al-shabaab has threatened the mall of america. and that's clearly, you know, linking foreign policy to domestic homeland security. the president is talking constantly about countering violent extremism. so i'm just wondering if you can give us a little bit of insight into what actions your department, the obama administration generally is give us a little bit of insight taking to counter the threat coming out of somalia in terms of its potential threat to the homeland. >> well, senator, we're engaged in the most massive day-to-day counterterrorism efforts that could imagine. one it is consuming every aspect of government. the president regularly convenes

a national security meeting to get updates on where we are and what we are doing. and particularly when we're in the moment of a particular threat or challenge. i think what the department of homeland security was really talking about is sort of a generic set of threats and challenges that are out there that we're working to respond to. we have an unprecedented level of communication and information sharing, intelligence sharing taking place. with other countries. we have the counter terrorism partnership fund which we're requesting money from all of you to implement. and that's $390 million which will be used to enhance border security among our foreign partners. we're working with europeans to move them now to sharing lists on passengers which they hadn't been doing. we're trying to increase the scrutiny of people moving in

between countries. and share more information about it. we're trying to stem the financial flow to these groups through nations and increased scrutiny of who's giving money how and how it flows. there's a center for strategic counterterrorism communications which has been set up, and that is playing -- at the state department, it's playing a key role in our efforts to counter violent extremism. and it's coordinating and informing a whole of government public communication structure that is able to pass on information and counter rumors and deal with social media in arabic in urdu, in somali, and inmore recently english because

of english-speaking countries at risk. there is a whole of government effort going on that's taking shape. it's growing almost by the day and week. the counterterrorism counter-extremism session that we just had in the last two or three days, the first day of it at the white house was almost exclusively civil society, law enforcement, ngos, people who are engaged in grass roots efforts to see how they can be augmented to this. one thing i don't want to have come out of this, this is a challenge and it's legitimate threat and indeed there are risks in certain places at certain times. but no one should doubt that notwithstanding that we are actually living in the least loss of life violent period in our history.

there's an anomaly here. and so i don't think -- i think what people need to do is be vigilant but not scared. people need to be always attentive but never fearful of doing something or going somewhere. and i think travel today is safer than it's ever been. i think people's ability to move, our s.w.a.t. teams are better, sharing of information the fbi, all of our units. people have really gotten pretty good. doesn't mean a lone wolf can't come along and do something. if somebody wants to die, you can hurt people. i think it's important for people to recognize this is not a moment of, you know, turning inwards and getting frightened. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the u.s.-china climate agreement was historic, not universally well received. can you tell the committee why

this agreement serves america's interest? and what you believe it contributes towards reaching a positive result in paris later on this year. >> well, you're absolutely correct. of course it's not 01:55:07 -- not universally well-received. on one side you have people that don't receive it well because there are still people that don't think we have to do anything. on the other side you have people who believe we ought to be doing more. i happen to be one of those and i helped negotiate this deal. i would have loved to have seen it do more. but this is the most we could get. and we took a country -- most people thought it was foolish. how could you possibly try to get china. up until last year, you know this better than anybody, china was on the opposite side of the table and stopping us from doing anything. and we turned that around in a year to have a china that has publicly committed to set a

standard for reduction of dependency on fossil fuel by 2030 and begin to have a 20% commitment internally to alternative renewable energy clean energy. that's huge. and in our case we set a goal of somewhere between 26 and 28% reduction in our emissions by 2025 with the hope that we are actually going to do better and hit the 28 and do it sooner. china likewise committed to try to do it sooner if possible. we believe the technology is going to help us do it sooner. if we get moving down that road, the technology curve always winds up producing faster and spinning out new ways of doing things cheaper and you get to the goal faster. that is that -- our bet. but we're still behind the curve of where we need to be to deal with climate change and keep the rise of temperature on planet earth to 2 degrees centigrade.

we're not going to make ith right now. that's why a lot of people are talking about mitigation and dealing with effects. i run into the effects of climate change in various parts of the world all of the time. there are tribes fighting people over water in places where there used to be water and there isn't anymore. there are record level droughts. 500-your droughts. by the way, in california, not just in deserts and other parts of the world we have had record , levels of storm damage, of fires, the hottest year. each year now is the hottest year since the last year for the last 10, 12, whatever number of years. you know this better than anybody in the senate, senator markey. so we're behind the curve but we're trying to create a critical mass of countries out of the major emitting nations that will then have an impact on everybody gathering in paris. and when they see that the major countries are doing it -- the

reasons others have to do it is less developed countries now equal 50% of all emissions. they have to start coming on board because no one country can reduce completely. if everybody rode a bicycle tomorrow and nobody drove to work and public transportation and we didn't have emissions, we would still be in deep trouble because of the rate of promulgation of coal-fired power plants in various countries around the world. so we have a huge distance to travel. and the great benefit. you asked about the benefit. the market we're looking at for clean renewable efficient energy is a $6 trillion market with four to five billion users. and that will rise to nine billion users as the population grows up to 2050. the market that created the great wealth of our nation, when every quintile saw income go up in the 1990's, was a $1 trillion

market with one billion users. that's what we've got $6 trillion very was $1 trillion, one billion users versus four to five and more growing. this is the biggest market in all of human history. countless people can be put to work, countless technologies put in place, new grids, smart energy, all of these things. and the sooner we move it to the sooner a lot of economies start to move and the sooner we deal with the crisis. >> thank you. >> senator boxer. >> thanks so much, mr. chairman and ranking member for this. thank you secretary kerry. you are serving in very challenging times, and you are doing it so well making us proud whether we agree with or disagree with you. i think a lot of us agree with you sometimes and disagree with you sometimes. and i have to say, you're a great diplomat and those skills are on display today. so i'm very pleased to see you. you know, in light of the threats that you've laid out,

i'm not going to ask you about the four days looming shutdown of homeland security because that's not your bailiwick that is secretary johnson's. but i think i ought to be another message to everybody , that's a ridiculous way to run a country at this difficult time. i also want to say i agree with your overarching comments at the beginning that, you know there's not enough of a priority placed on the work of the state department. and the very brave men and women out there representing our great nation and how important it is. and that's why i so strongly supported what the president did on cuba. because i find that when people meet americans, they fall in love with america. and that's the way we're going to influence people. to have contact. i know there's a lot of issues that divide us on this, even within our own party and on the other side which is okay. it's fine. but from my perspective, when i

went there years ago, what i recognize is the cubans were so afraid to be seen with us, they ran away. ordinary folks. it had to be all straightened out with top people there because they were afraid that they would get harassed by even talking to us. so i just want you to know that i back what you did there. on iran, this is a chance of a lifetime to do something so important. and i know how difficult it is and i know, you've said, and so has wendy sherman in many of our meetings that this is a difficult thing. it may not work. maybe it's 50/50. i don't know if today you would stay say it's 50/50. but i think trying to get a deal here is a once-in-a-lifetime chance. and we've done it with other countries.

