandals that are going on now, at least in some cases, i think it takes a lot of people by surprise. i think if they are smart, they will try to correct that. it used to be, for instance, that the chief of staff knew about something, everybody would expect the president would know. chiefs of staff are not supposed be hiding things from the president, even to protect the president or lessen the pressure. we will have to see. we really do not know exactly what his reasoning is, why the president was kept in the dark. but we will see. host: new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. mr. walsh, i have a question. regarding ronald reagan, you

kind of skipped over iran contra. that was certainly a blip in his presidency, and he did not come clean on that. i second question is regarding the press in general. i recall during the bush administration, armstrong williams, judy miller, jeff gannon -- these were scandalous acts with the press. i do not see that in the obama administration. i see a press that is so interested in getting a story on the president that they are just trying anything they can to make him look bad. i just think that the president is doing a pretty good job. no one is going to be happy with him.

and i think that your presentation this morning has been a little bit to the right. host: ok. guest: as i said earlier, i am not trying to be partisan in any way. the glad you brought up iran contra issue. i was not intentionally glossing over that. but lots of presidents in their second terms have what historians call the second term curse. this idea that second term presidents lose their way many times and they have these terrible problems either from overreaching or hubris or misjudgments. many times this happens -- the iran contra scandal, part of this notion of being isolated. reagan said that he did not know a lot about this stuff, he did not know about the fundamentals of the iran contra scandal.

so the question during those days was, was he too disengaged? should he have known? a lot of people thought he should have known. he should have stopped this illegal conduct in some ways and overreaching in others. so the iran contra scandal was a very serious setback to president reagan. he did recover his credibility and the end. largely because the economy was getting better for a lot of people. but the second term problem, president clinton had the second term problem with the monica when ski scandal. -- with the monica lewinski scandal. then there was the social security issue. the iraq war. hurricane katrina for president bush. he was really out of touch on that. that is one thing that the staff says he never really recovered from and his credibility. but he was at his ranch in the state of texas during the terrible hurricane that hit the gulf coast and was out of touch

as far as how serious it was. i think that is part of a pattern here. says interesting that you that the media are looking for stories with president obama. they were not scrutinizing him harshly enough. now, presidents tend to get the coverage they deserve. not fair in every case, not story -- and not every story as comprehensive and some stories are wrong. the issues that president obama is benefiting from, he getting much more negative coverage now.

i take this whole notion of the media and the justice department subpoena and records , the associated press and fox news rummaging through e-mail, including people at their homes and their private accounts, i think that sends a chill through the media and president obama has acknowledged that, that you might look into the standards of the justice department. it was always a very controversial topic, but now president obama is getting more negative coverage that he has before, and i think that is going to continue. i think that is going to be a staple of the second term. >> they do read the polls when they are in the white house. because the economy appears to

be brighter, these scandals have not impact that his numbers. where ite about this, work. his job approval has remained about 50% and a little higher. that is pretty steady despite the scandals. it to it takes time for weigh down a president's numbers. that the economy is getting better so people are willing to forgive some of these other issues, i think that is an important thing. there have been the wage stagnation over the years, the middle-class.

it is much worse in many areas of the country and many communities. i am cautious about how much of the economy is helping obama because i think there is still tremendous economic problems and thatnk it is part of why is happening. show,the beginning of the we asked what the economy is like in your city and where your living. are they seeing economic signs of a brighter economic scene? ken walsh, thank you very much. crisis of leadership. >> we will discuss poverty with who conductedbone

a study that a majority of the poor live in the suburbs and not the cities. we will take the questions about backing of u.s. weapons systems. and a mother jones article about mental illness in her family. at 7:00c-span every day am eastern. in a few moments, online radicalization and violent extremism. that a love that national transportation safety board recommendations. the members say it should reduce the death of alcohol impaired driving. and affecting transportation and the environment. several live events to tell you about on c-span, the bipartisan policy center looks that immigration and border security.

then the brookings institution for a discussion on legalizing marijuana. >> there tends to be a denigration of the u.s. military by some historians that whenever one battalion or one regiment fought an american regiment, the germans were tactically superior. i think this is nonsense, because it is pointless. it is a clash of systems, which system can produce the wherewithal to project power in the atlantic, pacific, indian ocean, southeast asia. theh system can produce civilian leadership to create

the transportation systems, the civilian leadership to produce 96,000 airplanes in 1944. >> rick will take your call, e- mail, facebook, head tweets. >> violent extremism, the new american foundation has a look at how the internet affect the way that some people feel about violence. >> is my my column? thank you for coming to the new america foundation, we are thrilled that have this panel today with online radicalization, starting on your he isith peter newman, also a director of the study of

radicalization. i don't professor of georgetown university of foreign service. he teaches a national studies program this summer. author of multiple books. lone star intelligence. he has advised numerous federal and state law-enforcement organizations including the texas department of safety, national counter-terrorism center of global terrorism group. dhsorked for a time at advisory council under secretary napolitano. next to him is a fellow here at the new america foundation. she is also an attorney. she has had a great deal of experience working with the muslim community as president of the safe nation collaborative. she is a fellow at the truman national security project. we are really pleased to have you here. firstr this is your public event at the new america.

nextto us is our coast -- to me is our co-host, currently director of the washington, d.c., office of the muslim public affairs council. williamhim is imam webb, who is currently working with the boston public society. finally, we have rashad hussain, -- hussein. with that, i will turn it over, and each of the panelists will speak for a few minutes. we will then be engaged in some q&a, and then we will throw it to you. >> thank you so much, peter, and thank you for agreeing to co-host this timely and relevant conversation. it is something that definitely impacts the american muslim

community, and that is why we at the public affairs council believe that it is imperative for our community, our institutions, our leadership to engage in this very relevant and timely conversation and to be very public about it. forave taken on this topic the past decade. we think that this topic addresses -- if it is online radicalization or telling violent extremism in general -- it is a compact -- a conversation that impact our community, and at times disproportionately, it is imperative to speak to policy makers, the american public, and american muslims themselves. as the president said last week, we put this threat into proportion and address it in a way that is both good for our national security but that also takes into consideration the foundations of our country and our society, which is built on a constitution, on civil

liberties. that is why this is very important to us. we think that this is a very public conversation needs to be had, and we are happy we have such a great turnout today and that people are so very interested in having this conversation with experts, community leaders, government officials, individuals on the forefront of dealing with this topic, whether it be online or in communities. newn, we want to thank the america foundation for co hosting this. each individual will speak for about three to five minutes, talk about their perspective and how they see this topic and how it impacts community, government, and how it impacts the relationships between various countries and societies.

