piece of their pie. they could afford to sit back and see what 2014 would look like. now that they have seen all the new entrants, they are starting to look at that again and say, maybe this could be an area of growth for us. and maybe we ought to be there in a bigger way into thousand host: if you would like to join -- conversation, i want to ask you, if i am a consumer looking for help and shorts -- health insurance, what does it mean for you? guest: let's say you are a

consumer who is still uninsured. you do not have insurance now foryou did not sign up health insurance. depending on your circumstances, you might have to wait until late this year to sign up. the open enrollment time ended march 31. there was wiggle room for people who had trouble signing up, if you are on one of the dysfunctional computer system, they gave you extra days. there was a big rush at the end, as a lot of people expected. big crowds on the systems. unless you have a special circumstance, you have to wait until the november enrollment time for january 2015 coverage. a lot of exceptions. if you are in a special situation, if you have coverage now but you lose it between now and the end of the year, if, for example, you are with an employer-sponsored plan, you

lose your job and you lose the coverage, you can go to these exchanges. the open enrollment has an exception and you can go on the exchange and get coverage. if you get married, other exceptions let you get on and get in outside the open window that most of the people have to adhere to. there are also exceptions. it is not widely known but the administration has allowed exceptions to the individual mandate, a requirement to sign up and get health insurance, or pay a penalty. there are some openings there. for example, there are specific religious exemptions that will allow you -- you night not have to do it. there are, if you had -- remember the president said, if you like your plan, you can keep it.

a lot of plans were canceled. they put in a rule that said, if you lost your plan in that circumstance and you find the replacement plan is unaffordable, they will again give you a waiver on the penalty. for most individual consumers, has passed. >> we are live to hear stephen breyer speak about human rights. the first panel will focus on the next generation of the human rights challenges. beakers will include advocates -- speakers will include advocates and professionals.

the top first amendment authors held a debate at the national constitution center recently about the future of free speech. topics include college campus censorship, holocaust denial, heat speech on the internet, and the supreme court's hobby lobby case. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> can i encourage everybody to move to a good seat? we have an exciting program, and we want to begin it in the next couple minutes. iq. -- thank you.

by the way, you can come up here on the side, there are steps, if you would like to use the steps. there are steps on the side of anybody wants to use them. i am very well. all right. you. thank you. >> this is expected to get

underway in a couple minutes. the sponsor include a georgetown school andlaw the income center for the rule center forhe bingham the rule of law. >> welcome, everybody. director of the human rights institute. i also direct the asylum and the care at georgetown here. on behalf of the human rights and destitute, i want to welcome you to georgetown law for this extraordinary form on the future of human rights, in member of a person who scholarship on human rights is familiar to your all. we are delighted to sponsor this event with the new york review of books and the enormous center

for the rule of law, led by jeffrey jowell. our role is to ensure georgetown continues to provide excellent training in human rights law and practice that helps place at students in the field and to contribute ideas that make a difference to policy makers from advocates, and those we are most concerned about, individuals whose human rights need protection. today at the samuel dash human rights conference, experts met all day to examine the role of human rights norms play or should play at the world bank. 10 days ago, students from our fact-finding practicum

launched their report on the problems that children of haitian descent born in the dominican republic face in and onng education solutions to address those problems. goldstone,richard who will be present later, and now,ife is with us spoke to us about a topic we did not hear a lot, social and economic rights. he drew from the postapartheid south african experience to flesh out how the then newly created constitutional court applied those rights in practice. the past and to future to discern where the human rights movement has come from and where it is going. our first demo looks at the next generation's human rights

moderated by professor brooks. it will consider a range of topics, including major successes of the human rights movement, the degree to which the language of human rights has been mobilizing people and inspiring change, frameworksternative exist, and the reductions on the contributions of ronald dworkin in shaping the debate about human rights. andill take a short rake our second panel will consider lessons from the past for the future of human rights. as an advocate for human rights, the new york review of oaks has inspired many in our field, and professor dworkin wrote many of his analyses of individual rights in the review. now that the review has celebrated its first 50 years and helped shape a time of

exceptional development and human rights, it is time to think about what is to come. to help frame this discussion we have with us the editor of the new york review of books as well as the director of one of the new entrants in our field, the bingham center of the rule of the rule of law. and to ensure we understand how international human rights norms matter at the highest federal and state court levels in this country, we will learn from two leading jurists, justice breyer chiefrmer massachusetts justice marshall. i want to thank the driver for bringing together so many thinkers and experts and for moderating the second panel. i want to thank aaron jay, who event.n organizing this thank you very much. i know we will have a rich escutcheon and look forward to

learning from everyone here today. let me introduce professor brooks. in addition to teaching human rights courses, professor works is a senior advisor to the new america foundation's national security program and contributing editor and columnist at foreign policy magazine. 2011, she served as senior advisor and counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy years she has served as senior advisor at the department of state and as consultant for human rights watch and the open society foundation. she is currently working on a book entitled "by other means: how everything became more and the military became everything," which will be published in 2015. professor brooks, it is all yours. >> thank you. it is written to be here. this is a fantastic panel and it

is an honor to be here with the others on this panel. i will introduce our goal is to make a conversation and to that and we will not do the usual penalty and make a 20 minute presentation, which will drive onto half-an-hour each. instead i will treat it more as an informal conversation. i will be directing some questions myself, some to particular people on the panel, some to all the panelists, and when i run out of questions, i'm going to open it up for questions from each of you and we will all make sure we try not to go on for more than three or four minutes at a time in response to any given question to make sure we can cover as much material as possible. let me briefly say couple words about the people on the panel. it will be brief because you all should have your programs, and

your programs give you details, bios of all our panelists, so if you want to pore over their life histories, you can do that at your leisure. let me introduce shami chakrabarti, who is the director of liberty. her is ken roth who is the executive director of human rights watch and for whom i worked many years ago when i was fresh out of law school myself. sitting next to him is pam school.rom stanford law is sitting next to pam jeremy waldron who is a joint appointment at nyu law school and also the college at oxford. let me say start, if i can direct a question, and you are all welcome to stake a -- to take a stab at answering.

the title of our session is the future of human rights, what are the challenges for the next generation? before we talk about the next generation, let me ask you how are we doing? how is it going for the human rights movement? how should we assess where we are right now? are we moving forward, backward? what are our biggest achievements and what are the glaring gaps? -- can, if you do not mind, i will ask you to start and then we will go to shami. thank you for the simple question. you actually cannot answer it globally. it is just thank you for the sie question. too complex. if you take a span of 20 years, there are parts of the world today that are much better off in human rights terms as they ago.two decades look at eastern europe, which is today mostly functioning democracies. in latin america, there were a

lot of military dictatorships. then there are parts of the parts ofntral africa, the middle east, syria, parts of south asia, where things a party bad right now. i am not surprised by that. i am not one to believe that progress is linear in human rights terms. i think governments are always tempted to violate human rights. they always have reasons as to whether to cling to power or suppress some troublesome group. and if they can get away with it, with violating human rights, they will. the role of the movement is to of thosethe cost violations, to make it harder when they engage in a cost-benefit analysis for them to determine it is worthwhile to violate rights. where do we stand in that? the good news is we have a much stronger movement today than we did a couple decades ago.