and the most important thing to me -- and i spoke with senator rich about this once -- is the verifyability. we cannot trust these people for one second. that government. we can trust the people, but the government we can't. and so it must be verifiable. and for me, that's what i'm looking for, the inspections the unfettered ability to see if this is real and also, i would demand that there be constant reports to the congress as to whether they're living within the agreement. now i am working on something. i just want to know if you could make time for me in your busy life -- that takes us somewhere between where some want to go, where i think congress gets overinvolved and where some others want to go where they want congress to be underinvolved. i think there is a sweet spot that does deal with our getting involved in the sanctions that we put in place. and also on demanding reporting requirements.

and i hope -- would you make time for me or your staff make time for me so i can go over some legislation i've been working on with senator paul? >> of course, you know that. sure. >> okay. >> by the way, senator, thank you for flying back especially to do the hearing on cuba with senator rubio. we really appreciate it. >> listen, i was very happy to be a part of that. let me just close with this argument. and it gets to the aumf. you and i are very close friends and allies most of the time. the one time we had a real difference was on the war in iraq. and you and i -- you remember that. and it had to do with wording and it had to do with approaches to an issue. and you were working on wording with senator biden and senator luger and it was a difficult meeting and we did not reach agreement on wording on the iraq war.

i asked the crs if they could analyze this word "enduring," and i want to say, i asked my ranking member here, when he put forward the idea of enduring, he had a list of what it meant. the way you have approached this, mr. secretary i'm telling , you, you don't have any definition. and the crs -- and i ask unanimous consent to put this in the record if i can. >> without objection. >> here's what they say. this is incredibly important for you to hear. "it seems doubtful that a limitation on "enduring offensive ground combat operations" would present sufficient manageable standards by which a court could resolve any conflicts that might arise between congress and the executive branch over the interpretation of the phrase or its application to u.s.

involvement in hostilities." this is the crs. they don't have a dog in the fight. and this is really very important because i'm not going to support this. it is as open-ended as you can imagine. it's ridiculous. no one can define what it means. you said it's extended -- crs says it can't be. i say it can't be. just common sense wise it can't be because what's an enduring relationship to one person is not an enduring relationship to another. enduring is a subjective term and it is not tested. so i am saying to you, someone who agrees with you and the president, when you and he have said in the most beautiful unequivocal terms, and i quote the president from june 19th 2014, american combat troops are not going to be fighting again in iraq.

these american forces will not have a combat mission. we will not get drag into another ground war in iraq. nor do we intend to send u.s. troops to occupy foreign lands. 2015, instead of getting drag into another ground war we are leading a broad coalition. and mr. secretary, you said the same thing. it's a redline for everyone here. there are no boots on the ground. you said that september 2014. and then you said the president has said repeatedly u.s. ground troops will not engage in combat roles. and you said in 2014 the president has been crystal clear that the policy that u.s. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against isil. that will be the responsibility of local forces. this is your clear statement of policy. today you affirm that this is the current policy. i would ask to put these statements in the record. >> without objection. >> and yet you stand up here and amuf with this giant loophole

you could drive a combat truck through. it is not going to get a lot of support among the democrats on this committee. i don't speak for every one of them, but we have had many discussions. i am hopeful that you can take back to the president some of the comments. now on the other side of the aisle, you're facing a whole other problem, i think. speak for every one of them, but we i cannot speak for them. they want very few limitations. and i know this puts you in a bind. but the most important thing to me, when you send up an aumf is to have it reflect your own strategy. and i don't think this reflects your strategy. i think it reflects an attempt to bring people together to get something, but at the end of the day, i don't know what a future president is going to do. i know what this president is going to do and i support that strategy strongly. i voted for an aumf that was put together by our then chairman,

every democrat supported it from center to left to far left supported it. and then you come in with this one. i'm just saying i hope you will take back to the president the fact that the crs says it can't be -- it's not a term that's definable and that many of us feel it is an open-ended commitment. will you take that back to him and tell him some of us feel that way? >> sure. i think he's well aware of that position among some people here, senator. you are articulate and clear about it, as always. but i would just, just say to you that i think the policy that the president has defined and all of the statements that you just articulated are contained within the language that senator menendez and the committee produced previously. we believe that.

now, you know, i think that when you get into this process -- and i'm consistent with what i said here in december -- of trying to list things, it gets difficult because of something that gets left out or something that was meant -- you know, it just gets more complicated. but that's why there's a -- >> my time is running out. >> let me just finish. >> nothing gets more complicated than the use of a word that no one can define. it's a disaster. the president isn't going to be here after a year and a half. >> the president will be here for another year and three quarters. >> this would go for three years. you're not talking about just this president. >> but i think that the language is such and the process is such with the sunset that the sunset could be executed in a way that you protect minority rights so

there has to be a coming together and conclusion on it with respect to have that vote takes place so that a future president really can't abuse it per se. they're going to have to deal with it. and i think in my judgment that is a strong protection. because if you can't get it renewed because there is not a willing majority to be able to do that, you effectively asserted your rights and your position. >> well we just disagree. thank you, though. >> thank you. senator udall. >> thank you. >> let me finish one other thought. as we said to you, this is an open process. this is now in the legislative arena. i think the goal is to get as many votes as you can senator , boxer. if you think you can bring 45, 50 republicans on board with language that is prohibitory, or more declarative as long as it isn't restrictive of things the

president thinks he needs to guard, that's the give and take here. i doubt you can get there. but if you can, more power to you. >> you're not going to get there with this one. >> senator -- clicks if we could, i think you have had a chance to discuss it fully, and i appreciate the views of both of you. i think senator udall would like to weigh in. >> thank you. and not to beat a dead horse here, but on this specific subject that senator boxer brought up, i want to tell you how much i appreciate you coming in december and outlining what it is that you felt the administration needed. as you saw with senator menendez and the chair, we did some serious work and came up with a lot, what was very close to what you talked about. i think we really in the end, on

my part, i wanted to be more limiting that i voted for the final product. chairman corker, i don't know the dynamic because we were in the majority at the time. but we all worked seriously. there were republicans that wanted to be more limiting. there's a lot of room to take that product and move forward. >> that's what we're looking for. this is not a closed-out -- this is not a take it or leave it obviously. so we look forward to you work on it. and ask you simply to work with us, to make sure we are not put in a place that doesn't allow us to pursue the policy per se. >> speaking -- you've spoken several times about cuba and what's happened in cuba. i just want to applaud the administration for normalizing relations, and senator flake and i were down there together just

before, within about six weeks of when alan gross was released. and then when the big announcements were made. and what i'm wondering is what do you think -- we know that there are serious problems with this authoritarian government and all the things that they do. but what is your recommendation of the best steps forward to normalize and how we move down a path. you know, all sorts of things are being explored. what is your -- >> well, the normalization process is effectively announced and now needs to be implemented. and that should not be -- you know, the theory of the normalization is that it is getting it in place that in fact begins to put us in a different position to be able to advance our interests. i mean, senator menendez and others are absolutely correct