they will speak for about three to five minutes, and then we will open it up. i will ask an initial question from each panelist, and then we will open it up to the audience and had a conversation with you as well. our first panelist is peter neumann. >> since i've only got five minutes, i thought i would take the title of this event, which is online radicalization: myth and reality is, and let me give you one reality and a couple of minutes -- myths. let me begin with the reality -- it is true that the internet has profoundly changed the way people, especially in the west, have come to embrace a violent extremism. not what i would call lone wolf attackers, people carrying out terror attacks without being linked into formal command structures of terrorist organizations. i believe it is not a coincidence we are seeing this phenomenon increase at this particular point in time, nor is it coincidence that a lot of

people we would call lone attackers have been very active on the internet. andloan will phenomenon online radicalization are fundamentally linked -- the lone wolf phenomenon and online radicalization are fundamentally linked. he cannot look at one without examining the other. mostis probably the tracking example -- most striking example. another is that we are seeing terrorism cases pop up in places and locations where we would never expect them. the traditional assumption by academic policy makers and officials used to be that terrorism comes out of communities. maybe the extreme margins of communities, but still, it was a product of a particular physical place. you had to understand the place, the people, the organizations in that place, relationships between people in

that particular place, and only that would tell you how people became radicalized, and that is no longer always true. you now have cases of violent extremism popping up in places where there is not a physical community to speak of. why? because you can be part of an enormous, vibrant, active, exciting virtual community even when there is no physical community. the internet has made that possible. if i was the sociologists, which i'm not, but i would argue rather pompously that the internet has loosened the spatial constraints within which radicalization takes place. online radicalization really is in the process of turning upside down and number of long- held assumptions, but there are also missed -- myths associated. here's two. one, there's nothing exceptional about terrorists or

violent extremist being on the internet. they are on the internet because everyone else is. in the 21st century, it would be very strange if terrorists were the one group of the population that were not on the internet. nor is there anything fundamentally strange, surprising, for the exceptional about how terrorists are using the internet. in fact, like everyone else -- probably like everyone else in this room -- they are using the internet to disseminate ideas, promote causes, search for information, connect, and communicate with like-minded people, often across great distances. what makes them different from the public, it is not how they use it. it is the purpose for which they use it. that is what makes it different. a second and very persistent myth with which i will close, is that you can get rid of violent extremism on the

internet by shutting down websites. this comes up again and again. we have heard a lot of times -- in fact, in britain over the past week -- "let's remove that from the internet." let me say a couple of sentences about how that is a flawed argument. typically, when a new edition of the magazine comes out, there's not just one place where you can download it. it is the most continuously published in a dozen places, and within minutes of it being published, readers will not only download the magazine, they will upload it in even more places, so within a couple of hours of it being published, you can download it from not just one location on the internet, not just dozens of locations on the internet, but literally, from hundreds of locations. it is very difficult if not impossible and certainly pointless to try to remove it from all these places. in my view, rather than removing stuff from the internet, we should become a lot

better at challenging that kind of message, and we should also become better at monitoring what happens online, at understanding the network that exists, how this magazine is being passed around, for example, and the key hubs in violent extremism online. while it is a big challenge, it is also an opportunity, to say that cliche. when violent extremists are on line, they reveal a lot of information about themselves. stoppedout time we laughing about the fact that terrorists have twitter accounts but rather start understanding what they use them for. >> let me first thank the new america foundation and impact for the invitation. this is a great opportunity for me to participate here today. and though i was mentioned -- or my role in the homeland security with the secretary was

mentioned in the official bio, i am here speaking on behalf of myself, so nothing i say should be construed otherwise. now having gotten that out of the way, to save some time and open up more time for q&a, i will go ahead and wholly endorsed peter neumann's report at the bipartisan center that came out last december on this topic. if you have not read it, i recommend you read it. the perspective that i bring on this subject is i personally had the opportunity over the past several years to do a

number of these community-based partnerships with law enforcement for intervention. they span the gambit from people who have not really wrapped their minds around doing any kind of violence and i just kind of flirting with the idea of joining this virtual -- are just kind of flirting with the idea of joining this virtual mosque community that is interested in the same issues to folks who are honestly -- have overseas to countries where the state department gives you directions on you can stay in these three hotels, and these are the people you can get in the cab with, and you sleep under armed guards. it is a pretty broad range. what i have seen is there needs to be a lot more capacity- building so that more people enter the struggle, so to speak. the common narrative -- i think there's ample resources across the country to travel and work with community leaders on building relationships with law enforcement agencies, but what i have seen is a struggle inside of different departments

and agencies on what role. how do you divide the labor? where do you get the funding forthe pilot programs intervention? and that kind of thing. that is where i would like to close in my intro comments. we have to, as a country, i think, be able to recognize the good progress we have made in community engagements all across the country, but we have also -- we need to chastise ourselves a little bit. we could have done more over the past several years. we have roughly 16 cities where you will find approximately 60% to 65%, about 2/3 of resources across bureau offices. we need to concentrate on where we can train community leaders to partner to feel more

comfortable at the regional and local levels. unfortunately, over the past couple of years, from here in d.c., that has not really been executed properly. fbiinitiative at the headquarters office did not produce the results that a lot of us hoped it would go. that is a very important agency because that is our lead agency that will know about the joint terrorism task force structures. other agencies like the department of homeland security have done great work in training for local and state law-enforcement to elevate their sensitivity that this is a new area that they should be more proactive in helping to build up preventative infrastructure in their town, but still, we have not really gotten, i think, enough of an architecture across our major states across the country.