virtually every country in the world has local human rights groups who collect information, who pressure for change. the international groups, human rights watch being one of them, are much larger today, have much greater mobile reach, have access to the the highest levels of government around the world, access to media, so there is a strong movement there. there are new institutions have have emerged from the international criminal court to the office of the high commissioner for human rights that are institutionally writing important hacking for the human rights cause. it is a struggle every day. while we make progress one moment, we will lose ground the next. you almost have to analyze each country must situation to understand -- each country's situation to understand where we are. perspective, and i might outrageously take license to comment a little on

western europe more broadly, the elephant in the room is a racism,e, is nationalism, xenophobia. i think that people are prepared -- certainly in england -- are prepared to use the language of civil liberties more readily than the language of human rights. and what do they mean by the distinction? the problem with human rights is it does what it says on the can, by protecting humans instead of citizens. this point onon terrorism, the evil genius in the white house gave us thanks for that. the war on terror -- [indiscernible] arc,is stage, in that

that is the biggest underlying problem, to some extent people -- my speech is more expensive, and people will even wear a tendi-perre libertarianism. they want to treat their rights to themselves and their children like them, etc., etc., but it is the universalism that is at stake. that is the challenge i would say. definitely, the debate we are having in the u.k., we have a conservative party that will go into our 2015 general elections with a commitment to scrap our human rights act, which is the domestic instrument for delivering the european convention on human rights.

we could have a situation in just a very year's time when a british government actually walks out of the council of europe or tries to do some dirty deal and have some massive reservation, and it is all about universalism. it all comes down to wanting to e --refugees and asylum-seekers and deport terrorist suspects to places of torture. that is the channel and you. country a lot of progress on the gate agenda. it is not a straight line. the fact is the underlying .hallenge to the architecture i am an optimist, because why would you do this if you are not

, that there are easier ways to make a living and make a better living, a bigger living. i still think that history is on our side, because we are right. [laughter] everyone isant for what everyone wants for themselves, and that is why i think we are right. i think it is a shrinking interconnected world. i think the world is treating as a result of collective interests, as a result of technology and all sorts of things. and we will get there in the end. i would just like to see us have a lot less suffering for a lot of vulnerable people before that happens. ken captured a lot of what i said, and the three day questions are when, where, and who, and maybe a what? about that. when? different countries are at

different stages at different points. one of the things you have seen, there are places that were less free when the new york review of books was founded, and their places that are more free. there is an understanding of the claims of certain kinds of people who would've had no claims 50 years ago. 10ht not have had claims years ago. so that has changed. there are some issues we have not made much progress on, and the biggest one there is poverty, that rising income inequalities run the world. there are more people who are poor today than in any time and human history because there are more people. even there are countries where people have moved out of poverty, the numbers of people in staggering poverty today is something we have not made the kind of progress on we would have hoped since 1964, much as we have made progress on freedom of speech issues and in some

places, although inot in others, freedom of religion issues, gender issues, gay rights issues. are betterplaces today than they were in 1964. on poverty, we have not made the same kind of progress, maybe because it is harder to get powerful people to wake up and take that one day their children would be poor. one of the things i have said it is only conservatives -- if only conservatives would wake up and find it there children were poor or undocumented. they might have the same kind of commitment to equality and liberty that they have managed to have when they wake up and discover their children are gay. >> i agree with all of this. timenk living part of the in england and part of the time in the united states, i do see the matters of concern that

shami raised. it is not just about universalism, but there is a strong reluctance to accord the rights of englishmen to foreigners and people of funny colors and so on. but there is also a great tendency now not to see human rights in the uncompromising way that they were seen in the past. human rights were also -- always supposed to be uncompromising demands because they were capturing the essentials of what it means to reflect human dignity, to pay attention the people's predicaments. that has faded in the relationship between human rights and security. people now regard it as almost axiomatic that if you are going to be a follower of human rights, you have to be moderate, you have to allow the just majority, the the just demands of security, and the just demands of what people are pertaining to the increasingly scarce resources.

even though it is true that in 65 years since the declaration was promulgated, there was a massive growth in the world of right consciousness. even though it is also true that we have these terrible situations going on, and that right consciousness, there has been a decline in the understanding of rights so that rights are now seen at best one demand among others to be put into the social balance. that is not what they were ever supposed to be. they said were supposed to be uncompromising demands. >> can i ask you each to push a little deeper on that last point? this country, of course, was from us on the existence of human rights, if you will, the declaration of independence, it begins by saying the truth we hold to be self evident that all theirre endowed by creator with unalienable rights, including the right to life and

liberty. the rebellion against british control was premised on the idea that there are these things that we call rights, in here, not because we are british, americans, pakistanis, that at here and not because they are human. granting that the founders of this country had a somewhat limited notion of who qualifies for those rights, white male property holders. the core of that idea which we expanded over time is these are rights that you get because of your person, not because of your nationality. so where did that get lost? why did i get lost? why are we so ready both in the context of the u.s. and the u.k. to draw these lines and say there is an us and the us gets civil rights or is the case may be the us gets constitutional

rights and we deserve them because we are us, and then there is a them and they do not get anything or they get some kind of superficial, lightweight version of what we get? what happened? >> if i can jump in. even great democracies -- and there is an argument about whether your country or mine is the oldest unbroken democracy on the planet. i am having this argument with a friend. , because ofargument women's suffrage, i guess. our countries are contradictory, i do not? i have been reading a biography, and i was reading this chapter about marx visiting new york for the first time, and he sees the statue of liberty, and it is new

at this point, and he sees the aatue of liberty and recites poem. it is a wonderful poem, that you i'mpoor, come here -- sure you know by heart, i am sure. >> [indiscernible] i'm going to be careful in this audience not to disgrace myself. that wonderful idea of -- which appeals to me -- is the daughter of migrants to a different kind of country, where i will never appear as english/ agent, but ieddish will never be english and quite the way -- eight british agent but i will never be english and quite the way -- look at the end credits, look at that japanese surname, the italian surname. it is a wonderful list of the

migrants. they,t look at guantanamo a policy that is premised on the idea that we can get away with this because it is offshore and they are not americans. you tell me, professor, you're saying this is a country founded on -- this is a country founded on you say human rights for all people massesple in the huddled all over the world come to this great country and we have this evil genius policy that we can do this to people because it is off share, a tax haven, but the u.k. does their evil genius as well. we emulated the guantánamo belle in a prison called marsh in south london. we did not even have to go offshore. we did it in belle marsh prison in south london until the great

-- [indiscernible] to human rights because it was discriminatory. now we have people under house arrest. was we did better than you that we had lawyers who helped perfume the policy with all this kind of quasi-pseudo-process, with special advocates and secret commissions and bells and whistles and smoke and mirrors. our profession was complicit and remains complicit in that pseudo-process, and that is what we do in britain, and we have given that back to you. it is really shocking. we are in this great law school, with lots of jurists in this room, and we have to search ourselves whether we really make these bad security policies better when we play -- when we play by -- one final thought.