about what the problems are there. we all agree. there may be a slight difference about how are you going to get them to change. our theory of the case is that the best change is going to come through families, through people, through travel information and access. and that normalization in fact leverages our ability to do what 50 years of isolation has not achieved. now obviously the proof will be in the pudding. but we've seen what hasn't happened for this long period of time. so effectively we thought we ought to try this difference. we will have a meeting this friday in washington negotiating the normal pieces of negotiating the entry into normal diplomatic relations, how do your diplomats react. what are their rights of

movement. the visa situations, the travel, the access to equipment goods, all those kind of things have to be negotiated. and the components of the agreement, which we understood were critical, like the internet and the business and so forth, has to be articulated. that is being done now, at which point we hopefully are in a position to actually sign memorandums of exchange diplomatic notes and engages in , process. >> yeah. shifting over to iran. you talked earlier about the execution of american foreign policy. and i can't think of a more dramatic area. the collision between the executive branch and the legislative branch than when a foreign leader -- and constitution talks about who

deals with foreign leaders -- than what's happened here on this speech on march 4th with prime minister netanyahu. and i said publicly they believe -- that i believe he should postpone that speech. to me -- could you describe what is it at issue here? you are the secretary of state. you understand this issue. do you think this is a wise move on the part of the prime minister to come here when we are in the middle of these very delicate negotiations? was it a wise move on his part to ignore the administration in terms of appearing in front of a joint session of congress? what are your thoughts on that? >> well my thoughts are that you, as senators have all the leeway in the world to make up your own minds about how you feel about this decision. my job is to work with the prime

minister of israel, with israel, to maintain its security, to honor our very strong relationship and i speak with the prime minister more than any other leader. i speak with him regularly. it is an important part of our security and his security -- i mean, the security of israel. and the enduring relationship that we have and nobody should question that relationship. you all have to make up your own minds about the propriety of the way this unfolded or what happened. we're going to proceed about our business, which is protecting the country and maintaining the integrity of these relationships. and that includes israel. i will be -- you know, i've been focused on obviously iran negotiations. and ukraine. and afghanistan. and a bunch of other things. and actually i will be leaving i think on saturday for meetings

with foreign minister lavrov on syria and other things. then human rights council. i will not be here. i will be negotiating with iran for the rest of that week as a matter of fact. so during that period of time i will actually be sitting there trying to get an agreement. >> secretary kerry, just to conclude. i tried to have my staff research this. i don't know of any other time that that has been, that the administration has been ignored. do you -- can you in your memory at all. and if you can't answer that now i'll hope you'll try to answer that for me in terms of the history of our foreign relations. >> i think that your staff should do some research for you. i'm not going to get into the history here and now, one way or the other. as i said to you, my focus is on protecting the relationship between these, between between

us and israel and dealing with important issues in the region. and i don't want anything coming in between that. >> and i understand that. and i believe it is a tremendously important relationship. but i also believe that what the prime minister has done by taking this action, he created a very divisive situation. thank you, secretary kerry, for all your hard work. >> thank you. i have a lot of questions about the aumf, but i will hold those for the hearing. i want to talk to you about strategy and security. on the strategy side, having been on the committee for two years, even as a citizen reading the news, it seems like we are always in crisis management mode. but just because there have always and will always be crises does not mean we need to for define our job as crisis

managers. we need to look at the big picture strategy, and take advantage of successes. i will commend you, but also encourage you. i just got back from mexico, honduras, and columbia. mexico is now number three trade partner. net migration from mexico is now even with significant security challenges the increase to the mexican middle class has been sizable, and the trade relationship between the united states and mexico has gone a long way. the administration has put on the table, and this kind of investment has the capacity be a significant improvement.

i was there when you announced the special envoy. they will say they have become our primary security partner. they provide security on the border between egypt and israel. the economy has grown in a significant way. american foreign-policy is about europe. it was about the soviet union. it is as if there is an

east-west axis only. you have pay attention when there is a crisis. you ought to pay more attention because there is a lot going on. i would commend you for the work you have done with respect to cuba, with respect to columbia but i would encourage you to focus on the north-south access. we are one billion people. we share a name. we have a unique culture, and we share that and it has made us who we are. and trade is booming. the prosperity is improving.

it is significant major economies doing wonderful things. challenge, sure. but if this civil war ends there will be two continue nenents in peace. you can't say that about europe and with ukraine and you can't say that about africa and asia. we are close to being able to say it for the americas. i commend you for the work you have already done. but let's just not focus our attention on the americas when there is a crises and then turn back to the other countries. this could be some of the best inoculation we would have against global security challenges if we are persistent and stick with it. and i would encourage you to do that. last i want to thank you on something else. first time he had a hearing and i was sitting at the newest guy on thefmi: committee. i was with respect to our administration on embassy security. >> yes.

>> state department had a multiyear search and decided they needed to do embassy security to chemokeep our people safe. and come up with that conclusion and picked in december of 2012 a few months after the choice of the site we had the horrible attack at benghazi. the aftermath suggested that this site was needed. and yet here we are. we are now nearly 3 years after the selection of the site. two and a half years after the horrible tragedy at benghazi. and it hasn't really moved forward. but i was happy to see in the president's budget a proposal to finals invest $99 million to build this embassy security facility. if -- you mentioned that there are recommendations that have been done and there are recommendations that haven't been done. one that hasn't been done was to provide state of the art

security training for those who serve in embassies around the world. and the summer of 2012 it was decide. i'm a little chagrin but still excited that in fy 16 we fight finally decide to act on that. and i don't know if you have comments about the strategy or security point. thank you. >> i have comments about both senator. on the latter we are very, very excited about this. the department of state and the general services dplings ss administration looked at over 70 properties. there was a major property obviously down in georgia that

was considered. it's the enforcement training center. the federal law enforcement training center and there was a lot of talk about going there. but we made the right decision to go to fort picket. over a 10 year period we will literally save -- the cost would have been 91 million in georgia. it's 9 million -- in the cost of

transportation back and forth -- to do it in virginia. so this is a good decision. it is going to get implemented now. we're ready to go and we're very excited about all the due diligence has been done and it's going to happen. on the policy, i couldn't agree with you more. and in fact several -- i think it was about a month ago. when did we do canada up in boston? we have committed to that. i have had a meeting in which we sat with our weather -- our assistant secretary who is doing a great job and talked about how we are going to implement a greater north-south complement over the next two years in this administration. and the appointment of the special envoy to colombia came out of my second visit to colombia and my discussions with president santos who asked us to get engaged and to become involved. and president obama agreed to do that. and together we decided that you know, bernie is the fellow to help get the job done. because he was intimately