i hope that was good enough. >> thank you. because of the c-span audience, we should avoid anything talking about countering violent extremism. >> will do. >> i want to begin by stating what is obvious. a lot of us work on this issue on a policy level, but that the internet is a highly successful tool that is being used by violent extremists because it very quickly, effectively, and broadly disseminates certain narrative's. someone else mentioned the word "narrative" and it is important to understand what those are. some at a propagated online i that islam and the west are not compatible. you cannot be a good american and a good muslim at the same time. america is at war with islam. we are seeing a shift in that. we are asking western muslim communities to step up and

become in gauging partners in bringing their voices online to counter these narratives. it is important to look at it more broadly because those narratives are not just being propagated by violent extremists who are muslims, but also, they are being reinforced and replicated by anti-muslim activists, too, which is an interesting phenomenon -- two extremes that are agreeing on the same narrative. what is problematic even more so, activists who want to spread the idea that is from an america and -- that is on and america and western values and are compatible, is that it leaves western muslims feeling more isolated -- the idea that islam and american and western values are not compatible. these folks have been more influential on policy makers, media, politicians, and we see

that when, for example, a local elected official wants to about out of an event because there's pressure on him to not associate with certain individuals or groups, or we have muslim scholars who have been pressured not to appear at an event or not to make remarks. it is the same idea of suspect muslims and non-suspect muslims, so as we look at communities that engage online and counter these narratives, i would broaden the policy to say that we also need the general public, media, politicians, policy people to push back on the anti-muslim narratives propagated by islamaphobes -- people do not like the term, but it is easy to use. these discussions tend to stay here.

they do not filter very well downstream. when i'm sticking to a mosque, they have no idea what is happening on line. they have no idea their kids can access certain kinds of videos so easily. they do not know how to filter that. is there a filter for it? probably not. local law enforcement has no idea, either. we have to identify better mechanisms to get this information and make it actionable on the ground. i'm going to end with -- do i have a minute? when we are asking western muslims specifically to counter narratives that are couched in islamic ideology by violent extremists, we have to remember there are certain kinds of voices that will have more credibility, and it will not be what you might understand as progressive or more liberal voices. they will not have the kind of street read -- cred to counter these voices. it will be conservative muslim scholars who will have the kind

of credibility it takes to counter these ideologies. part of the problem is we are trapped in a space where when we think of conservative muslims, we think of salafists. we have to be careful about not limping these people -- lumping these people together. i think that is all i wanted to contribute. >> first of all, i want to thank the new america foundation and everyone for being here. as an imam in boston who was there in the tragedy and coming back to america after seven years overseas and dealing firsthand with some people who were impacted by some of the online efforts, my conclusion as well as other imams is that

the way to combat this is through building coalitions and a community involvement with policy makers that is led by the muslim community and should focus on the government perspective and a local perspective. being responsible for leading this effort and then advising others to be aware of the following four points -- information needs to be based on credible resources. i was labeled on fox news as a muslim brotherhood sympathizer. my mother from oklahoma lost her mind when she heard that her baby boy had joined al qaeda on fox news. that was an attempt to undermine ne credibility i may have had here or in other circles, where as the with the muslim community -- had the muslim community defined me, it would have been very different. there needs to be, i think, some leeway given to the larger muslim community to define who

we are, who our leadership is, and who represents us. for the word, salafi -- not all salafis are radicals and jihadists. they might be more conservative, but they are law- abiding people and wonderful community members. we need to respect their rights as well as cultural nuances, and both of those kind of get turned on their head when it comes to our community. the third is that we need to avoid a securitized relationship with the muslim community exclusively. when you tell people our relationship is based on surveillance, mapping your community, questioning imams about potential jihadists in their community, the investigation becomes confused, so the imam is part of the

investigation where they were initially trying to help. creating that relationship creates tension, especially in communities where i of the fbi of a certain country shows up at your house, you are basically over -- if the fbi of a certain country shows up at your house, you are basically over. i think that really stigmatizes the potential we should have. the last is that the counter extremas and narrative needs to be led by the muslim community, and there are three areas -- the counter extremism narrative needs to be led by the muslim community. i knew a seminary run by a bostonian imam, who wrote this after the bombing -- countering terrorism and extremism, one of the most important roles of an imam. this was written imams -- for imams and even parents, websites you should make sure your children were not going to. the fact the tsarnaev brothers

were not able to sit down with an imam and go through their feelings was our fault. every young man that i have met -- and i have never met a woman, so let's hear it for women -- who has been influenced by extremism, every young man i have been able to sit with an offer pastoral care to has changed for the better. i have never had one who was not affected by a positive message. i have heard statements like, "i cannot believe i hated people like this." one of them opened a soup kitchen in his neighborhood and said, "this is my jihad now, to serve people." the second is that at an institutional level, muslim communities still suffer from

institutional mediocrity. we have to be honest about that. when people ask where the muslim voice is, i do not think they are aware that we are still pre pubescent in 501 ( -- pre- puscent in 501(c)3 -- prepubescent. those are areas i think we really would have to focus on in dealing with or countering the extremist narrative. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. thank you to the new america foundation. as part of our efforts to deepen or expand our partnership with muslim communities around

the world in a wide range of areas, one of the issues often raised is the issue of terrorist validation, including in the online space, and part of the reason that muslims around the world are concerned about this is because they are fearful of their own families, their own neighbors perhaps being recruited by terrorist networks and perhaps being killed by terrorist networks. we have talked to people around the world in muslim communities who lost families -- family members who were killed. it is an issue that comes up quite often. part of the challenge that we are facing is that extremists on line -- online are producing materials they use y creative means use youth and draw them to their work ideology, and in some cases, they have been able

to do so in ways that are more emotionally appealing than wet imams or others have done -- than what imams ort others have done. they are using images online. oftentimes, there narrative is that the disbelievers are killing your brothers and sisters around the world and it is your obligation as muslims to defend the worldwide muslim community, and they will sometimes use emotional hymns or verses from the koran, which they have taken out of context, and portray a situation wherein they are rewarded for taking action, including violent action. we recognize the government has a role to play by partnering with local communities on a wide range of issues. there's layers of intervention at multiple levels. there's a law enforcement role, and intelligence role, the work we are doing to work towards defeating and dismantling terrorist groups.

