for change. i don't think it will be a little change. we took a chance with a young, articulate united states senator who did not have any record. i hope and to think we are paying a price for it. i think america will make a fairly substantial shift and they will look for a tested leader who has a record. america'sa is only a few decisions away from having the greatest, most exciting, economically powerful years that we've ever had in this country's history. starting today, let's make that happen. god bless you. [applause] linda, thank you. thank you for letting us, and be a part of this today. [applause] thank you. >> very small token of thanks --

i could not find the feet warmers, they were all out. they had sold out. thank you so much. welcome to new hampshire. >> thank you. [applause] >> new defense secretary ashton carter's filing to make decisions about sending troops into harm's way with the greatest care. biden says that carter faces many tough fights, ranging from battling an islamic state militants to budget cuts that happened earlier today. i federal judge in texas has temporarily blocked obama's

action on immigration. this was the first of the present orders to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they are a were brought to the u.s. as children. 26 states, led by texas, are challenging the president authority to take action. we have reaction today from a couple of different members. we have this tweet from speaker john john boehner. he he says, "present obama said at least 22 times he didn't have the authority to do what he did on immigration. " despite the snow here in washington dc, attorney general eric holder is still scheduled to speak with the national press club in about one half hour. among other items, he is expected to comment on the texas

judges's action. you can see coverage of that starting at 1:00 eastern here on c-span. right now, on this morning's washington journal we showed you discussion on the legal debate on obama's aumf request about isis. host: let me introduce you to my next guests. we will get two different perspectives here. charles stinson at the heritage foundation. former deputy. also, an assistant professor from american university. jennifer, let me begin with you. your reaction on the language of

the request from obama sent to capitol hill. what are the legal ramifications? guest: let me first began by giving him merit for taking action. it is great that there is finally engagement. that said, the proposal that was put forward i think fall short in the number of ways. the most significant one of which is that it leads -- leaves the two that someone aumf on the books. it does not adjust the underlying 2001 aumf. then result is that even if this authorization lasts for three years, there's nothing that precludes the 2001 amf. most of the constraints that reportedly included become rendered meaningless without also addressing the 2001 aumf.

host: or if congress does nothing, the administration can continue doing what is doing. why do you think it needs to be repealed? guest: the 2001 aumf has been in place since 2001. the linkages sparse. it is concise. it is designed to go after those who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. it has been used since then, and almost 14 years, to also target so-called associated forces of al qaeda. that includes the groups who have be joint forces alongside al qaeda. it has been used to target a number of areas outside of afghanistan. the problem is that it has not been public the liberation and buy in. there hasn't been public debate

or discussion as to who we are fighting or why we are fighting or even the identity of the enemy. they are secret. the american public, america is fighting a war, but the executive branch refuses to tell us the full range of the enemy in this war that we are fighting. host: child, your perspective. guest: first off, it is important to outline at it civil fact. and aumf is not an excuse for a strategy. on december 9, secretary kerry testified for the senate foreign relations committee and outline four pillars. he did not get into the strategy much. last week, before this was dropped on the hill, secretary rice game as beach at brookings

trying to put more me on the flesh. the administration has responsibly -- a responsibility to outline a strategy. there is no language that will make everyone happy on capitol hill. democrats for the most part, i'm painting broad strokes, think this is way too broad, especially the language related to successes. host: do you think the 2001 aumf needs to be repealed? guest: i will stick to what i said before, that is, unless the

threats directed by that 2001 aumf cease to be threats to our country in a substantial nature, we should not repeal it. should there be a point in time where we as americans can say we defeated the enemy, yes. we do not know when that is. i think this aumf has serious deficiencies, by do not think it should be repealed. host: jennifer daskal, the front pages of the newspapers this morning saying, the egyptian president saying the u.s. needs to lead a coalition into syria. does the aumf allow him to do that? guest: yes. there is no geographical limitation on the aumf.

there's unfortunately very little as to mission objectives. while the conflict has been fought under the theory of collective self-defense in iraq, nothing limits it as to why we're going up against isil. that is an area that needs clarification and some discussion as to what are the objectives here. and some limitation as to what the authorization allows. if the sole justification is collective self-defense of iraq, it becomes very hard to justify going into libya. if there is a broader objective, which may be possible and needed it may authorize going , into libya. as written, there is no limitation. host: do you think there should be geographical limitation to

any new authority given to the president to fight isis? guest: to the extent that the authorization is limited to collective self-defense of iraq, there ought to be geographic limitations consistent to that principle. i would write the authorization say, authorizing use of force in iraq and other places where isis is launching attacks. i would limit it in that way. host: but not against iraq question mark? guest: if the purpose of the authorization is collective self-defense, and that is what the ministration of claim today. it may be that their thinking on this has morphed and there may need to be a real discussion on what the strategy is. if isil poses a broader type of threat, that we ought to have a public discussion and debate about that.