involved in the nicaragua/el salvador peacewvx process. and in fact i worked with him on the committee when i was chairman of the sub committee. so we think we got something cooking. and that together with the central america initiative and efforts to deal with petro carib with the fuel problems in venezuela and so forth, we're now putting together an entire energy connection strategy which involves mexico, and others, which could begin to really change the economies of the region. so i think -- i appreciate your focus. we should work on it next time we head down there maybe you want to come with me. and i will be heading down there shortly. we're very excited about the possibility of really defining

this north america access. and you are right on target. >> thank you. senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman. and briefly i want to thank senator cain for someone who's been 23 years trying to create this focus on central america and latin america. great to that passionate voice about it. three questions mr. secretary. speaking of latin america. the situation in venezuela continues to deteriorate. the venezuelan government arrested curacaoen president on trumped up charges. there are others who languished in prison over a year. we had legislation past signed by the president that calls for including mandatory plems implementations of certain sanctions. can you give us an update of where the administration is at and how they intend to move forward?

>> we are perplexed by and disturbed by which is going on in venezuela senator. i reached out when i traveled last year, year before, to panama panama. and i think it was in guatemala i saw them. we met. supposed to be a 15 minute meeting. turned out to be 45. we agreed we were going to follow on and begin a new period. and next thing i knew couple weeks later we were being attacked for this and that and accuse of this and that. this seems to be the pattern. whenever president maduro or someone in venezuela at the high level gets in trouble they blame america and it is repeated effort to trump you have notions of coups which don't exist and to play, frankly, to an old script. this is regrettable. our policy is we're very supportive. we continue to meet with and encourage meaningful dialogue between all the factor of the

society, business, government, etc. we call on the government to release political prisoners. including dozens of students. and opposition leaders lopez and gaballos, garano. and we're working with others to try to live up with their defense of democracy. so we're working with the national security council right now and the department of treasury and other agencies to implement the provisions of the law on sanctions and we're moving ahead as fast as we can. >> i hope -- >> and i have raised the issue of venezuela in all of my conversations with leaders in the surrounding --

>> when we were proposing this we were asked to withhold because there was an attempt by colombia and others to try to engage. and unfortunately that didn't produce results. and it seems that president maduro only continues to arrest those that either create opposition to his government and/or he uses as scapegoats. at some point i hope we can use the provisions of law sooner rather than later and i recommend your attention. >> we are pushing in that. >> great. secondly, turkey has gone into the exclusive economic zone of cypress. put ships there. followed with warships. pretty outrageous. and this is a country whose part of the -- cypress, part of the european union. if this is the way we're going have countries in that region effect others exclusive zones which are internationally recognized and at the same time pressure a country in good faith negotiation to try to solve their long-standing problem in terms of the division of the

country, it is a horrible set of circumstances. i hope we can be stronger with the turkish government about that this just simply -- i've read some statements and they have been positive in terms of you know, criticizing what they have done. but they are still there. and at some point there has to be -- there is another one of those elements of the violating international norms and at no consequences. and the message is you can do that if you happen to be the stronger party. >> and we've raised this issue. i have raised this issue. i have met with president of cypress. we -- prime minister. and we've had very conversations. it has been raised with -- excuse me. has been raised with turkey.

i don't know when but in the not too distant future. i think i am slightated to head in that direction. >> i hope we can be vigorous about the part that if you want to get a negotiation forward you can't have your warships off the coast of the country. that is just not a way in which to get parties -- and i have followed this issue as well for a long time. this government is more advanced, more forward leaning in trying to get to a negotiated settlement. but you can't do it at the point of a gun, in essence. and it creates a real problem to try to move forward. so i hope when you are in the region -- >> we've been doing it even outside the region. i had meetings in munich on it. meetings to thatprior to that. i had meetings in new york on it. we met frequently with all the players. meetings with an ambassador engaged in the talks. and it did get in a bad place partly because of this.

but other ingredients also. and my hope is -- i've had conversations with the turkish foreign minister about it. previously now prime minister davitolo and i were working closely on it. my hope is we can get back to equilibrium to allow us to move forward but we explicit lyly discussed those things. >> on cuba. what also hasn't worked for 50 years is the leverage of the international community that was all engaged in cuba and all the castro regime has had more political prisoners, more beats, more repression and no openings whatsoever to. the europeans, latin americans and the canadians and others who have traded with cuba and visited with cuba and done all

of those things that we think are going to be the turning point did nothing to change the course of events there. i hope and i understand that at the president's direction you are conducting a review of cuba on the state lists of terrorist sponsors. so as assistant secretary jacobson was before the committee at that hearing, she confirmed that the castro regime continues to provide sanctuary to joe anne chesomart who is on the fbi's list of top terrorists. and we also know even while negotiations are being hosted by cuba with the fark. that the fark continues to conductor the risk negotiations even inside the midst of the colombia and the colombian government pushes back on them. and we know cuba sent the most significant violation of u.n. security council resolutions on north korea, sent migs, missiles and tons of other military equipment to north korea in

violation of those sanctions. when you are looking at removing cuba from the list of terrorists i'm going to look at that provision of the law that specifically comes from the export administration act that defines the term quote repeatedly provided support for acts of the international terrorism to include the recurring use of any part of the territory of the country as a sanctuary for terrorists or terrorist organizations. and i'll be looking forward to how you meet that threshold to remove cuba from the list. >> that's all part of the analysis that has to be made. >> mr. secretary. thank you for being here.

i want to raise just a couple of small issues relative to some of the bigger issues that you have been talking about and i'll do so briefly. i know we all have places to go. i know hundreds of american families have adopted young ones in the drc. they have suspended the process of those children leaving. i know it is incredibly difficult thing for us to deal with, with the government that is in place there. but i would hope that -- i want to raise this at this meetinghclt it. we have not had a outcome yet but we're mindful. >> obviously with respect to everything today it's minor. it's everything to the families involved and we hope you will continue to raise that issue. >> we raise -- let me tell you. with the iranians, whoever it is, these names are all in the front of my head because we constantly raise people who have been held in one place or another. we don't always take about the names publicly because that works to disadvantage sometimes. but there are folks in pakistan, places where we are highly focused on these situations. and it is a daily concern of the state department.