i think he may even be an alum of this law school. what was his name? >> the current one? >> the one who wrote "the company man." what an interesting character. he writes a book him he was the chief -- and he has the audacity to call it "the company man." he pretty much told the story without opening the book. he said in interviews but reddish journalist -- by british journalists, and he admitted he reassigned torture to suit his political masters after 9/11. we had lawyers the did the same kind of apology and do it all the time. havenk lawyers -- we played out parts and we need to own up to that. >> in the u.s. you have the same thing. you have the justification for torture, and today the second

circuit ordered the obama administration to release their secret justification for the drone attacks. insists these are legal, but he will not show us what the justification is. we have the nsa mass surveillance which has the secret fisa court. there is a long tradition in this country of secret jurisprudence, and it is kept secret. for me the biggest this point has not been the lawyers but also the politicians, because we write off bush who was willing to torture and disappear after 9/11. what was disappointing to me was how much of the bus policy obama has been willing to continue, really because he has not been willing to pay the political price to end it. torture, buthe churc has fought the prosecution of

the torture. it is only with the fight with the senate intelligence pity that maybe we will see a report on the bush torture, but we are a long ways from prosecution. obama could have moved the 9/11 suspects to new york to prosecute them. instead he succumbed to the pressure from the right wing and we are going through this endless charade in guantanamo with the commission which frankly the trials that have long been over and people would have been fairly convicted, we are nowhere near that happening in guantánamo. the fact that guantanamo is still open, which is really just a demonstration of obama's political cowardice, because there are thousands and thousands of dangerous people around the world who theoretically the u.s. could walk up to and put away. what is about this 150 people that prevent obama from releasing them, when it is the willie horton effect. he is afraid he would be responsible if these dangers

people did something, despite the surveillance, despite the ability he has to prevent that. because he is afraid of political responsible for these 150, he keeps open guantanamo. for the most part the u.s. is not running around and adding to despite theecaus dangers people out there. as these things get exposed, they are not sustainable. it is interesting watching what has happened with the nsa surveillance. obama is backtracking, he is backtracking too little, but already they are beginning to abandon this fiction that because we shared our communities and with the phone company or the internet company, we have no interest in our privacy when we e-mailed each other with respect to the metadata contained in them come in our phone calls. it is a crazy theory. to come back to the ongoing importance of citizenship, the u.s. still insists that you can listen to anybody else's

communications, the content, so long as you're not an american outside the united states. my brits can listen to communications if they wish. >> that is a great argument for universality. that is the good news, that they are making the argument for us. subparte focus on the of the question. i want to get back to the issues you and cannot just raise. in, why do we keep thinking this country at least -- we talk about civil rights, we all believe in our civil rights,. we think we do, across the political spectrum. we think we do. why is that easy for us to think about and talk about, say, of course we have these civil rights, they are important, but at do not translate th into language of international human rights. i wonder if you -- you mentioned

in your first comment that one of the things you see as a huge unaddressed human rights issue is the persistent poverty and growing in a come inequality -- growing income inequality across the world. people say that is not a civil right, that is just sad or unfortunate, but not human rights. how do we take these somewhat competing kind of discourses to describe problems and bring them back together? >> there are three strands here. one is just as a historical matter, the arguments in the united states for many of the things described as human rights more generally started as arguments before the modern language of human rights. if you go back -- i was struck this weekend because i went as i often do to the franklin roosevelt memorial am a one of my favorite spots in d.c., there's a lot of talk on the

walls there of things that are now defined as human rights, but were defined as civil rights in the united states before 1948. there was a lot of discussion. as a history or call accident, we stick with the language that brought us here. that is the kind of first point i would make, that there is a that of -- [indiscernible] the second point is the point about how rights get vindicated in the united states, because they largely did indicated in judicial actions that occur in front of courts of limited jurisdiction, the federal courts. if you want a federal court to do something, you have to point to somewhere in federal statute or the federal constitution as the hook for them. if you cannot go into a federal court and expect a federal court to give you something because it is a human rights, unless you can point to something that is in a positive american law that gives you that right. that is the function of the structure of the american court that may be a historical

accident, but it is there. you cannot go to an american court and sadly say this violates human rights generally. that leads to the third piece of this, which is the american constitution, which is where people look for the right that they argue about in federal the populardeed in arguments more generally because the constitution is really in some senses our civic religion, is a document of negative liberties and not positive rights. if you look at the constitution, the only really positive right that we can point to in the federal constitution is the right to a law year if you're accused of a crime. that is the only time the government has to go out of its way to fund your rights. these things together, that past dependence of arguments, the body tonature of the which americans mostly appeal when they argue about what rights they are entitled, and of ourative h or constitution -- -- negative nature of our constitution,

negative liberties, not positive reviews, create a field in which to bake these arguments if you're going to make up in the context of american law rather than sitting outside, and that leads to the last point, which asa point which davg is not obvious as what before -- as it was before. ofhave oceans on both sides us. americans do not corrupt traveling to other countries. they do not grow up speaking other languages. they grow up with the notion of american exceptionalism that say if you want to talk about right, look at the constitution, and he reckoned constitution tells you something about the service drive -- circumscribed nature's of judges. pursuite right to the of happiness, not the right to happiness. it is liberty, not a right to a decent minimum income or health

care. those are all done only as statutory rights and not really as a human right where you look to the courts to enforce them. >> rosa, there is a pointer pam's comments. the human right come into the world as a moral idea, that people are demanded to be treated in certain ways, and that idea gets made into positive law in two different levels. >> the lawyers' fault again. >> it is perfectly natural for there to be an impulse to realize this in the constitutions of the particular countries. it has turned out to be perfectly natural for us to realize also in the evidence and declarations of international human rights law. it does not happen in an orderly fashion. it is not like the passion of a civil aviation convention that have statutesns

that mirror the convention and mirror each other. we have this haphazard and so the people-- in the united states took this idea of individuals having certain rights against their community and against the posited thatd they in 1791 and built on the years following. i did not occur -- it was understood and effect as something for americans in their dealings with each other. other countries developed their sense of rates in similar ways. in some countries, south africa is a good example, there was an attempt to draw down from the international covenant on civil political rights to a cut and paste that into the south african constitution, and that is a more orderly relation

between the two. there is aitain fantasy that there was once a thing called the traditional rights of englishmen, a fantasy nurtured by edmund burke, that was a particular set of rights for high-spirited english speaking individuals. hase is a sense that shami described to the influence of regional and international documents. i do not want to discharge that. it is inevitable right the positive bias in these two ways. this provides a framework and a matrix for all the sorts of abuses and for some idiotic forms of resistance to the wider idea of human rights and a wider universalism. we see it certainly in the

movement, the dangerous movement at the moment, to try to substitute a british the love rights, which will be bu rkeian and meeting the whole as opposed to -- >> not even that. >> if we think in terms of the framework of double and think iton as an inevitable aspect, it will be a matrix for these as well. right that if you go to court in united states and say i am pretty a claim even under the international covenant of civil rights, they look at you with glazed eyes and say what is that? you do not have the right to state a claim under that. au only have a right to state claim under the u.s. statute or constitution. there's nothing inevitable about that. they chose not to follow the best practices in many countries

which is simply incorporate international treaties into their loss of you can address state claims under them. rather there is this view of what we have to learn from those foreigners or, worse yet, to prevent citation of any foreign law or any foreign court decision, because god for bid that might undermine america's best of all possible worlds system. there is this for repeal of some, -- there is this parochialism. take south africa, exemplary in many respects, compared to the u.s. courts. for some of the historical and geographical reasons that pam stated, the parochialism that to choose not to rely on international legal standards. i want to make another point, and even though i am a lawyer i do not go to court. the way human rights event