about president spoke last week, one of the most important partnerships we have is with muslim communities in the united states, who, as i said, have been at the forefront of condemning terrorism, condemning terrorist attacks and have been working themselves to address radicalization. as i said, they are concerned that terrorists are killing innocent people. they find it to be something that is totally repulsive to their religion or any religion, and they are concerned that muslims have been the largest victims. so they have been taking the lead in a couple of areas. we have talked to muslim communities who are developing materials and messaging that may address some of the same grievances that they raise, but at the end, they say the way to address these grievances is non-violence but is to address it in a way that is lomb prescribes -- that is lomb --

that islam prescribes. that message is best coming from imams and not necessarily the government. they also talk about the punishments for killing innocent people. that has been a consistent part of their messaging. in the online space, muslims are doing more to make sure their voices are being heard. they are also trying to disseminate images that show what terrorists are doing in places like iraq and pakistan where you see after friday prayer, even in ramadan, that muslims have been killed. they've been talking to former radicals, to family members of those who have been killed and working with internet service

providers to make sure that when disaffected youth are online, they want to make sure some of the materials they are producing are some of those hits that come up. we have created a partnership in working with muslim communities, and we have done a on policy level. we have ended down the war in iraq and are winding down the war in afghanistan. we have been supporting the middle east, the transitions in the middle east and north africa. we have been continuing to work toward a middle east peace. we do these things because they are the right thing to do. one of the themes i have heard a lot in traveling overseas is the idea that but not for many of these policy concerns, this radicalization problem would go away, and i think this is dangerous and something we really have to be careful about because, as you know, many of the terrorist attacks we have seen have been against muslims

in muslim places of worship, and the overwhelming majority of victims have been muslims themselves. we have to ask the question -- how is it that engaging in a terror attack against muslims -- have is that in any way address the foreign policy grievances that they have outlined -- how does that in any way address the foreign policy grievances that they have outlined? i do not think it goes with this way of thinking that the problem stems with the foreign policy of certain countries. we are aware that terrorists use some of those arguments to exploit youth as part of their radicalization efforts, but at the same time, we want to be clear that there is an ideological issue that goes beyond that, and that relates to the overwhelming fact that the overwhelming majority of victims from terrorist attacks have been muslims. i have been in places of worship around the world. you hear the imams talking about wars going on in various parts of the world and even offering prayers for those places, but it is less common

than you would find the same imams when they go through those issues or grievances say things like "we want to pray for muslims who are trying to use violence as a way of addressing their grievances." this is an important development, that there is further training that imams are undertaking in order to understand this. we talked to many people around the world. when you actually sit down and make clear that the motivation that a lot of these young people are using for their actions is actually totally false and their religion actually tells them that they need to promote safety and peace and well-being in a number of different ways, than many of them have actually said that they are not hateful of the west or their targets.

they are actually a full of their own actions which they were engaged in. i think that will be a critical part going forward. >> peter, can i have you respond to some of the comments that have been made? >> sure. picking up on what rashad hussein said, it is interesting one of the documents that they picked up said basically attacking muslim places of worship. even in other regions of al qaeda, there is recognition that there is an acceptable behavior going on -- even in the outer reaches of al qaeda. i wanted to ask some questions as much as make observations. the concept of the lone wolf does not make any sense in this age. when you think about the kind of classic lone wolf, it was

somebody like ted kosinski, who was living in a shack and did not have internet. i also wanted to endorse peter neumann's paper on the bipartisan issue appeared the basic theme is we cannot take down hateful speech. we have to provide alternative speech. withve had a partnership google and facebook and muslim community organizations to basically help people understand better how the internet actually operates so that you can put up alternative messages, alternative narrative's.

a question for the panel is -- would countering violent extremism as an idea -- the older brother tamerlan seemed to have gone beyond apart, but what kind of intervention would have worked with dzhokhar, the younger brother? i was interested in your observations about the disappointing efforts of the fbi in countering violent extremism. i would like you perhaps to elaborate. conservative muslims will produce the most credible alternatives. the concrete example is a very influential clerics in saudi arabia who was one of the first clerics who basically in a very public man tried to critique not al qaeda as an idea but bin laden by name.

another interesting observation that the imam made was we need a broad-based approach. certainly the british have what they call preventing, and if there's an understanding in this country, but we do not want u.s.er securitized the government in an approach to the problem. on the other hand, if it is just the government who is responsible, which is kind of a problem there potentially. one final observation -- the new america foundation maintains a database of every terrorist incident, both on the right- wing extremists, left-wing extremists, it eco terrorists, and people motivated by jihadi ideology, and we found that the muslim community is as likely to provide information about someone who is perhaps turning to bombs as any other community. the general consensus that the muslim community will be the solution not only intellectual makes sense, but it is also true in that we have seen

muslim communities in a number of cases dropped a dime and said there is something about something that is going on let somebody needs to pay attention dime and say there is something about something that is going on that somebody needs to pay attention to. >> thank you. these are all important questions. i will have each individual address the questions. one thing that i wanted to ask you, peter, can you also talk about the extent of the threat? is it an overwhelming threat? this is not a conversation that takes place. american muslims talk about tuition, the economy, jobs, but what is the extent of the problem so that we put it in perspective and we are

proportionate in our response? if you can both address that a little bit. >> there are two points, really. >> there are two points, really. the first is responding to peter, who made a very important point, which is the vagueness of the concept of the lone wolf. it is true that only a very small minority of so-called lone wolves are actually socially isolated. typically, we are talking about people who are extremely active and social, but they are often very active online in online extremists communities, etc. so they are not socially isolated. i consider muslims to be middle- aged now, -- i consider myself to be middle-aged now, but as older people, we do not get the idea that you can hang out and develop social ties to people on line, but that is what these people do. they are hanging out in online extremist forms for 10 or 12 hours a day, and if you ask them who are their best friends, they would give you five names of people they had never met and whose real name is they actually

do not know. the first step toward countering the threat is to recognize that online is also a space, and when we talk about community engagement, we also need to recognize the need to engage in that space, too. it is not only the mosque and the physical spaces. it is increasingly the online space is because the people we are concerned about consider these to be places -- it is increasingly the online spaces. in terms of the online threat, i would say that if you look at most biographies and radicalization trajectories of people who have radicalized of the past four or five years, online has played an important role. in that sense, it is important undoubtedly, but again, it is not only about numbers. we have just seen in london with a single person can trigger. it is not about the number of people killed. i always hear that more people get drowned in bathtubs, etcetera, etcetera we have heard all these statistics.