>> we appreciate your commitment to the authorization process and i think that many ways it can help you significantly to leverage efforts and get congress far more bought into some of the issues you are

talking about today. and yet there is almost no knowledge of those activities because of the lack of involvement that's taken place. so i look forward to working with you on that. >> ok. >> i appreciate very much your comments regarding the modern slavery initiative. and senator mennen nendez and i introduced legislation today that hopefully will move through the committee later this week and b onto the senate floor.

and i know you are committed to the same. and i just want to close with this. i think there is a concern. and i know we're going to have a lot of testimony. i know there is concern. we're going to have a lot of testimony over the next several weeks regarding syria. there is a sense of a lack of commitment. you are not going to dispel that today. but i do hope as witnesses come forth they will be open and transparent about the things under way. because today i think there is a sense that in essence we have a containment strategy that we're in essence riding the clock out until this president leaves office. we have the same concerns right now in ukraine. where we lured them west. they gave up 1,240 nuclear weapons. obviously russia would not be moving into their territory today had they not done that. and yet together with them and with the u.k. we made comments about their territorial sovereignty. and yet those are being invaded. and it does appear that the administration is not committed to doing those things that are necessary to cause ukraine to be able to at least defend itself. we were slow on intelligence. we are providing blankets. we are providing mres. but we're not providing some of the defensive lethal support that is necessary.

>> well. >> let me just finish. >> we're providing counterbatteries and other things that are defensive. i understand the debate. >> i just want to say where it takes on iran is, there is a strong sense of a lack of commitment. of a not willing to hold the line. so i hope that we as a committee are going to be able to move forward on lengths that allows us to see that, to cause you to force -- to cause us to force a process where you will submit what it is you are doing with iran. i know you have been working on it very heavily. i know you must be proud of that effort. and in the event you come to a resolution with iran, i do think it is important that it is submitted. that we have the opportunity to approve it prior to sanctions being lifted and the regime actually dissipating.

and i think the role of congress to make sure that they are continuing to adhere to it is important. so those are comments i'd leave you with. we thank you for your service. i don't know of anybody who's worked harder to try to deal with the many crises that we have around the world. we thank you for your service here as a former chairman. and we wish you well. >> thank you. good to be with you >> secretary of state john kerry will be back on capitol hill for a second day. he is scheduled to testify about the 2016 budget request but he will also get questions about ukraine, russia, israel, iran, and other foreign-policy issues. we will have lime coke -- live coverage at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. also general john allen will be

in the foreign relations committee talking about countering foreign extremism. he serves as the president's envoy for combating isis. the french newspaper charlie have joe's latest in addition comes out tomorrow with a reference to last week's shootings in copenhagen. -- charlie hebdoe's latest e duchenne comes out tomorrow with a reference to last week's shootings in copenhagen. >> here are some of our featured programs on the c-span networks. on book tv, saturday night at 10 p.m. eastern, alan rivkin talks about the communist party in

hollywood in the 1930's. then a live conversation with the harvard -- harvard law professor. and on american history tv, a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina, followed by the surrender of the city to union general tecumseh sherman. sunday afternoon an interview with a former consultant to the nixon white house on the pentagon papers, a classified study on vietnam which he copied and gave to the new york times in 1971. let us know about what you think about the programs you are watching. collis, e-mail us, or send us a tweet.

join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the editorial director of france's newspapers says they are considering and jeanette restrictions at the newspaper -- considering internet restrictions at the newspaper. x a conversation about radicalism. -- next, a conversation about radicalism. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> i want to make sure everyone understands the order of the day. i'm going to ask abrams to follow. all of us knows if you have a

problem with the first amendment you call floyd abrams. then we will talk about the elephant in the room and bring us to the point of understanding what the problem is, what the underlying problem is. i hope there is a lot of cross dialogue. he will set the stage and tell us what is going on. he will outline some of the differences between free expression and perhaps a french notion made different in some respects. can you let us know what you think? >> thank you very much.

thank you for having me here. it's always a great pleasure to come back to new york where have to spend five of the most productive years of my life. i will go straight to the point. we have a serious situation in france at the moment. i would like to remind you of the basic facts, which is that france has the biggest jewish community in europe and the biggest muslim community in europe. i used to say we have what our own little middle east in france. we had tensions at times. i remember in 2003 and 2004, there were a lot of tensions in the middle east.

there was a rise in anti-semantic incidents. there has been that kind of time last summer also we have a lot of tensions in france. the january attacks have brought us to a new level. i think since those attacks we reached a crucial point. i have written these attacks were direct on our identity. they target several colors of the french identity. free speech, diversity. the targets were very obvious.

the cartoonist who had drawn those drawings of mohammed, jews targeted as jews. security forces emerged. most of the security forces have in -- been men and women who had diverse backgrounds or muslim grounds. this is not a coincidence. we're forced to confront the threat that has been there for some time and we knew it was there. the intensity and ferocity of the attacks have made us look

squarely at the problem. now, how do we confront this threat? again, let me go straight to the point, there is no simple answer and we are struggling. we are struggling as a nation, we are struggling as a society the government is struggling. the security forces are struggling. you may have read the report in today's new york times about how the intelligence work was a challenge and there was also an investigation two days ago addressing this issue. schools are struggling teachers find themselves with new burdens. churches are struggling. the whole country, the media is

also struggling. this is the situation right now. there are positive elements. the rally of january 11 with something extraordinary by all standards and also the international solidarity which was expressed on that day. i was there, i was myself totally surprised by the size of the crowd, the behavior, you are probably all familiar with their behavior. people demonstrated a sense of maturity and sensibility. the spirit of the crowd also. this was an act of solidarity and defiance and resistance. it was definitely something we

have to build on. even though we do not know yet exactly how to build on it concretely. we had this famous je suis charlie slogan and we found out that a lot of people in france did not feel that they were charlie. we will come back to this later. another positive element in this terrible rise of anti-semitism that we have witnessed lately is that french jewish organizations have broken with and the positive element is not that they have broken but that is the step they have taken, they have traditionally stuck to israeli policy. they have broken with this line

by saying no tonetanyahu's called to -- for mass immigration. and french jews, most of them those who have expressed themselves have been shocked by this call and have very openly said they feel their place is in france and they do not want to -- they should not leave. another positive element was the much smaller. it is assigned, a spontaneous demonstration by high school students in -- where a cemetery, jewish cemetery was vandalized. we do not know the extent of their motivations but this

morning they were charged with -- i am not sure what the name of the charge is in english. it was acknowledged there motivation was anti-semitic. several hundred school students took to the streets to demonstrate their solidarity with jewish people and went to the synagogue just to show solidarity. that is something which is worth pointing out. yet we have huge challenges and to name just a few. one is to stop anti-semitism. without giving way to accusations within the muslim community. this is something that is a huge issue in france.