i would be open to discussion. limitations ought to track what we think the objectives are. host: charles stimson, do you see problems with having geographical limitations? guest: i think i see problems on the left that they will not like that. eric holder gave a speech at northwestern university several years ago where he said, we take the enemy where we find them and we should not limit ourselves geographically. secretary of state john kerry said that in one of his four pillars. i agree with that. you have to do it in the law of armed conflict and war. you cannot go off to any country willy-nilly and strike to isis members. this is a different type of conflict and we realize that. when isis broke away from al qaeda in 2013 and grew in syria, and now have occupied at large portion of iraq, and the letter that the president set up to the hill talks about isis at the

threat they posed to the people of iraq and syria. i think we have to take the president at face value that that is serious. i think we've had the start of a conversation about geographic limitations, and other components about this amf, that -- aumf, but the duty of the hill is to smoke out the administration and get them to put more flesh on the bones about the strategy on each and every component of this aumf. host: i want to get our viewers involved in this conversation. we are talking about the president getting new power to fight isis. jennifer daskal, assistant professor of law from american university, and charles stimson of the heritage foundation are with us. we'll go to our first caller. sarah, fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i have a couple of comments.

taking -- picking at the president is ridiculous for a party to do. if we had not gone into iraq there would be no isis there. he did not allow that to go on. we got gaddafi, that is a mess. every dime you bring down at the theater, these people fighting amongst themselves. they have to have a strong man in charge of them. not a democracy, they can't seem to work that. here we are, trying to carry on like we are getting world war iii going here. we need to sit down and find out what would make the normal muslims happy. host: i will step in and let charles stinson answer first. guest: i think her comment reflects something a lot of people are thinking. that is that it was a mistake to go to iraq, and that part of the world actually operated better under dictators. i think a lot of people in the

human rights community, and i include myself of the present -- as a person who cares about human rights, think that most people want said be free and live in some form of government were to have some rights and women's rights, children's rights are respected. not a democratic republic like ours, but at the very least some form of freedom. the other part, the hen pecking of the president. we have declared war five times. we have had dozens of authorizations of use of military force in our nations history. in all but a handful, the president has been the person, as the commander-in-chief, in article two, section two, to send the language to the hill. it is incumbent on whoever the president is to do that. now, the ball is on the hill and they can decide what, if anything, to do.

host: jennifer daskal, the president has done that, and in doing that he has repealed the 2002 aumf that dealt with iraq. guest: right. the present proposal does repeal the 2002 aumf. on the question of handpicking the president, i agree with the caller that the president inherited a lot of things that weren't his. but he is the president. and as languages have a lot of flaws, and we ought to be talking about that because there will be congressional debate and ongoing dialogue on what to do next. for me, one of the biggest flaws is the failure to also address the 2001 aumf, the failure to specify within the language of authorization to use military force that this new

authorization supersedes any 2001 language. so, during its existence, it becomes the sole authority of going after isil see don't have two sources of authority. then, the third thing we have not talk about is that there is language in the authorization that also justifies the use of force against so-called associated forces of isil. this, as i said earlier is a concept that has i been used in relationship to the 2001 aumf. the language of the president proposed here is wrought or even them that which was used in the 2001 aumf. it is not tied to certain groups. it also authorizes force against successor organizations to ifo -- to isil, without really

explaining what that is. that, to me, is concerning. guest: what jennifer is talking about is section five of the president's aumf. it says, specifically, "associated persons means deep organizations fighting for or alongside isil or any close successor entity." whereas the 2001 aumf, the 9/11 a omf, has been determined to be al qaeda and that, an associate forces. this is even broader. the second point that we have not alluded to, is the enduring ground combat operations. if the president got this aumf, you would think that he is not able to, or hasn't use d large-scale operations, but he

could back door them through the 2001 aumf. there are some tough decisions to be made here. if congress will engage on this, congress should engage on this and spur a national discussion. host: that is the subject of a piece in "the new york times" -- putting forth this idea of no ground troops. is that what he means? she says maybe not. , they could maybe get through that loophole. guest: to me it is the most least important aspect of this authorization. at least this president has been pretty clear up until now that he will not engage massive amounts of ground troops in this conflict. whether or not the aumf says that, does not seem to be a big deal.