rights is to public opinion, not by going to court. to court, wen go can leave it to liberty, or the equivalent around the world. human rights watch will step in when courts are not functioning, sometimes in this country as well. in those circumstances, our whole is public opinion -- our is public opinion. human rights law is relevant for shaping public opinion. to be able to point to an absolute probation on torture, to say this is not a -- you cannot even do this in war, even with a terrorist threat, that helps to shape our opinion, but in the end it does not matter whether people call it a human right for a constitutional right or a civil right. itmatters whether they call right wrong. we try to shape that sense of right and wrong and the universality of what is wrong by referring to these laws, but in the end, it is that sort of

inner sense of propriety that allows us to stigmatize and to shame government that transgress what publics think they should be doing. >> i wonder, though, going back to your comments, jeremy, and begin tom, once we codify the idea of rights into positive law, once we begin to create at least some types of remedies -- i will go back and blame the lawyers again -- what do we lose when we do that? have we lost something, because, ken, your breed back and saying at -- you are bringing back and saying at the end of the date this discussion should not be whether you have a some legal remedy, certainly, or do you even have it and internationally positive right? you want people to say there is right and there is wrong. i wonder how much we have tied ourselves up in knots and

understandingon of rights that says if it is not clearly against the law, it is not a rights problem. >> i disagree. i think on a vacation helps -- i helps.odification it is the poetry. it is the religion. it is the values. rights instruments do not just have to be legal instruments. --y have to be -- the poetry like your constitution and bill of rights, it is poetry. >> it is helpful, but in the end you need people to internalize them. >> that takes a legal form. it is not mean that the remedies are best understood to be remedies in court. the sort of rights that pam is talking about, what we most want our legislatures to pay

attention to questions of health and education, questions of the dire poverty, and the questions of social security. withugh we are impressed what the south african court has done on things like the right to at the, human rights social and economic level are not going to work if we insist -- with our spec to the judges in the room -- if we insist these are court-centered remedies. court-centered remedies may be a distant back at, but political mentality is what we are looking for and the liturgies and the poetry to mobilize them. >> i remember the book of ruth begins in the time when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land. i always think of that in terms of if you actually said that social and economic rights are going to be primarily delivered in a courtroom, you will be legalng so much on your system there will not be left

for your social security. did itain, the way we welfare state a to do the social and economic we haveights, and then the european convention on human rights to help with the legal. differentust delive delivery mechanism. >> go back to what jeremy was saying, the more things use claim that the more things you claim that human rights, a more things will come into conflict with one another. to take one pending at the supreme court right now, on the one hand, there is a powerful set of arguments in favor of health care as a fundamental human right. it is one that has to be legislated. there's not anywhere in the declaredt a court has what that right is an enforce the right to particular pieces

of it. you have a claim of the right to health care, which is a fundamental human right, and then you have a group of people who have gone to the supreme court and said our religion tells us and freedom of worship is a fun little human right. our religion tells us we cannot provide contraceptive care as part of the health care that political process has led people to demand. so this question, the more rights you have and the more people claiming those rights, the more the have to be some form of adjudicating. how do you decide when these two rights, the clash? mysurprise, given position, that i think that the claim to health care should win out here over the first amendment free exercise claim of four-private core for ages. how you not know come up with a rule that says that rights always control if you have many rights that come

into conflict with one another. you have to figure out which of those rights is going to be dedicated fully and which of those rights is going to have to be -- >> sometimes you call that , sometimes law, sometimes politics. it does not matter because it is still a kind of map, a framework around which we negotiate and we somehow rub along together, no? >> i have another dilemma in mind when i throughout the question about the limits of the positivist legal approach to human rights. something about what in media we refer to as u.s. drone strikes or we will say that drone piece is pretty relevant for our purposes. ss-border killings of the united states of individuals in yemen, pakistan. here is something i have trouble

with my college with. i was talking about earlier today. on the one hand, i do not have any current reason to leave that u.s. targeted killings violate the law. i do not. i do not. we can talk about that. it seems to me that the u.s. interpretation of the international law on armed conflict and the rules relating to self-defense are not per se nuts. are they relevant? i do not think that the u.s. ideas are crazy. i also think that what they amount to strikes me as unacceptable. so we have -- the u.s. making u.s. is int that the an armed conflict with al qaeda

and associated forces and insofar as we have combatants in conflict, they pop up here, they pop up there, they do bad things and secrets, we have secret sources of our own that tell us about the bad things they're doing in secret, and they they are combatants, are lawful targets, and even if they were not, we have that self-defense thing and we decided they pose an imminent threat, but we cannot tell you about the secret information that leads us to the condition that they are and limited -- an imminent threat, but we are abiding by the legal principles, but since everything is secret, i cannot fully convince you of that, but i had good reasons for keeping this secret because i cannot reveal sources and methods. so this argument is really hard to it inside. it is hermetically sealed in this nifty kind of way. unlawful. manifestly

at the end of the day is the u.s. saying guess what -- we can kill anybody any time based on secret criteria, secret a secret process, undertaken by anonymous individuals with no accountability, no mechanism for remedying abuse, error, mistake, etc., do not worry, we will not make those. and that seems wrong, deeply wrong. and yet the language -- i am not sure the language of law gives is an effective way to get at what is wrong. respond -- let me respond to this. the problem with what you just stated is where you started. it is not a war. a war requires a certain level of hostility. when is the last time al qaeda shot at the united states? >> they are doing it in secret

-- >> last time i checked the market has not happened. there has not been an actual criminal act in a terrorist act on the u.s. mainland -- >> [indiscernible] >> that does not matter. against ave a war nonstate entity. war means a certain level of hostilities, and we are nowhere close to that. in that context the war rules you correctly outlined, rosa, are the wrong ones to apply. it is not a matter of shooting at the combatants at the other side. it is a problem of dealing with the serious criminal threat. there are rules, like if there is an imminent threat and there is no alternative, you can use lethal force, but the u.s. is nowhere near being able to identify a lethal force. >> we have identified it, but cannot tell you about it. >> they are so far from anything happening that they have not

been able to come up with any evidence that is the least bit -- >> but i am the president, and take him if you knew what i knew, if you saw the intelligence -- >> they say imminent does not really mean imminent. imminent naming something that could happen one of these days, so we will dip it in the bud. >> everything gets renamed. this is what lawyers help with, really clever lawyers, even the great professor dershowitz. this is concerning to me, what people have done with language in freedom's name. orwellian, almost career threatening for me to use adjectives like orwellian or afkaesque.sked -- k the word orwellian to me is about the way in which abuses of language, the great essay on the

politics of the english v2guage, abuses of language contortions of ideas and abuse of people, and that is the evil of the war on terror. waterboarding is not a seaside support. it is drowning, right? it is not beautiful singing. it is this contortion of language. and enemy combatants. the lawyers did that. >> uni were talking about it before we came up here. em, mentioned an auden po which ends,e," some say laws are state, some say laws are fake, other state law is no more, law has gone away. jeremy? >> i cannot finish the poem, but -- >> that is the end of the poland. that is the end of the column.