and this was part of the debate. one question you here in schools and universities and work laces everywhere is how come charlie hebdo is allowed to publish any critical material on muslims on the profit -- prophet. this is what is me addressed and at the same time, -- being addressed and at the same time a comedian who attacked jews in his shows is being detained and charged with glorification of terrorism. why the double standard? there is no simple answer to this but these are questions

that have to be answered in addressing the public debate. one thing the government is planning to do is to launch a national plan against racism and anti-semitism. declaring it a national call. they working on it right now. it was something that was planned but they are launching it in february. this will involve education for educational programs security repression programs also and also regulation of the internet. i do not know exactly, we do not know what that means concretely. we go back to this issue because it is an important one. this is one of the things, one

of the issues which have been raised area. another thing we have to do in my view is to open the debate and this is one of the most difficult things we have to do. i hope we succeed but at the moment it is proving extremely difficult because it is one of the main pillars of french culture and identity. but it was, it is drawing from a 1905 law when we did not have a muslim community. and so people feel that a change has to be brought or maybe some opening but at the same time we do not want to be giving --

giving way just because there have been terrorist attacks. this is another very complex issue. it is new, we're pretty much in uncharted territory here. you can feel that this feeling that something has to be done to open the debate, that it is a difficult one to open. last thing, freedom of speech. since the january attacks, we have heard a lot about this. i will not go in depth into this . there are more distinguished panelists on this issue here. but just to name a few issues which have been raised in the context of freedom of speech, the cartoons of course religion how do we address, how do we treat all these issues without betraying our faith in the freedom of speech.

there is a strong tradition in france of criticism of religion which goes back to the 18th century, to the enlightenment. there is sensitivity but we cannot be seen as [inaudible] self-censorship, i think there will be self-censorship. but in a choice between censorship i do prefer self-censorship. and that brings us to the dimension of free speech that is important if we compare the situation in this country and in europe, particularly in france. there are cultural limitations to free speech and there are legal limitations to freedom of

speech and we do have a lot of legal limitations. i think that stems from our history. and i mentioned it already, the internet, the french government has been saying since the attacks that there is an issue with the internet, with this material circulating on the internet. it is -- if you start to look at it it is terrifying and sickening what is going on. on social networks and anywhere. but we have not had many details on what the government is planning to do. you also have -- i see this debate on how to involve high-tech companies in trying to regulate this. we seeing the beginning of this debate but in my view it is one of the most important debates. thank you. >> thank you very much.

[applause] >> thanks, it is a real honor to be here. to be at an organization that deals with french and american relations and the like, to talk about the first amendment. we probably would not have a first amendment. as the american ambassador to france, thomas jefferson had not written to james madison at the time of -- the constitution was being drafted. he would not support the constitution if there was no bill of rights attached to it. jefferson wrote that it was

necessary to have a bill of rights which clearly and without they protected freedom of religion and freedom of the press and like and really but for jefferson's strong view to that effect, we very well might not have a constitution that we have, let alone any bill of rights. the argument to the contrary is that it was not necessary, therefore it ought not have to been -- have been added. i thought i would mention three areas of americans first amendment law which byron what sophie was just referring to. three core first amendment principles, the first of which is that as one great american scholar put it, the first

rentable, of first amendment law is that there is no heresy. no blasphemy. in america. people may feel and conclude that others have such abuse. the law has not recognized the notion of blasphemy. or certainly of heresy which is not to say at the time of the founding of the country that there were not some state laws to that effect. there were still a few left but they are not enforced and they are as we say unconstitutional. the second we do not have any ban which is constitutional on what is called hate speech, some of the sorts of speech that were

just referred to in the previous presentation when jimmy carter was president, and international covenant was drafted on political and civil rights which was basically signed by every leader of every democratic country. one of the provisions was that countries were obliged to take steps, to take action to prevent hateful speech based on race, religion, or the like. president carter signed it and attached what is called a reservation to it and important reservation which said that as far as the united states was concerned, this was a core subject to the bill of rights. another way of saying we would not do it.

, we would not have legislation because it would be unconstitutional if we were banning speech because it was hateful, against some religion, against some race or the like. and the third principle is that we do not allow what has come to be known as a heckler's medo -- veto where speech has evolved that is otherwise protected speech. the fact that some in our society are not only troubled by it but angered by a maybe even respond violently to it is not a basis for banning it. that we will not give a heckler so to speak, the ultimate

control over what is said and what is not. recent literature, very recent articles prompted by the murderous events in paris have asked hypothetical questions, how much do we really mean that, suppose someone were to say i am going to kill hostages unless you stop saying x. i think the odds are that our supreme court would still say that we are not going to let criminals decide what can be said and what not. i do not mean to address this as is -- as if it is an easy issue. at a time a few years ago when a

preacher in florida said he was going to turn the koran, you may remember that the secretary of defense personally called him on the phone and asked him not to. that there were riots in pakistan, that people were killed and justice breyer commenting off the record said he thought that might constitute the sort of clear and present danger which could justify even under american law a limitation on the person doing it. i do not think he is right. i do not think the court can say that that would be the law but these are not easy issues. for an american lawyer, it is interesting to compare it to our law to french law.

french law is more complicated. i use the word deliberately looking at my wife here, i recall a trip that she and i made to istanbul wants from paris. we were talking to a french diplomat. it was the time of gary hart running for president and getting in also its of terrible trouble because of personal activities of his, and we were chatting about it and he said to me we do not understand in france why you're making such a big deal about who gary hart has sex with. our prime minister has a very complicated personal life, he said. compared to american first amendment law, france has a more complicated law with respect to this area as the last

presentation makes clear. this is a country that believes in and treasures free speech and has more limitations on certain speech than we do and it sometimes, those limitations make for very difficult decision-making. after world war ii, france passed legislation basically abolishing all the vichy legislation and restoring that 1939 law which prohibited racist and anti-semitic speech. they did that for obvious reasons. france is one of many european countries that makes it illegal to engage in the denial of the

holocaust. french law basically distinguishes and i am reading here because it is so difficult and complicated to draw lines in this area, but basically distinguishes between insulting a religion as a whole and saying things which provokes discrimination hatred, or violence. the problem is the first can cause the second or at least be involved in the second so it is very difficult. -- it is very difficult to make the distinction and that is one of the reasons i think that the question of dual standards comes up repeatedly in france, why are

you prosecuting the anti-semitic comedian and you allow, indeed celebrate after the murders what the mocking publication said about mohammed. that is a consequence of a choice that different countries make about these very difficult issues which are -- which come about because of our different histories, the different turmoil , the different way we have seen our countries behave in one way or another. i am not here to predict how we would react here. if the next but i will called paris or copenhagen like event

is here. usually the first place people go is to limit speech. in those circumstances. it is almost easier to do that than to take the broad social steps which you hope will prevent events like this from happening in the future. both countries act because they care a lot about broad freedom of expression whatever the potential consequences of it because there are always potential consequences. the final thought has always seemed to me sort of interesting

that here where we have more legal protection for speech, we do not have a lot of the publications that countries that have more severely limiting free speech have. we do not have a publication like charlie hebdo and people would say it is in bad taste, it is offensive, it is trying to stick a finger in the eye. our journalists do not engage in hacking. our journalists routinely behave according to the law at least better than the tabloid journalists in england