the thing about terrorism is not necessarily the number of people killed. it is the amount of terror you have created. to the extent that even a single killing can trigger it, and the negative impact a single action by a single individual can have on an entire community, that is the kind of impact we have to consider. in essence, the threat is real because even a single person can cause a lot of damage to communities. >> i agree with everything peter neumann just said. the way i have summed it up, in march 2010, my testimony on working with communities to disrupt her plots -- terror plots was a pandemic, but it is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. the more capacity building we do for this, the more we are

building resiliency in our local communities, which is, after all, the goal of homeland security, to get communities more resilient. in answering peter bergen's question about the bureau, i actually learned a lot from those folks. in 2008, -- i see a few government officials in the audience here who were involved in efforts back then by the national counter-terrorism center, to see what we can draw from the uk models and their experiences. i also flew to -- at the time, i was running a community non- profit, and i helped advise in the creation of a saudi program.

i flew to my office in dallas and spend a day learning about their model. i did kind of shop around and learned about how you do these kinds of interventions. the bureau -- i have found a lot of success in engaging and building relationships with local field offices, a joint terrorism task force supervisors that have been on the job for 10, 15 years. they have kicked down doors. they have arrested bad guys. they have built up a credential, and now they are interested in doing something strategic to the environment around them, to

shrink the haystacks they have to go fine needles in, as opposed to some of the other law-enforcement techniques that were criticized earlier on the panel. those folks at that point in their career are interested in examining what kind of substantive partnerships they can build to build preventative capacities in their cities. it is possible. my recommendation to the fbi folks at fbi headquarters when they started looking at creating a counter-violent extremism coordination, they needed it to be not in the community relations office. they did move it out of the office of public affairs and put it into the director of intelligence, which i thought was a better place. then there was an effort -- another recommendation i had given them was the need to be interconnected with the joint

terrorism task force. it is the joint terrorism task force that gives the tips and leads of people teetering on the edge of becoming violent extremists. there was an effort to look at that. another recommendation i give them that they decided not to take was that i felt just like the just went through a public transparency process where they brought a lot of local state enforcement academia and created a free-market strategy for doing counter-violent extremism. instead of going down that approach so everyone understands their role and how it is like to get up rationalized at the local field office level -- it up rationalized at the local field office level -- that not work

out too well. that effort kind of collapsed toward the end of last year. at the moment i do not know where it is. as of a few weeks ago it had moved to the national joint terrorism task force, which is located in the national terrorism center. -- national counter terrorism center. that is where the assignment of that desk was. it prevents project presents us with an opportunity to look at the question that peter berg and asked, is it right to have that in the fbi? the fbi has had a mission for years. it gave them the assignment to preempt in terrorism plots.

the capacity looks like a lot of social science stuff. and they may have a ph.d. is in sociology but that is kind of rare, those resources. for folks that are joining the bureau to get bad guys and build cases -- instead, by its location there is a possibility of building a partnership paradigm where the private sector can potentially have a role.

local and state law-enforcement can have a role. maybe the prevention step is done with the police department. those are other aspects we can explore later. hopefully that answers it. >> the next question i want to point to, there was a common theme among all the panelists about the counter narrative, that there needs to be a counter-narrative as strong, as graphic, as the motive as the key, lists -- as the jihadists. the deal face of the cleric's -- the video face of the clerks would not necessarily work. in 2010 we worked together and produced a video called "injustice cannot defeat injustice." you now have a virtual mosque. you have had a couple of conversations on the radicalization. how do you see the role of community and the role of

government -- there have been attempts by various foreign governments who have guided into the counter-narrative space. at the time we have the constitution and that is nothing we can get into. where dc those roles and responsibilities lying? >> that is a lot of questions. let me address a few issues. in 2004, we were studying together in egypt. we realized that -- as i had mentioned earlier the internet is becoming a mosque for the

mosque-less. with a group of people as activists, scholars, renamed the virtual mosque. but be realized is looking at our community millennial is no longer defines religiosity the savvy institutional commitment. -- religiosity the savvy institutional -- -- religiosity vis-a-vis institutional commitment. we decided to treat something called the virtual mosque. it would allow people the cannot belong to institutions. the majority of american muslims to not attend mosques. it allows them to engage in an open, free, and transparent environment. we had an article written by an ex-islamist. in 2009 and online form on use radicalization, before it became

the school where quicken now ha this cool word where we can now hash tag, we are able to see some young people who were affected by the jihadist message. advice to policy makers and government is to give muslim leaders and policy makers -- we do not need to be too close to each other. that undermines our street credit. i was involved in a radical middle way project. they lifted me as a moderate muslim leader. that undermines my ability to work at the street level with a lot of people. i think there needs to be an implicit threat -- implicit relationship that recognizes this is a dynamic problem. it may not represent the larger body of the muslim community. it demands a response that ignores the majority of our

community. in order to do that we have to be seen as free, transparent leaders who are born and bred within the community and have not been influenced by other people trying to shape how that community moves. it needs to be an implicit relationship. we need to model partnerships with the government with policymakers like yourself. at the same time we need people to trust us. i think they do a credible job to an incredible job. they're both given freedom to do that. >> very interesting insight. i want to come to you and talk about resources. a lot of the local communities, they say they do not have the resources to deal with these issues. they have to worry about pastoral issues and funerals.

the basic functioning of a place of worship that all communities have to do with -- i do not have the resources to sit down and study national security and all of these issues, especially since most of these institutions do not have full-time staff. can you talk about the resources, both the policy makers and communities and how they can come together and address this issue of resources. >> i think the challenge of resources, for local communities it is not limited to -- it affects a lot of different issues. you feel a lot of young people who are not attending mosques because of limited resources available -- the easiest way around this challenge is to provide

information. that does not require a lot to become done electronically. it can be done between community ran the tables. when you provide information to parents and we say we are not going to turn on this because of traditional networks, it becomes a manageable issue. telling parents that if they are not going to talk about political issues or pilot -- or violence or certain issues with their children then you have to think about who is fond have that discussion. is the local mom equipped to have it? no. they are glenn to go online. if they can manage these problems -- i also make the analogy that online sexual predators, these are part of

national gangs. as the parent of a young girl i feel it is my responsibility to make sure she is safe online. if you frame it like that it takes away the overwhelming feeling of being unable to deal with the problem. it affects families, it affects the communities. 4 shall local and law- enforcement -- for local law- enforcement it becomes an issue. >> as far as the virtual mom's virtual moscows -- for tool moscows -- virtual mosque goes, it attracts people that want to work in the community.