>> human rights consists of a certain image of the state. if we heard a state somewhere that made a practice of squads org death mechanical instruments to strike theyose people because cannot otherwise apprehend them or put them on trial for serious criminal offenses, we would not regard that as the image of a right-respecting state. we need to look not just at the lines of text that defined the rights in those poetry that we have been talking about, but the promise and the idea that was implicit in the notion of human rights that states would become concerned with the rights of their individuals, that they would proceed under the auspices of the rule of law, relate in a systematic fashion to the upholding of those rights, and the state maintains death squads is not satisfy that description. -- does not satisfied that

description. >> i have a homeland list of other questions i have for you. let me pause and see whether we have questions from the rest of you sitting here. if you do not have any questions, i will carry on with mine. david, come on up, my colleague here at georgetown. >> great to see you here, and this is an incredible event. thank you so much. ronald morgan in 1977 published a book and said rights are terms, which jeremy waldron says very few people still maintain, and pam karlan points out that rights get balance against each other. the same year, the greatest book ever on ward for -- theory, and it starts with the proposition that even the theory of war is based on individual human rights. in 1977, u.s. foreign policy

under the carter administration has as its centerpiece, it's public centerpiece international human rights. i think all those things happened because international human rights become for at least 15 or 20 the moralre that the vocabulary of the humankind. well for a sum, human policy, religion, and i'm wondering if you think that human rights is filled the moral vocabulary of humankind. that we conduct our moral conversations in the vocabulary of human rights, or these other things are going to crowd human rights out of the way in which we fundamentally structure our conversations? >> jeremy? >> human rights is going to

remain an indispensable part of our moral and political and legal vocabulary. the question is what is it looks like after being used in these ways? se ofe losing our sen these trumping natures of rights. pam, rec quite reasonably asked about the situation with the uncompromising demand ran into each other. i think she would agree with me that sometimes people concoct the situations. they announced that people have a right not to be tortured and this must be taken into account along with every thing else, but then also there is a root -- right to security. tohave to balance the right security and a right not to be tortured, so they invent a right to disable the trumping switch on each of the individual rights.

he wrote about this in the years he was not is there a dog about human rights and get to rights and moral rights. he said of course there is the procedurale process, due process for criminal suspects, but on the other hand there are the rights of the majority who want to see the criminals locked up. they introduce a collect the aim, the aim of the general welfare into the discussion as something which can turn off the trumping switch and make it look as though we have policy aims that can be continually balanced against each other. i'm afraid that is what i see happening along with this other thing that we have all been emphasizing, with the disabling of the universalists which greater the disabling of this trumping switch will be a feature that will be a challenge for the future. >> before we get too enamored of this, let me entered a bit of a reality here.

the civil rights treaty drafted in 1966 which took effect in 70's decks -- in 1976, there are certain rights that are unqualified. it is a fudge factor that is else into it. a lot of the rights in the crib including the rights of americans have the right to free speech, and other things are qualified within the treaty. this is a new development. this is recognition of the fact that many of these rights inherently do bump up against other rights and interests. if you take free speech in then also the right of people not to be subjected to violence, so where it is hate speech fit into that? we draw the line between hatred so there's at,

negotiation that has to take place. i think it is almost inevitable that even some of the clearer statements of rights have to be interpreted. that is why there's no getting away from something else that he wrote which is the need to argue for moral principles. a debateto enter into on these issues. there is just no escaping the right interests in the discussions from competing interests. , if you have a legal system that is functioning reasonably well you can make that argument to a judge, and most of the places where i spend my time there are no judges around. so you have to make that argument of public opinion and to forces that are trying to force a certain resolution on the government. there's just no escaping this kind of notion within the device. >> pam? is a some extent, rights victim of its own success. if you create a world in which

right's are trumpeted and people have every incentive to make every argument they can in terms of rights rather than in terms of responsibilities or duties or balancing interest or the like. over time you would expect to see happen what has happened which is either end up with rights competing with one another or you redefine the right so that you can then say it is very limited, this tiny thing is a problem because it does not interfere very much with what people are trying to otherother ways or in political goals that they have in mind. it is very hard to claim that rights are trumped to have lots of rights and have each of those rights be expensive because of some point they do come into conflict. you can have a couple of rights solid andeally collective rights against cruel and degrading treatment, but you cannot have a right to free speech that is not going to come into conflict to someone else's property rights and people who

claim that my home is my castle. stand your ground is a fundamental human right. everybody makes those arguments give and that is sometimes a tribute to the power of arguments about human rights. everybody wants to claim whatever it is they want to do is a fundamental human right, and therefore prompts whatever claims of justice or liberty or responsibility. i can think of two very old discussions that seemed to me very powerfully to indicate and speak to what we're talking about here. one of them is the spirit of liberty lecture which essentially says if you have the spirit of liberty in pure it's -- in people's hearts you do not to about the government so much. if you cannot get that spirit given that the neural agreement a people's hearts, no a lot of government or law or course of action is going to say people's freedom. is what it means to

talk about positive liberties, which they become quite totalitarian at some point. they become quite difficult to square with all sorts of other interest that people have besides liberty. the same thing is going to be true of a claim of right. if it becomes extremely aggressive it is going to override all sorts of other interests that we think are important interest that ought to be respect and politically. >> you do not want to devalue with qualitative easing or anything like that. too much printing. sometimes he just needed it of discipline to go back to what the relatively small bundle of rights is. what i i think i might disagree cover the fact that somebody

rights and treaties are qualified is actually a strength and not a weakness in the assist them because -- in the system because it is realistic. can be something that worked with that is not utopian and ludicrous and problematic. even where there is an issue of balancing rights, speech and courtesy, and even then there is a discipline that is imposed on the thought process of those who govern who must justify the interference with whatever it is privacy, or in our system they must act proportionately in accordance with law. all,ps most importantly of we dr. leonce is -- we talked to to sum upces, i tried human rights from my perspective

in terms of three words, dignity, equality, and fairness. these were the procedural due process, and dignity is where it is all coming from. the greatest of these is love -- is a quality. equal treatment. how much free speech and win a disproportionate to interfere with someone's courtesy, the real trick is equal treatment. this is where the law democratic politics actually come together. this is where the courtroom and the ballot box come together majoritiesocratic will always trade away the rights and freedoms of the disenfranchised minority. refugees, foreigners in general, i will keep my speech and my privacy but not have any for you. it forces democratic majorities to take the pill for themselves

that they are prescribing for the minority. legals where the very discipline of equal treatment comes together with policy and democracy. that combination is a very potent force in progress in the world. thinks to applaud that, i this is one of the most important things that has been said this evening. when we are trading rights off against one another command we have to balance them, it has to be subject to the logic of rights. it does not become a balancing of interests, long before people invented talk of the human rights, where program that perfectly earlier with utilitarianism and maximizing that and so on. but even if the writes are confronting each other, they have to work in a space defined by equality and fairness. they have to work at his base with a idea of rights.