notwithstanding or perhaps a harder question because of the more stringent laws that exist in that country. it is stuff that is worth talking about on a panel. thank you. [applause] >> can you take the podium and while you are going up into knowledge you won the pulitzer prize and you are the deputy editorial person at the wall street journal. we set the stage but tell us what you think. >> thank you and it is a great honor to be here for this audience, for this foundation and to share the stage or the table with such distinguished panelists. i will be very brief. i agree with sylvie entirely

when i think of the events in paris in january as a watershed moment. really not just for the french but there are to be for all of us especially here in the united states. that may reflect on it in four different senses. since at least the attacks of 9/11, there has been a long-standing argument among -- in foreign-policy circles which are -- revolves around the question, why do they hate us? and basically there are two camps in this why do they hate us school. there is the camp that has made the argument really consistently that they hate us because of western policy. in the middle east. that is to say because of american support for israel and for dictatorships like hosni mubarak's regime or the late

shah of iran because of our policies vis-a-vis the saudi's our energy policies sees in the middle east, our involvement in the gulf war the most recent iraq wars, there is a whole list of policies that you can list or the number of policies you can list and you can say this is the problem. if you change the policy and this is what you would hear from ron paul and people on the political left. if you change the policy you largely remove the problem which is to say that terrorism is a function, a reaction to policy and middle eastern countries. the other side of that debate is it is more fundamental, it is a clash of civilizations or at least of values which is to say that you have throughout the middle east both among the

secular autocrats of the baath regime or the fundamentalists of the shiite and sunni stripe, you have values that are antithetical to the core concept of what western civilization not the least of which are freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, all the freedoms we associate with the american constitution with liberal democracies like france. after the attack on charlie hebdo, i would hope and i am speaking here as a columnist, i would hope that they would finally be resolved. because it is very difficult for me to see how murdering a dozen journalists sitting around and editorial conference table who are guilty of nothing more than practicing not just free speech but scatological, vulgar

irreverent speech with barbs aimed in multiple directions, it is difficult to see that as a response to western policy. i did not track the politics of the various editorial members but my impression and sylvie will correct me if i am wrong is they were not as well aligned with the views of the american neoconservatives or others who are arguing that we should bomb iran's nuclear installations or do rings like that. they were people of the political left to simply insisted that to realize that promise of a liberal democracy you have to prove that you could say and print and publish anything. and so it out to be, the attack should be a watershed moment.

it had to give us clarity about the nature of the conflict which engages us now between groups like islamic state and al qaeda and all of us in this room and all of us who share the values we have. the attack on the kosher supermarket or the grocery, it also ought to be an occasion for a certain amount of clarity. i started covering the middle east when i was based in brussels for the wall street journal and the late 1990's and early part of the last decade. even then and especially after the outbreak of the so-called second intifada in the fall of 2000, i sensed there was a great deal of anti-semitism on

european streets and it was coming in a folder and high toned for id. the vulgar variety which was the sort you would encounter if you walked through my parsley muslim neighborhood in downtown brussels towards the canal but also a high toned for 80 which typically went -- high toned variety that had a weird reflection in traditional anti-somatic tropes. i will never forget that shortly after the outbreak the economist had an editorial, the economist is a serious magazines and perhaps one of the best if not the best magazine in the world. there was a line the israelis are a superior people, their talents are above the ordinary but they must curb their greed

for land. if that is not an anti-somatic trope. and there was -- it was hard to sit in brussels and have dinnertime conversations with the class of commissioners and foreign-policy people and not get a great deal of it. now with the attack on the kosher supermarket i think it is out in the open and in that sense i am almost grateful it happened. that at last europe is coming to recognize that it has around problem with anti-semitism that cannot be denied or passed off as a function of a reaction to israeli policy. the third point is this. my grandmother knew trotsky. he said, you may not be

interested in war but war is interested in you. you may not be interested in the middle east and its troubles and turmoils and ideological fanaticism's emma but it is interested in you and i think that is another lesson we have to draw from paris. we sat -- we cannot simply look away from what is happening in yemen today or in northern iraq or eastern syria and imagine that it is some faraway place. the french government has been admirably out in front. the american administration and the action it took in mali and its seriousness about the nature of the threat and the fact that they has to be confronted not just in the form of marches and statements about solidarity but it has to be confronted kinetically.

that is an important point. i would add, i know i am running up against my time limit. i think because we are coming to grips with the fact that this was a war on western values like free speech, one of the best responses is to have more free speech. if i were part of the french political debate i would advocate for two things, one of which would be what i once heard someone say, there is a pedagogy of insult. it is not going to help if it is left only to charlie hebdo or publications like that behind barbed wire. people need to do it more. at the same time i would think if i were french policymaker that they need to lift, not impose new restrictions but to lift them because the charge of

hypocrisy is potent. i do not see the popularity of the anti-somatic comment -- comic being brought low by the fact that he has been charged multiple times for violating the law. if anything it is elevating him. this ought to be an occasion to reflect and import some of the american statutory values of simply allowing people to speak without fear of the law. the same time i would want to finish with one thing which is this. people after the attacks said don't you understand this comes in the wake of the gaza war so people's emotions are heightened and they are upset. if you try to explain anti-semitic acts by reference to what some jews in what -- some other country did you are not explaining, you are

replicating anti-semitism and you have to guard against this people were upset. if only they pursued a different policy perhaps we would see the kind of anti-semitism we are experiencing here. the final point. when i was in brussels and especially when it was editor in chief of the jerusalem post, i was routinely scandalized by the crassness of european coverage of the israel-palestinian conflict. and when too much of european media portrayed the conflict as a story of a crass and brutal israeli goliath simply stepping

on the next of four palestinians who lack all moral agency, it is not surprising that we should now find this anti-zionism translated into anti-semitism. there is -- i think the quality of journalism, particularly among some of my european peers, the unthinking sense of solidarity with the palestinian whether it is hamas or fatah or you name it, the treatment of people like the prime minister of israel or any prime minister as some kind of unique devil figure is not a good thing. to the extent that journalists have a responsibility to do better journalism i would wish for some fair journalism and -- that came out when it comes to

portraying a very complicated conflict that is not a story of angels on the one side and demon persecutors on the other. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to have about 10 minutes of cross dialogue. and then we are going to open it up to the audience so get those questions ready. do we have a microphone? so just drying on something that floyd said. there seems to be the more you have laws that restrict speech the more obnoxious speech you get. i heard him say there was relief in this situation that at least the problem was out in the open. if tomorrow magically lost restricting whether it is wearing headscarves or speaking your mind regardless of how

hateful and of noxious the words were, with that make it better or worse and how realistic is it to think that the policy would move in the direction of less restriction? x i do not think we are discussing or considering more limitations to free speech. we already have legislation in place for a historical region. the holocaust took place on our continent. naziism was on this continent. there is a consensus on these laws generally. so nobody thinks seriously that in france we're going to have laws prohibiting or limiting the way you can draw mohammed or