if another administration thinks that was essential to use ground forces, they can go back to congress. the piece about the ground troops to me is a little bit of political theater. it will certainly not have an effect on strategy and the short term. host: let's get more of our viewers involved. christina. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: i believe that congress should thoroughly debate about any military action. this republican congress -- they are cute. they want to sit back and play it safe. they want obama to lay out a strategy. if i remember correctly, the bush administration had no strategy. here's my question. i'm a little confused. i understand about the authority, the aumf.

obama has the authority to proceed without congress. is that like the bush doctrine that allowed bush to attack any country, even if they were just a suspect of a threat? host: i'll let you jump in. guest: what president obama gave his speech on september 10, a senior official at the same time briefed members of the media and said, we are actually relying on the 2001 aumf or legal authority to conduct this operation. shortly thereafter, they said also the 2002 aumf. i think the analogy to the bush doctrine is probably not apt. in the letter to congress, they said, we already have the legal authority that we need, but we would like to engage congress for this isis specific aumf. if you heard fox news on sunday,

he said what congress my end up doing is saying, no things, you already have the authority you need. these are the perplexing aspects of the letter and the aumf as written. host: jennifer connelly begin be the next caller. it is wrought on our line for -- ron on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i saw senator dick durbin of illinois say that republicans are playing games. playing games with homeland security. meanwhile, what has been proposed here is an executive order for amnesty attached to it. not to mention that as you are indicating, and fox news on sunday, he already has the authority anyway. it's pretty clear who is playing

political games and attaching political strings to this. host: what you referred to about the executive action for amnesty be attached to this? caller: the executive action on the part of obama is attached to the signing off of the homeland security proposal here. as to iraq, we had three national elections. we had ministers, everything under the sun, a parliamentarian system. it was a mop up mode. then, obama got his hands on it, and all hell has broken loose. host: let me jump in. i'm thinking he is talking about two different issues. one is the aumf, and the presidential authority to fight isis. the other is homeland security

and the executive action on immigration. jennifer daskal, comment on what he said at the beginning. he has authority, why has he sent this to capitol hill? guest: i think this relate strictly back to the question of congressional engagement. yes, he has authority, but it is from the authorization related to the 9/11 attacks. isis did not exist on september 11. certain groups did not exist back in 2001. i agree with the caller. it is time for congress to get involved. it is time for the public to get involved and debate and discuss. and to update the authority as needed to fight the current enemy, not the enemy from 2001. host: john from illinois. caller: good morning. i have a comment.

it is about terms of engagement, but on a broader scale. one of the reasons i think people are hesitant to go deeper into this is because they see it as something that never ends. al qaeda, or isis. part of the reason for that is because unlike in, say world war ii, unless you are -- avoiding civilian casualties was something that was important but was not the priority. unless you're willing to go in and do whatever you need to do to take a military targets, you realize that civilians will die that was the case. a lot of them did. if you're not willing to do that, as awful as that is, and do that on a huge scale as

necessary, until the other side is saying, we do not want to do this anymore, we are done. then, it will go on. it will go on forever. we did not worry about if we had more people in germany and japan wanting to attack us. host: i think we got your point. guest: i like john's point because it goes back to a live -- a discussion we had been having since 9/11. ok, you can conduct military operations with precision sometimes, we have not seen the president being shy about using drones and other technologies, that means you can kill the enemy. in more times, there are collateral damages. but, how do you stamp out the behind the enemy? this authorization for military

force would naturally cover the military side of things, but to ultimately to repeal the ideology that is behind isis or al qaeda, behind radical islamic terrorism, that is the bigger struggle. that is not unique to this president. no matter who the president would be right now, that would be that person's challenge. whoever is the next president, that will be his or her challenge. host: that is taken up on that "new york times" this morning. "u.s. it intensifies effort to blunt isis's message." "the obama administration is revamping its effort to counter the islamic states propaganda machine. acknowledging that the terrorist group has been far more effective in attracting new recruits, that the united states and its allies have been in the

awarding it. at the heart of the plan, the heart of all the existing attempts to counter messaging, this will be announced today when the president is slated to begin a three-day summit in washington." it is a summit on combating terrorism with community leaders but also foreign ministers from 40 nations. what do you make of this? guest: i wish that small section of the state department good luck. there have been repeated efforts for one decade or more to do that. there has been a push poll thing going on. other efforts have been push forward with people saying that we should take the lead, but maybe not out front. i wish them good luck.