the other thing to remember is any documents about rights is going to have some limits built into it either in the specification of the right itself, how you define it, and some explicit limitations that may be mentioned, often subject , limitationsf law only if such is their imposed by lock of and thirdly for those are alls -- different ways of insisting that if there are to be limitations they have to be consistent with the very service of rights. that is this. of taking the dignity of each person seriously. >> one thing that i see as i travel around is that there's a real tendency these days for majorities to appropriate rights language as a way of actually suppressing the rights of the minorities. violating the equal treatment

principle that he was talking about. in two months ago, in burma, the burmese majority was saying that we were right to secure our preventing burmese women from marrying muslims. the president is actually pushing a bill that would they that. everyone is saying we have an electoral majority, which justifies are taking various steps to prevent criticism that is getting in the way of the own intellectual well. they are trying to criminalize shurnalists to publi information, or tried to read the judiciary of judges that are sympathetic to an opposition group. alot of it comes down to right not to be offended. of the behind a lot restriction on days, that is behind a lot of the respect and

on religious minorities. i've my culture cover this is the majority culture, we voted the government into power kirby yours pending our majority culture on national television by doing whatever it is that is little bit different. and vladimir putin, you see it in the different areas around the world. you see the power of the leg with gevo but it also shows the abbreviation. >> how do you respond to those? an interview in the -- paperurkish painter as being an international concept of democracy. the rule of law is subject to the law and basic subject to human rights. to speak in terms of authoritarianism banks vision for democracy, which is what you see thisegypt,

trend around the world where people read an election and then anything goes red we need to remind people that that is not what democracy is about. >> the could not get away with it, ride? >> in our government, that is the minister responsible for national security law and order. this gentleman, because sometimes this important to protect the guilty, this gentleman actually was just doing surveillance with the price of rate him as internal vigilance -- rights of freedom as internal vigilance. that is orwellian. we just have to take it back. we have to call them on it and -- >> there is no escaping it

public debate. the only way to stock that is by turning to puncture these pretenses and argued that the principles that should be informing human rights are not in these cases. power,ing about different for capillary. -- different vocabulary. >> the human rights movements, for it to succeed it has to be powerful. getting no escaping into the nitty-gritty of politics and trying to shame them in the press, trying to put political pressure on them, it is not enough to be just nice guys, you have to fight back. if you're not fighting hard ball with them you are not going to win. >> let me again say those of you sitting there, you are warmly invited to raise your on questions that i will keep asking mine unless you do. if you're tired of my questions, and you just have to raise your own questions, feel free to come on up t.

why don't you go on over to the microphone so we can get you on the audio right guide you. that's right behind you. hello. i teach at the university of baltimore. i think that it is kind of striking to an american to hear this dialogue, which is a wonderful panel. discussion toro date of the fact that in this country the most massive, aggressive, almost terrifying discrimination is being practiced on the grounds of citizenship and against people who were in essence denied legal identity and about to die in the desert and so forth. going back to some of the things that you talked about that americans think of rights in terms of who we are, i think it is really important to

understand that someone from lars might see this country as more of a human rights violator then some of the countries we feel secure. limits highlights this test the limits of the court. states is built an economy around 11 million people who are going to do the kind of jobs that many americans do not want to do. we rely on them day in and day out, but there we are knotting letting them getting a drivers license or citizenship. they are not citizens, they have no right to be here and they stroke we will think about the country rather than support them. there is no was it being that it should not be where it should be. if you start arguing the fact

and persuading people that their moral judgment should be prevailing here. it is not a simple thing to do. you try to highlight the cases were people feel a particular sense of adjustments -- and justice -- injustice. the obama administration, they are not dumb, they say we are just going after the hard-core criminals. menus are looking at the reality, and they're prosecuting people were just crossing the border, and that is subject to deportation. they're putting up random people, and they like to highlight the handful of kids who get to stay here illegally, we are engaging the loudest set of deportations this country is ever encountered. so ask into it because that is influence of event take ae it is going to legislative solution.

asthere's no such thing citizens rights. they are citizens privileges, and they are not worth the paper that they are momentarily written on. that is my view. what does the history of the last century teachers? why do we have the postwar human settlement at all? it is the year that you can be stripped of your citizenship and you're managing. latest is a bill that is going to parliament to render coveted takeess from thoseizenship who are not european nationals. -- the mother british citizenship.

-- strip them of their british citizenship, and then they get hit a few days later by a u.s. drone. how do you sell that idea as the director to some nice white conservative daily mail or daily telegraph reading person? there are other ways in which this manifests. the exhibition today that we have has been a great example of this and as been campaign in gold as far as i am concerned. there are people, been subject to summary extradition from the u.k. to the u.s. you have your protections against the and we do not. people understandably wanted to speed up action edition arrangements between

countries. able to be moved from one system to another. i do not have a problem with that. this was supposed to be about corem jihadist, but the sample is not been those people. one who was an autistic man who is looking for ufos on the internet and north london. andidn't leave the country, he is an enemy of the u.s. date he managed to hack into the pentagon. instead of offering him a job inside the security, new combat

units decided they wanted him back up as a terrorist. that was the test case that became a great political campaign that warms the heart of the british people that these wicked americans want to take for gary mckinnon. conservative blazer, corduroy in the importas export business, and he claims he was just providing freight to these batteries that were going the england to holland, and authorities say these batteries are going to find themselves in the ukrainian nuclear program, and that is the argument between them. extradited andg on the steps of the plane he goes absolutely ballistic and he said we have all of these muslim terror suspects that you have , i amen sent to torture

being sent to the u.s., and i am an englishman. what you say to him? to his plea that and terror suspect cannot be sent to jordan, but he can be sent to texas? >> if you think about it, he looks a lot like him in texas. he is foreign and he is accused of bombing iran. istic son ofl i ohmic -- the xenophobic options, the careful what you wish for. we did used to be human beings,

or we can just before nurse ever and the world -- we can choose to be forward nurse and every country in the world. oreigners in thevery country of the world. >> if your citizenship can be stripped with these, that original question of if we are seeing a retreat from universalism, why, i think you probably -- i think i might know what your answer might be but i would like to hear you talk a little bit about that. and what do we do about it? both of you are making me think talking aboutbeen what are the limitations of the anduage of human rights,

you're both in some ways invoking something that he do not think is a -- that displaces aat language, but is supplement to that, the art of storytelling. thatng back to universalist there is right and wrong and bad let me tell you about the story about this family that gets disruptive, or this guy that is little bit crazy, bu and look what happens to him. old-fashioned storytelling, is that a lot start? -- a lost art? of why is this happening, the last thinking and has been one which people have felt threatened by terrorism, they feel threatened by the economy, they feel must less secure. -- a tendencyance

to fall back on who you define as your own. you. there is a tendency to define ethnic or as religious, or racial terms. before we get too pessimistic, i think there is also part of the reason that we are encountering these problems is because the world is smaller. there is much more travel, alters are mixing in a way that forces people to encounter the other. you get some tension in that it will but you also get richer society. is notpside of that only is enhanced. thes precisely because of even global communication that we have a human rights movement today. if you think back to earlier , when it tookas

months to learn about what was happening on the other side of the road, the most that you could hope for was to address big long lasting problems. women's suffrage of the long-term things you can address. he would have no idea who was just a prisoner. these days we are dependent on will then judicial matey, but also social media -- i'm not just traditional media, but social media. to address these issues, to learn about them, and mobilizing the much more quickly. and that is the positive side of it. that people tension are different and are brought together, but it there is also a positive side of the power we are able to join -- generate from that. >> i am always optimistic.