we did the prayer for syria which attracted over 300 mosques all around the world. everyone got together and pray for the security of syria. i received a letter from pakistan. i think having transparent trust for the alternatives is where you are going to be able to redirect people towards positive influences. >> that is really interesting. two questions to you. this conversation is a lot about surveillance vs partnership. there are individuals who say we increased the amount of surveillance on the communities. you had the whole controversy with the nypd and what happened there. their apprehension -- there is apprehension in terms of engagement. it is engagement going to be worked or are we going to be surveiled by local law

enforcement agencies no matter what? if you surveiled a community are you going to get the needle in the haystack? are you going to create more work for yourself? that is the first question. the second question is the president last week tried to put this into perspective. he talked about the proportion of the threat and he talked about the evolving threat. you have been around the block. can you talk about where you see this threat evolving and where is it going in the next five to 10 years? >> i will leave the surveillance question to the people on the panel. i know that adam goldman wrote the nypd story. on the question of the scale of

the threat i think president obama is exactly right. the threat is threats to our overseas diplomatic facilities and businesses. going back to the database we maintain here, i think it is factually interesting that the number of-course by right-wing press -- for right-wing extremists, we calculate 29 deaths since 9/11. the number in the united states is 21. peter newman is right to say that this has huge political consequences beyond just one murder. the fact the matter is the threat from right-wing extremism is the same as jihadist. it is an interesting questino that i don't have an answer for? al qaeda and groups like that cannot pilaf 9/11. -- cannot pull off 9/11. it is a very hard speech to give politically because what happens even if you are of one percent wrong. somebody comes along -- the political cost is very high for a politician making a statement

that we all know is basically true. we know the threat has been much reduced. it was a very welcome speech for the president to make. there's no reason he may still be in -- there is no reason he needs to be in a stand for. it has a lot of policy implications on all sorts of issues, whether it is the drug program, guantanamo, and the way we organize of -- organize our national security. it is a serious and significant problem and is one that is probably having this discussion now. it is a problem that can largely be managed. what is almost surprising is how

few attacks. that was the first attack in the next it's motivated by their ideas -- in the united states motivated by their ideas. there is a whole set of reasons why these attacks are pretty infrequent. >> i will go back to surveillance question. i wanted to ask you about the impact of this and a relationship with other countries. even ks to muslim communities abroad. i know you are constantly engaging them. how has this focus of national security impacted our relationship? i heard president last week talking about our relationship with pakistan is strained. one way we can get round this is make sure we have a relationship

a partnership with muslim majority companies. have you see that playing out? >> that is the beginning of the administration. we recognize the other communities in the united states and around the world have been key contributors in many areas. our partnerships have been comprehensive in areas like education, job creation, health, science and technology, and that is the book of work we do winning gauging of trinity's to have fun fun -- gauging what they do. the what it should have access

to education, access to health care. at the same time it is often muslim communities themselves, for the reasons that i mentioned, that have raised the issue of extremism. they are concerned about their family members. they are concerned about their neighbors being recruited by a

terrorist networks. they are concerned about being victims. it is an important conversation. we have had a partnership to counter violent extremism for some time now. part of that strategy is to make sure that we are contributing to the efforts of local communities, that we are sharing information that we collect at the federal level to make sure the communities know about the latest threats. we have these types of beatings he participated in with local communities that are increasing our operation and engagement so communities have opportunities to brief us on their efforts and identify threads into their communities. we also have a convening role. there are some many people working in this area. we have actors in business,

internet companies, government so many people are concerned about this problem and we have the ability to convince people that might not know ordinarily convene people that might not ordinarily sit together. although we have engagement- based -- on a comprehensive set of issues, there is every a terrorist threat. our first and foremost responsibility is to protect the american people. there is action that have to be taken from time to time because

those that we are partnering with may not have the ability to respond or in parts of the war parts of the world may not be willing to respond -- we have to protect our national security. inevitably there will be instances that have impact on our relationships. the basis of action is the protection of people around the world and it is not motivated by what terrorists have labeled as a war against islam. we have been cleared but we have been clear that muslim communities in the united states are the greatest counter to that argument because they have been successful at such high levels. the resilience the american people have shown to terrorist attacks also made clear to people around the world and many places we go to, they say, "how can you allow this freedom of worship and freedom of religion. if this is happening in our country all kinds of things would be going on. " you go to a grocery store and find a muslim having one of their five pri times. this is something you will not find even in parts of the muslim world. they recognize our resilience have been strong and by staying true to who we are as americans and keeping to our bellevue's -- that is one of the best ways we can defeat the ideology terrace are putting out there. >> i want to open it up to the audience.

if you do have a question please stand up, state your name, and please ask a question and keep it as short as possible. >> you are going to have to wait for the microphone. let us start at the back and move forward. >> if you could raise your hand. go-ahead. >> hello. my name is marion. thank you to all of the panelists for their comments. i am a member of the american muslim community and i struggled with this idea of violent extremism in our midst of a bid. as i listen to you guys and it seems to me there is the shift in the frame in terms of how we talk about this. the connection between islamaphobes and violent extremists. when we take responsibility as a muslim community unfortunately we feed into that narrative which can ultimately lead to more alienation among american muslims. what i am thinking is we need to think about this issue within the broader context of violence in this country. this is happening in america, not abroad. america is a country with some

serious issues when it comes to violence. i have not heard any of the members talk about this but i am wondering whether or not you have any comments about addressing this issue of the broader context of violence within the united states. from my point of view it creates opportunities for cooperation and coalition building with communities impacted by violence. it allows for coalition building and can address some of the resources issue you mentioned as well. it still allows for particularized social interventions within the communities but its way from the stereotype of race, ethnicity, and religion in terms of propensity to commit violent acts. sorry for the long question. >> in my career i stay out of the political activism in the muslim community. i am not dismissive of the symptoms that the question raised -- i do not want to see stereotypes out there. there is a fundamental question that muslim community leaders have to answer for themselves, which is when you look at these kids you see them as a problem and you are given by god may be some insight on how to address this and save them.

are they part of what you should go and do in your ministry or is it not your problem? it is a political problem because of overseas foreign- policy or because of stereotyping but policymakers one sort or another. i personally made the decision a long time ago -- i kind of adopted a lot of these kids. i saw them as people who could contribute to the community and strengthen it. but they are going off of the rebels early in their lives instead of building a family and actually accomplishing something. that is a decision i have seen other clerics to.