i think will take more than 10 people at the state department to do that. host: jennifer daskal, do you have thoughts on this? guest: i think it highlights how limited the discussion often is and how much broader of a discussion this nation ought to be having as to countering not just isil, but violent extremism generally. i applaud the state department for engaging in the area. it is essential. military experts talk about the ways in which drone strikes on targeted killings have, in some instances, fueled recruitment. it is a very different situation from bombing germany. here, there is an unlimited

supply across the globe at of people who may join up with isil or isil related groups. it is essential in thinking about how to effectively dismantle and destroy the group. and we will not be effective if we feel the recruitment or the ability for the group to attract people. host: as the white house summit gets underway today, "the wall street journal" editorial board says this -- "the videos of isis is to show that the group is on the march. to intimidate muslims who might otherwise resist. the longer islamic state appears to be advancing despite mr. obama's promise to destroy it." we'll go to peter next. republican. caller: good morning.

i have a different outlook of the whole thing. unfortunately, ever since president obama was elected, -- well, they could've done anything they wanted, but they didn't. i do not know when they put in that rule where the republicans could not filibuster. i believe that rule is still in effect. am i right? host: what are you referencing? caller: you know, right now, the war at, or the things that obama wants to do, there is no way republicans can stop it. they don't have that no filibuster rule. host: peter, they control the senate now.

republican leader, mitch mcconnell, has the first right of recognition. whatever comes to the floor it , is his decision. guest: right. peter is referring to the so-called nuclear option. that has not been applied to legislation. there will be a 60 vote threshold and they will be able to filibuster this if they want. i don't even know we will get that far. i don't know if you agree with me or not. there is a lot of green between the ball and the cup. the green will comprise of hearings, discussion, a debate. that will act as a forcing mechanism, in my opinion, for the administration to put the fine touches on its strategy. i do not know how will turn out. host: more to come. albertville, alabama. franklin. good morning.

caller: good morning. this is for charles. i went head to comment on a comment that marie hart made over the weekend on some show that if we would take and get jobs for isil, this would solve our problem. i would like for charles to make a comment on this. guest: there are all sorts of aspirations in the world franklin. i wish i were 6'5". i'm not. that is a great aspiration. if there is 100% employment around the world and peace, there would be known terrorism. host: george in pennsylvania. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i am 80 years old. i grew up during the second world war.

in romania and yugoslavia, there were people called partisans. they were guerrillas. we do not identify these people as guerrillas, and that is what they are. they came out of the woodwork. hitler could not contend with them. these partisans decimated hitler's troops in yugoslavia. this is what we have now. vietnam is another example. the viet cong came out of the woodwork. you can not fight a war against these people. you can spend all the money and send all the troops but you , cannot solve the problem. host: what should be done? caller: everybody criticized our president. it is a difficult situation. who has a solution? no one. host: jennifer daskal, your thoughts. guest: george is right. we are fighting and nonstate we

-- a nonstate actor. we have been fighting a nonstate actor since 2001. a nonstate actor that morphs hides in the shadows. this is difficult. no one is suggesting that this is easy. i think george is right. there is a risk that a lethal strategy, a strategy that puts fighting first, would backfire. at the same time, there is also a need for lethal strikes and warfare. i do not purport to have answers. we do not historically have a great track record, the united states nor any other nation in the world. that said, al qaeda core, the group that attacked us in 2011 has been decimated. there has been some success along the way. host: here is a tweet from one

of our viewers. "an aumf is not a substitute for the declaration of war that the constitution contemplates and mandates." are we at war? war is thise word that the speaker of the house use last week. guest: we are at war. the president use that in his inaugural address. there is a big difference legally between being a armed conflict versus section eight where we declare being at war. we've done that five times. international law has changed. this would be a long boring legal discussion. the preferred venue today in these types of conflicts is an authorization for use of military force, not an article one, section eight congress declaring war. host: do you agree, jennifer? guest: absolutely. war has been declared five times.

for better or for worse, this is the preferred method going forward. host: kathleen, chicago. democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: you on the air. go ahead. caller: two points. first of all, what would make these people sitting here on stage think that president obama can win the war against the third world since this is been going on for thousands of years. it is funny how we can say here -- sit here and go in, while everyone is minding their own business. but right here in this country you cannot even get a background check when that guy way in there -- went in there and killed 25 babies in that school. that is what we should be focusing on. we are killing just like isis.