in my heart of believe people are good. i'm optimistic, but it takes a long time to have fundamental change that works. tothe meantime i do want caution against the idea that citizenship means nothing. claims,t of citizenship, and the part of the summit is in your community is something that is very important. it is important when it comes to the franchise which is what i spend a lot of my time thinking about the that the idea that citizenship should not matter to whether you get to participate in elections is really difficult question. countries into that very differently. citizenship is not in that sense meaningless. the claims for positive rights depends on citizenship because that's what is what allows you to make a claim of justification against a particular government. i do not have a claim against the government of the u.k. to provide my children within an

education if i live in you notice days. i made that claim when i'm in the united states. about people who are in our country toward that citizens? they have to be treated fairly. i think it is very hard and it will be hard to make a moral argument to most people that they have the same responsibility to their children that they have to their communities children that they have to the nation's children that they have to the world's children. you're not going to save most people that they have the same obligation with every child in the world, even though that might be an argument from a particular kind of justice. if you make them human on any of these issues can you officer with the communities that you find people in. one of the places that you make those arguments. there are some argument that you can make generally quite easy, but there are good for some of the drives that we think of as fundamental rights that are going to demand on a kind of

local lives of at least in the short run. persuadet going to able today to move from the position that find themselves in to the world that we think of as the world that would be most just in one quick easy swell swoop. -- fell swoop. or with moreus particularized argument that builds on time more universal argument. pessimistic in one optimistic than. there's been a growth of ,esentment against hours there's also been a failure of nerve rings those whose job it is to think these things are. universalistic glass.

declaration of 1948. today we're much less comfortable with that. we tend to say that maybe this is just wasting a parochial western congestion and different people in different cultures and different rights and that has pulled back a little than that has made it feel more nervous about asserting these uncompromising demand. that is the pessimistic side of the failure of nerve from the the. the glass backed up at -- ellis tropical aspect of it. -- the failure of nerve from the philosophical aspect of it. the flipside of that, which is where the rights violation happens, people understand that it is a rights violation. we have succeeded in communicating around the world that there are such things as human rights violations. as anti-semitic of a one of the

worst thing that happened to a person who is subject to abuse him the government is the intense shame and privatize asian of what is going on. this is just happening to me and impotentnment says i'm if i raise an objection. what are you think you're complaining about? the existence of a common vocabulary of rights, that is the major achievement. can mentioned at the start of the session that we have human rights organizations in every country. probably we have tattered copies of the universal declaration up of schoolrooms around the world. there is a sense of where people have the ability to tell each other stories, not just that they covered this -- suffer this awful thing they talk about, but that they have universal vocabulary around the world. you ask a question about power, and we need to understand that

the language of human rights is probably and empowering language. empowers people to talk about it, it empowers people to complain about it, and brings a solidarity among people. >> we have a question in the back. if you could come up to the microphone so that the audio recording can get you. mike from the georgetown law center. >> this has been a really fascinating discussion. i also think it is rigged some questions -- has begged to questions, so let me ask you of the questions that occurred to me. first, on obama deportations. would be athat there lot of dispute with the new administration about the statistics and whether it is fair. putting that to one side, i wonder whether you favor a

limited and uncontrolled immigration into the united states. and are quickly respectable position, but if you do not, done that not imply that at least some plate -- some level of compulsiveness with the people who come here legally? coming to trump rights, or rights including democracy including some individual rights. what struck me was the word you spoke could easily have been , oren by justice peckham even by my colleague randy the right not to be forced to engage in a personal transaction.

about how those defeated, claims were when you think about how they were defeated a were mostly superimposing against claims of individual liberty claims of the collective. we the people of the united states to have the country we want. to have it at the expense of what is described as a loser he freedom, the freedom of workers to work more than 10 hours a day, you think about that history and i wonder if it is not just a biggest oracle the state for people on the left to invoke this rhetoric of rights. it is so easily co-opted by people on the right.

>> let me address this quickly. immigration to buy do not think we should just open the borders to anybody. i do accept that they can limit access to their territory. where i would draw the line is when a government is basically allowing the economy to be built around people. there,ve roots, a life there is a stop that needs to step in. i feel much less concern for the person who shows up the next time. if they are neck and mid migrant they do not have the right to enter. do not like the power of the united states to deeper people love builds lives here.

very frequently we are seeing deportations of people who have quite established route because they are sensibly a criminal, but when we look closer they are not. with respect to visit dangerous i supposeout rights, if rights can mean anything conveyed it would be dangerous -- and the store" or using the historical examples you are , my ability to define right is limited. those treaties obviously can be trained, but that is not an easy changed, but that is not an easy process. i am focused on letting government it with using a claim.y

it is a very common refrain to say we won the election, or we somehow stand for the national culture or we stand for tradition or we stand for the religious majority and therefore to do these things we can do this to the minority. that is what i want to stop. focusing on the definition of rights and the law. >> we only have about seven minutes left. question in some ways that follows up on mike's question a little bit of your -- obscurely. one of the possible implications of your last comment was that we do need to have a hierarchy of rights. not all right can be created

equal, we lose something. part want to focus on that of the reason that citizenship is powerful, a.b. there is some core hierarchy rights that everybody get, but some rights plus that just to citizens get. mike raised the question about the ways in which in our own history some claims of rights have been invoked to trump one that those of us sitting here would think was not right to trial. how to we both recognize and celebrate the expansion of our conception of human rights and human dignity? we have seen a proliferation of international human rights instruments codifying more and more rights more and more elaborately. and yet not have that result in

either the perception that we're sort of watering something down or inadvertently giving ammunition to those who want to use some rights as counterweights to others and i will -- i hate to pick on human rights, but they have no respect was in the government motors recently and politics -- in the government recently and causin khazisistan. have better information than some government resources, and the human rights watch press

release was about discrimination against transgendered individuals. that wasn't really what i was looking for right at that moment when people were being gunned down in the public squares. obviously, i do not think that they should be unfair to individuals. diluting our focus on the really horrid things like your government cannot shoot you down and kill you because of your ethnicity, if we begin to so much and say look over here this is an issue? >> let me try to answer.

a week later, when a report on what happened. you have to go there copy cannot just apply from afar. broader point given the limit that i would put is i resist rights being used by collectives, ridiculously by governments. i think that rights belong to people. if we keep that in mind, we avoid a lot of the dangers. i recognize that corporations can have rights of and associations can have rights, those tend to be more in the contractual sense. in the fundamental constitutional or intellectual law that we're talking about i think we should be restricting rights to people. i always get nervous when you get governments saying our majority has the right to enforce its national tradition. those days are violating our rights to maintain our culture. cultures do not have rights. if we keep that in mind, we can avoid a lot of this rhetorical

threats that we are fighting for governments that understand the power of the human rights term but it is for reading it in a way that is inappropriate. please let me ask each of you if you weill to address that question. >> it seems to me that we cannot assume at any moment of time that we have the list of rights right. we had to keep it open as a work in progress, we have to give thinking as hard as we can against one some the most important interests. people sometimes say there is a hierarchy between this local and political rights which are the top of the hierarchy give and the social and a chemical rights which are the middle of the cultural give and the rights which are at the bottom of the hierarchy. if you have a government that has failed to concern itself

with the health of its people, if you have a government that is simply neglecting with contempt the economic well-being of the ,eep hole, -- of the people i am more concerned about free speech. we do not need to think of the rank ordering except in rare where free speech and religion are going to conflict with health care. even then i doubt we have to have a permanent hierarchy of rights. we remain as thoughtful as we the on compromising demands that can be made on behalf of each individual the ,athhouses are to be specified and what limitations of any are we are prepared to accept? there are no more reliable than our last thoughts about these measures. the idea that these newfangled

writeup be thrown out because they are unfamiliar seems to be to be wrong. >> i think there are human rights, i think there are political rights, i think there are subtle of and to say that at all times in all places from the others is probably a mistake. the conflict among rights is a really hard one. that conflict is inevitable and you cannot pretend that those choices are made some mechanical definition of rights. i think that is ultimately going to be unsuccessful. people are going to argue and write language about the things they feel most powerfully and passionately about. sometimes those things are claims of things that are universal, and sometimes they are about things that are quite particular. each of us has a claim as a human being to the systems of rights, but we also claims as an adult better divert from the claims of children.