muslim matters were mentioned a earlier and we have had many hours discussing these issues many years ago. he ended up saying, "i am privileged to be in a position where i can draw these kids in their mother's basement living in there were virtual world." an example of what he did was he did a reverse sting operation. we wrote an op-ed for fox news looking on the trone kill list.

i basically chastised and turned it to muslim matters. i posted his response. hes critiquing separated the ideology from the -- at the same time he is chastising me for having bad manners, so to speak, by speaking about way. that's true focus of their basement who would come to the comment line and be able to engage them. that was related to me that they loved seeing that.

that was something the community did on its own because community leaders to help they need it to adopt these kids. we did not sit there and look at the macro-international political discourse on violence and the discussions that had been going on in america for well over a century, violence throughout different parts of our society. we just went to solve the problem short term and address it. we left that political stuff pratfall -- political stuff for academics of inputs and to how many cases there are. perhaps we could not leave it out there and say until it solves on the big level

political discourse wise it is not our problem. >> >> i notice you use the word g hoddy terrorism. i know it is in the vernacular, it is inevitable. even in today's paper the word was used as if it were in negative. i was wondering if there might be a way to let people know -- couldn't he have said it is a misuse of the concept of jihad and how can we get a counter- narrative out there that for how the word is used it is being misused if being used as a negative. >> one of the reasons people use it as a term -- everybody except your point. we need to take it beyond an

abstraction. a good example of that is the tag on twitter. there was a campaign of muslims tweaking. -- of muslims tweeting. that exploded, metaphorically, maybe not the best word to use, and what happened was you saw every day average muslim people getting on per -- getting on board. without having to use our big legal and classical language that no one understands, that gave the community and opportunity to say what this word means to me as a 12 year old kid in georgia.

people try to put in alternative messaging on there and then you have the younker muslim community reacting and galvanizing themselves on this model, saying let us define jihad according to how we live our daily life. people who are talking about jihad are not scholarly and enable to define it. clerics across the board in america agree that in the american context violent reaction to foreign policy does not fall under that definition of "jihad."

>> i wanted to ask a question about -- if they do it and up reporting to law enforcement tickets targeted. in oregon we had a 15-year-old whose father went to the fbi to give some help with his radicalization ideas. instead of helping him get some

counseling they made him a target and in the last three years we had four hundred constitutions of young muslim boys from 15 to 25 year olds who have been actually convicted. i have some numbers about the rest -- in 2010 we had 653 arrests, 2011380. people from special interest countries, which is mostly middle east. i just wanted to ask about -- how can we trust the law enforcement if they go to help and they turn against us? >> by the time i finish here the fbi is going to be upset with me. that is an issue i have been working on for many years. eventually in 2011 they gave me the top award for participating

in these cases. we have a history of american policing where gang intervention, we have given offering community is as a way to disengage the track they are on. i agree with you that sting operations have been overused. there are a lot of folks in the fbi that have come to the realization that another tool in the tool chest is actually good for everyone. >> can i ask a question? the incentive structure, presumably it you are at the fbi field office, is to make cases. is there a recognition that a case not made in the right kind of circumstance of the 15-year- old kid in oregon, they would get some recognition or is that a pie in the sky? >> there is some recognition in director mahler -- the special agent in dallas in 2006 encouraged me to start on this track. he is retired now. he did have some clout back at headquarters to have those conversations behind the

curtain, to be able to say -- you had several folks who were advocating for this to have credentials family that world. multiple field offices have to come together outside of the new york and w. f. a world and push headquarters and say we have piloted cases like the one i worked on that we should look to create. unfortunately, i was staying -- like i was saying earlier, we spent our wheels for the past two and a half years where on the national level we never got a national counter-violent extremism policy across all of the fbi's 56 field offices. therefore you did not get the training for the new agents that are coming in. you have some folks that are in the field offices that can rattle off at you who are trying to continue -- off a few who are trying to continue push that

messaging. >> one very quick thing -- what you said is the biggest problem right now. in britain this led to the creation of the trial program that was mentioned before. what happens when someone comes across the 16 it becomes across the security forces of britain when someone comes across the security forces of britain, he is not being allowed to participate in a sting operation but there is an intervention constructed of around this. it is framed very cleverly. the frame is that people say this is your last opportunity and we want to help prevent you from committing a crime. if you choose to go on then obviously ct comes in and you will be charged with something. there is a last stop where people are being told to take advantage of this and maybe it gets you off. that sort of tool does not exist in the united states. the only choice between not doing anything at all or involving that sting operation that would be an interesting thing to look at.

>> i was going to recommend --

the framework document -- in it you will find three different sections where this issue is mentioned in how the government needs to coordinate the soft it french and -- soft intervention tools. the president was actually briefed on that document in the oval office. there are not a lot of people in local government aware to get this done. >> i am not going to go to any individual cases.

people from the government are going in and provoking use. -- provoking youth. then we have the cases in boston where we see that this is an actual threat. communities cannot be in the basement of everyone's home. it is important we use the tools at our disposal and important that we have predicted pressure to local communities that are the best place to identify these threats, to make sure local communities have all the intelligence and information we have at the federal level, to make sure where -- in some cases there is as strong and ongoing partnership and dialogue between muslim communities and the attorney's office -- if the community feels there is a problem they themselves can come in. this has happened on a number of occasions.

there are cases in which local law enforcement agents speak to the community they say they noticed there's a disturbing behavior going on and members of the communities themselves can go in and identify their intervention protocol, which they are using to deal with this program -- a deal with this problem. it is a difficult situation and balance to manage between knowing when you have reached the trigger point for the law enforcement traditional enforcement action is necessary. there is still opportunity for the social invention -- social intervention.

>> i have one question. my observation is that i believe i have observed that the pakistan community has migrated to america for so ceo-economic reasons. none of them is interested in the radicalization. that is my first observation. the bottom line is that family institution is not radicalized. what i have observed is that there are different stances of radicalization. these are motivated because of [indiscernible] some person has personal grievances with the american institution. then they find refuge in finding some kind of rough -- some kind of radicalization. that radicalization is a mean to prevent --

none of our scholars have critically evaluated the boston incident from another angle. what i have learned through the media -- even to aspire for a boxing competition on a national level requires one intense workout. if a person is so committed to make his career as a professional boxer and turned against america, why? to me it is the fbi and noting that he has been sitting country

has been submitting his own country. that shattered his dreams. this was the moment he found something on networking and internet thing.