we are beheading just like them. no one comes over here. take care of home for us. mind your business. then we would not have isis. guest: i think the caller raises an important point. the discussion of what is going on with isis is not substitute for a conversation about what is going on domestically. there is a whole host of domestic issues that the administration needs to focus on. including gun violence, and a whole host of things that require our attention. host: can any president win this war against the terrorist groups? guest: i think what we have seen when our nation has been attacked or is under threat, for the most part, the american people galvanize behind the president. whoever he is.

polls today suggest, as your previous guest said, people definitely support this country taking some type of military action against the end anomie. at the same time, to kathleen's >> iamb and editor for "bloomberg first word" and the president of national press club the world leading organization for journalists. we are committed through programs such as this and we work for free press worldwide. for more information, visit our website press.org. to donate the programs offered through our clubs journalism institute, visit

press.org/institute. i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. the head table includes guests of the speaker as well as working journalists who work club members. embers of the public attend our lunches -- members of the public attend our lunches. any applause that you hear is not indication that journalism -- i would like to welcome c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter with the ##npclunch #npclunch. i will ask as many questions as time permits. now, it is time to introduce the head table guest. i would ask each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced. from your right, chuck roche

washington correspondent for the st. louis post dispatch. bureau chief for buzzfeed. jeff blue news editor at al jazeera. david callaway, editor in chief of usa today. martin baron executive editor of the washington post and board member of the national press club's journalism institute. vice-chairman of the press club speaker committee pass club president and breaking news reporter and editor at usa today. sticking over -- skipping over the speaker for a moment, jonathan allen. sally billionyates. marilyn

thompson deputy editor at politico. mark chef, reporter at investment news. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] eric holder, the 82nd attorney general of the united states is one of three original members of president obama's cabinet still in office. he is one of the longest -- he is among the longest-serving attorney generals in history. and he took office in 2009 as the nation's first african-american attorney general, it was a tough time to begin. the nation was debating how to collect intelligence and prevent terrorist attacks without infringing upon civil liberties. states were fighting the federal government over voting rights

marijuana legalization, immigration, and same-sex marriage. under holder, the justice department aggressively fought new voter indication laws that he characterized as both overt and subtle forms of discrimination. the justice department under holder also stopped defending defense of marriage act cases. he addressed the intersection of new technology in u.s. law, such as the use of drones in targeted killings when the u.s. killed a terrorist suspect, an american citizen and top recruiter for al qaeda. critics accused the u.s. of sanctioning assassinations. holder said that he sought to strike a nation at war and a nation of laws. in his final year as attorney general the deaths of two unarmed black man

eric garner and michael brown caused many to question whether all citizens could trust police to protect them. in meetings and speeches, older has sought to confront these issues, convening a series of discussions around the country. holder announced his departure from the office he holds late last year, pending confirmation of his successor. he has begun to reflect on his six years in office. he might have summed it up best with something he said back in 2010. he put it this way. i quote," one of the things i have learned over the last year is that it is simply not possible as attorney general to make everyone happy. have as he would say here -- to make everyone happy." as we

would say here, spoken like a true journalist. join me in welcoming mr. eric holder. [applause] attorney general holder: thank you president use for that kind -- president hughes for that kind welcome. i would also like to thank the former president for inviting me to be here. i would like to think your entire board of governors for their critical work and all of the journalists who contribute so much to our national discourse. we don't always agree but we have good conversations that i think is ultimately good for our democracy. it is a pleasure to stand among so many distinguished members of the board of state and i am humbled to follow in the footsteps.

before we open the floor for questions, i have to give you a commercial. i would like to take a few minutes to discuss the latest of elements in the justice department's ongoing efforts in the field of criminal justice reform as well as the significant and extremely promising results we are beginning to see, just 18 months after the launch of our smart on crime initiative. my took office a little over six years ago -- i am the third longest attorney general -- serving attorney general in history -- and i saw the american justice system from different angles. i have had the great honor of serving alongside and learning from countless dedicated lawyers , great men and women in law enforcement, and leading criminal justice experts. i

served under administrations led by presidents of both political parties. a lot of the progress in lowering the -- despite the progress of lowering the crime rate, real and daunting challenges lie ahead of us. to reduce america's overreliance on incarceration. after all, the u.s. comprises 5% of the worlds population. we incarcerate almost a quarter of its prisoners. 25% of the worlds prisoners are in american prisons. the entire population has increased by a third since 1980. the federal prison population has grown by 800% over the same. period. on the day i took office