we have claims of the community that are ever from the claims of the people not in that community. trying to figure out how those different rights do not trade it off against each other, but in astood and argued about system where there are many rights and claims of people who are profoundly different from each other. they will not go away anytime soon. i hear what you say about citizenship, and i feel like i was too tough on it. i see that it is one facet of the way people identify themselves. but i do believe in multilevel identity as the reality of the human eye.

xperience. more now than ever. i can sit in this audience and think of myself as a lawyer, i can sit in another collection think of myself as a parent or a woman or britain, or whatever. that is the reality of the human experience. there are different types and different wind -- ties that bind. after this argument of hierarchy , with the political versus social and economic rights to buy have to say i'm not from the academy. i am a humble activist. to a very it back simple idea, a very simple languagel. . protectings is about what is central to living, with some semblance of dignity.

if you think of the guests that to s to your home stay, you think about how you would provide for them. you and offer them diener, and you would not have to say that you cannot speak during the meal. say have a room for the beght, but it will not private. you will the camera that watches you all night. you would not do that. you would provide for them the cynical, political, social, economic. politics is aink better delivery mechanism for some of the social and i can progress and ultimately the courtroom has to be the ultimate protection for the free speech trials.

it is not just vladimir putin who will make his majoritarian --ims and try to steal and let's just say that in my country there are plenty of politicians who will do this thing that was being suggested as setting up rights as antidemocratic. i have a prime minister back in the u.k. who was a highly ,ducated man who knows better who has criticized judges for being unelected. can you imagine that? a british conservative that criticizes the judges for being unelected. let's just say that when we elected judges, the robbers will always go foree. we talk about right in this was a spiritual poetic language of thisty, and we use

democratic regulatory argument, but you cannot have democracy without fundamental rights and freedoms because they are the rules of the game. economic repopulating leader -- you can have a great popular leader of alan fox majority, but if you do not have fundamental freedoms, what is to doubt them from locking up their yourents, and taking away rights. this has happened in my lifetime and yours. >> we are going to wrap up, but do not go away. we just about 10 minutes have our second panel, and that is with bob silvers, just as ,rior, chief justice marshall

david cole moderating, and we are going to get down from the stage and this will be rearranged slightly and then we will reconvene. we hope you will not go away. after the second panel there will be a reception. i would like to thank all of you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> as we just turned there is

short panel change. we will hear from supreme court justice stephen breyer and the retired supreme court justice arthur marshall. -- margaret marshall. the first a debate on amendment and the printer free speech -- future of free speech. that discussion is that 8:00 p.m. eastern. president obama plans to visit the site of the mudslide and also, washington tomorrow -- in tomorrow.ngton that will be on c-span two. president obama heads to asia

and and we will hear about the trip now as we wait for the next panel. >> joining us now to discuss that topic is michael green to the senior vice presidents for asia at the center for international studies. this was rescheduled from the government shutdown. greg a president was supposed to go last fall for a series of summits in the region and had to post on that because of the government shutdown here. that happened to bill clinton. or a makeup over, trip. he is going to japan, korea, malaysia, the philippines, and southeast asia. since president bush of the president has gone about once a year to asia. the most important region to us in the world today.

after that, it is the third-largest economy, and it is a dangerous place, the most heavily armed lays in the world. -- place in the world. the reassuring residents is much appreciated across the country is that the president will visit. >> these four countries, why don't for specifically -- why does four specifically? >> they are our partners in the region. the president will go to china later this year. he will have a chance to talk to the chinese leaders. there will be a summit than of other states. these countries are the maritime states along china's ocean border that are having pressure over territorial disputes and are feeling somewhat neglected in u.s. foreign-policy.

japan is our biggest and most important ally in many ways, host the most troops that we have. philippines have impressed hard by the chinese on territorial disputes, suffered a big natural disaster, and malaysia which has not had in american president visits and lyndon johnson is emerging as a very important u.s. partner in growing the economy, and a voice in southeast asia. ? fact that he is not going to china this trip, how much is this about china and chinese relations? >> china is growing rapidly. trading the largest partner for the countries of the president will visit. it is not like they want trouble with the chinese, but they are feeling enormous pressure as the grows, economic power

its navy and air force's growing of and the chinese are claiming thel islands all along islands that stretch from japan down to the philippines. the president has what a lot of attention on asia but he has not really sent a consistent signal we think about china in the long view. thing you have to do on this trip is find a way to plane to the region how we're are standing by our allies and do as tolerate pressure on them the chinese power grows, but at the same time we want to cooperate with china and have a lot of mutual benefit and a whole range of areas from economics to climate change and we can work well with them. it is a hard balancing act and you have to try to make that message clear while not actually visiting china. >>, to read a little snippet of

the story from the washington post. he will try to ease tensions, in short but support for the resident of the philippines. the larger project of seeking to rebalance its relationship with the most academically and socially dynamic region of the world. i want to ask you specifically about this idea of rebalancing asia that we have been hearing since 2011. >> and with the so-called pivot that was announced in 2010 abandon the white house called it the rebalance. the basic idea we have been iraq,ng too much time on afghanistan, the middle east and we need to pay attention to asia where the economic dynamics are

incredibly important that the dangers are very real. there is a lot of domino by a lot of spin to this event. is not likely nor danger, but the administration wanted to try to put! exclaimation travels inr the region. kerry is a long time in the middle east so the -- thet is trying to say president is trying to say this is important to us. one of his trade agreement pieces that is being negotiated in the region, there are questions about our defense budget which is being cuts at a time when defense budgets in the region, especially china's are growing.

there are a lot of questions about our commitment, but just going is important. the president of the united states terry so much attention and influence, that just going out there and is a great opportunity for him. >> our guest is michael green, the senior vice resident for asia at the center for international studies. you can join our conversation this morning. first color in the segment is henry in michigan on the line for democrats. entering, you are in washington journal. greenould like to ask mr. -- what he thinks

about the world thinks about the credibility of the president particularly when we have had so many on the right to actually speak against the president have in my opinion, and choosing terms that overtly are racist, remarks against the president, how the character is an on right wing blogs and the first lady. how they elevated vladimir putin to a status that goes with edward snowden. all of these things that you do not think show the world we have unity.y -- we have any i want to know what mr. green thinks of how the rest of the world perceives our president when we get home politically are so >> first thing i would say is that this happens, unfortunately, to republican and democratic presidents.