>> the impact on him, that he was not able to become a citizen and represent the country, that social impact on him becoming radicalized. >> i think that as a hypothetical. i do not think we can address that without any real means. we see people who are radicalized and it has to be something outside of the sociological realm. it could be a problem at home, delinquency, there could be another set of variables that

cause the person to go down that way. it is usually their ignorance of sociology that allows them to act in a radical way. it appears maybe he was a drug dealer prior to this. those are areas where -- that is why in boston we have a big poesy intervention program. >> we can take one last question. >> below on of these questions together. >> my question is on the panel you mentioned the respect to civil rights. right now in guantanamo bay there is 130 inmates that are starving themselves and are basically doing this because civil rights are not being met. that is 130 after 160 -- 130 out of 160. about 86 of them have been cleared of all wrongdoing. there are some of them that are waiting there for about five or 10 years.

i know one of them has been waiting for about 11 years for their satellites to have a day in court where he could be represented with an attorney. why is that right not given to him? >> do you want ask? >> what outreaches have you had with the boston police department and are you concerned they're going to take a more aggressive approach in the community? >> does anyone want to take the guantanamo? >> we have had multiple link the discussions of this issue. that is a good question but we cannot deal with it in 30 seconds. >> for the last 10 years we have had bridges. it is actively involved with interfaith leaders, moms, the

fbi, the district attorney. the lieutenant is one of my congregants with boston pd and has been very healthy. using the language of mapping, when you turn -- when you tell the community to win -- we are pointing to a new and watching. they have been receptive in that part. >> thank you everybody. thank you for organizing this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [applause] >> the tends to be a denigration by the u.s. merit -- military by some historians. ,henever the battalion fought and american battalion, an american regiment, that the germans tend to be tactically scared, that, mano a mano, they were the debtor military, this is not -- this is nonsense.

it is pointless. it is a clash of systems. it is which system can produce the wherewithal to project power in the atlantic, the pacific, the indian ocean, southeast asia, which system can produce the civilian leadership to create the transportation systems? the civilian leadership able to produce 9000 airplanes. >> sunday, rick akin's and will take your calls, e-mails, facebook comments, and tweets, in-depth, three hours live sunday at noon eastern on book tv. , we willew moments look at the national transportation safety board in a few weekends. hour, it is in on how car sharing programs affect

transportation and the environment. president obama and governor chris christie tour parts of new jersey recovering from hurricane sandy. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow. at 2:00, the brooklyn institution hosts a discussion about attitudes for marijuana. >> the public fascination with france and -- francis really -- she was a fashion icon. they emulated her hairstyle and clothing. she populated everything she had and did. this is a dress from the second administration. it is the most prized piece of all. 1893.as her gown from it stayed in her family and

became the family wedding dress. it was used by her granddaughters. even the everyday clothes were very stylish. a lot of them look like something to wear now. a wonderful jacket, with beautiful purple blue velvet. this is a more evening- appropriate piece. a matching skirt. beautiful lace and sequence netting. a more ornate daytime vest. it would have a matching color. with ayou can wear this skirt. >> our conversation on frances cleveland is available on our website. tune in monday for our next program. >> and next up, we will take you

to a meeting of the national transportation safety board. two weeks ago, among the recommendations was reducing the threshold of drunk driving from the 50 states and district of columbia from .08 2.05 -- to .05. you will see some of the comments from the chairman, who was at the meeting, obviously. at it it -- at 8:30, we will hear from you. we will open up our phone lines. we have also posted the question on facebook this evening, facebook.com/c-span. should it be .08, the current level, or .05, the recommended

level by the ntsb. a number posting already. 47% for changing the law across the country. 22% keeping it -- 47% the current law. 22 votes to change the recommendations. that is just what they are. recommendations. they are not a lawmaking body in that regard. they can make recommendations and incentivize states. let's go first up to the comments of the ntsb traffic safety director, who lays out not only the .05 standard that other recommendations by the board. here is a look two weeks ago. >> good morning. before i begin my presentation, i would like to thank staff for all of their efforts in its last year.

staff collaborated with experts and completed a systematic review of countermeasures to identify those actions most likely to result in meaningful reductions of impaired driving injuries and fatalities. this was not an easy task. there were no silver bullets to attack this problem. staff focused on the data and the four sides based solutions. -- and looked for science-based solutions. alcohol impaired driving crashes continue to be one of the country's greatest and most persistent threat to public safety. much more needs to be done. in summarizing this past year's recommendations, the actions needed to reach zero can be grouped into five categories -- laws, enforcement, adjudication, technology, and data.

first, we need strong and effective laws that both deter individuals from driving while impaired, and laws to keep them from becoming repeat dwi offenders. staff believes that states should establish a perse bac concentrated limit of .08 -- .05 or lower. furthermore, staff believes that nitsa provide incentives to states that take action in this area. second, i call it -- ignition locks should be provided to all offenders to increase effectiveness of the programs and improve calotte -- compliance with the law. regarding repeat offenders, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

while staff is not recommending one specific solution to address the problem with thrift -- repeat offenders, we're calling on states to come up with specific plans to target repeat offenders and have a mechanism in place to regularly evaluate the success of these efforts. for laws to be effective and foster general deterrence, law enforcement is critical. to deter drinking and driving, individuals must be convinced there is a high probability that they -- if they're driving while impaired, they will be caught and the penalty will be swift and certain. research has shown that high- visibility enforcement that incorporates well-publicized media campaigns and enforcement efforts, such as sobriety checkpoints, are extremely

effective at reducing impaired driving and the crashes that result. we like to see states continue we like to see states continue with such efforts and we like to see law enforcement increase the use of alcohol sensing tools to help more officers deal with drivers who may be impaired. with respect to swift and certain consequences, adjudication must start immediately, from the confiscation of an impaired drivers license at the time of arrest through the license suspension process. additionally, the staff believes that suspension laws could be improved by requiring individuals arrested for dwi install interlocked as -- as eric ormet for license reinstatement. -- as a requirement for license reinstatement. as states establish more dwi courts, guidance from nitsa will be needed to outline the best