mock such religion or the other one. i don't think this is being considered at this stage. what may happen and what is already happening i think is that we all be a bit more cautious. we already saw that in 2006 when those cartoons were first published in denmark. we had this debate about whether we should reprint them. we decided to reprint two of them. there were 12, and we choose them we decided we could not not publish them at all but we did not want to publish the most offensive ones. some of them had -- were

uninteresting. that is the kind of role. other papers decided not to print any of them because they were afraid or because they thought it was a bad idea. we had this debate in the western press. media took a different road from the one we took in europe. some papers decided not to publish them. the guardian had a lengthy discussion and debate at the editorial board about this and came up with this, i thought they explained their decision, they gave 100,000 pounds to support charlie hebdo and on the

other hand they said we are not interested in publishing this. this is not the way of showing our solidarity. we do not find this. >> do you agree that there is less obnoxious journalism? >> i think so. you can see what is happening in denmark. some of us will take the defiant position and say we still have to publish this. that would be like an act of defiance and some of us will say we have to be more cautious. this is a trend generally. we have looked at the cartoons we published in the 1970's about catholic priests and jesus christ in france. we would not publish them today. there is a tolerance of the public, it is not the same as it

was 40 years ago. so it is not only about islam it is also a general cultural trend in europe where we notice this difference. >> what is your response to that? to the idea that there is a self-imposed self-censorship partly out of, instead of opening up to the dialogue and having a wide open debate, some of it ugly and some productive everyone will pull back a little bit. >> they would be a terrible lesson to draw from the attacks of last january. i was somewhat depressed listening to sylvie's presentation that the question seemed to be between censorship and self-censorship. i am somewhat shocked to learn

that you would have reservations about publishing images of christ analogous to the ones that the danish paper published of mohammed. i think that is precisely the wrong approach. >> you would refrain from publishing things you thought were either not interesting or offensive or not particularly productive. >> in 2005 and 2006 i wrote an editorial for the case why we did not reprint the cartoons.

there is a question, distinguish ing what you have the right to print and what is tasteful and appropriate in a publication like "the wall street journal." we did publish, we printed the cover of charlie hebdo after the attack because it seemed like you have to do it. i wish we had published the cartoon, i am speaking in a personal capacity, i wish we had published in 2005 and 2006. multiply the targets for islamists who think the proper response is mass butchery. >> how confident do you think that make us -- makes things

better? >> it is a tough world out there. i look act on the danish cartoon debate. they published a scholarly book about the whole danish cartoon affair and did not put any of the cartoons in their. -- in there. my reaction was disbelief because one is not talking about taste anymore. this is what the book was about. and while perhaps you did not have to publish everyone one of them, it is hard to communicate what was going on if you do not do it. i have a letter in the "new york

times" complaining about the fact they did not publish any of the cartoons at issue with respect to what we're talking about today. their stated position was they have a policy against publishing materials which by their nature are offensive and do not advance public discussion of some issues. my view was that they were newsworthy. how could they not be? and while one could make a determination in the service of good taste, if you will, not to publish them all, publishing none of them seem to me to deprive the readers of the chance to make a more informed judgment or at least have a better informed body of

knowledge as to what was going on. maybe it was the head of cnn who put it most candidly. he said i think of the wives and children of my employees. that is why we are not doing it. i am not sending cnn in two places they do not want to go but that is a surrender to terrorism. that is a way of saying they win. i think that is an unacceptable answer. >> the times they made the decision not to publish the cartoon it was pointed out at the time they had published

anti-somatic cartoons for the service of illustrating some of the cartoons that a routine in much of the arab world when it comes to their view of jews. and that was the right decision to publicly anti-semitic pertains. they made the decision not to publish the charlie hebdo cartoons that much stranger and more curious. i would say further to what floyd just said, you cannot conduct editorial policy, much less foreign policy is if you are in a harry potter novel where certain things cannot be named. this is not -- you are entering into a strange moral universe the more -- moment you do that which is another argument. we have a conference on violent extremism but we cannot speak of the violent extremism that we are all of us aware of being engaged in a struggle with.

it is a slightly orwellian world. >> i have one more question than i will open it up. >> just to clarify. my personal view is that we had to publish those cartoons and we did. again this year. but what i do not and of course i do not approve self-censorship and i think we have to stand up to all this. that is pretty obvious to me. but i do not like the compulsory aspect of will have to publish. every editor takes his own decision and has debates within his or her newsroom. i must say i do not like this idea that we all have to publish the same thing.

>> the yes-no question, it is your decision to quit the beheading on the news. it is also promoting the group. you broadcast or you do not. >> no. >> definitely not. >> everyone has a limit. let's open up to the floor and i will start up front and work our way back. is there a microphone? please identify yourself. >> [inaudible]

and so i think france has to france has to accept it is a multi-faced society at a time when you are trying to disassociate most of the population from radical fundamentalism. it is not the smartest thing to do [inaudible] i do not think we should change the law one side or the other.

there is something broader and the debate is important to have in france. >> that was not a question. we would rather have questions for people want to comment, that is fine. is there another question? >> i am a reporter with newsweek and i have been covering the middle eastern conflict and isis for a year and half or two years. as a younger reporter i was curious how you think social media has changed and an example like charlie hebdo. so much of their reporting was coming out of social media. i was curious how that was different from france and the

u.s. as i found a lot of american publications were pretty much giving other news through the aggregation of french publications' tweets, especially "le monde." that was distributed through "le monde" and i was social media -- wondering if you could's beat to social media. is there a limit as far as the journalistic aspect of that goes because that is how many of us share information. >> do you want to take that one? >> the issue with twitter and

facebook and other social media is they are being used by the terrorist groups. to communicate and also to spread their propaganda in a very nasty way. now as i said we are at the beginning of this. i do not know how you can really put a cap on this legally, politically. it is a very confiscated issue. and also technologically. twitter has been in -- closing a lot of accounts after those attacks but you close one account and they will put another one. so i am not an expert on this technology so i do not know how

they can work technically. it is a huge issue and i am struck by the fact that -- i know you have this issue here in the states and barack obama was in silicon valley the other day and had addressed this, how the high-tech companies are reluctant to help him to collaborate but the french government has not been specific. it is still very vague. >> are tweeters protected as much as the new york times? >> the answer is yes. >> we do not have a first

amendment in france. >> if i want to go on twitter and sandra anything i want is there any distinction between -- say anything i want, is there any distinction? >> that is something which is being debated widely gleick's bird's -- by legal experts. google recently was -- the european court of justice when it rolled on the right to be forgotten. they decided google would be the controller. that is the new status, it is not on the search engine, it is new legal status. legally we are trying to find the right qualifications. i do not think in france it is -- we have found a solution yet.

>> the fact that everyone is now press, everyone is now an editor is going to have, it has not yet had significant import for the first amendment and it may not all be good. certainly issues on which the press has received considerable protection, confidential sources is one where it seems to me there is no way that everybody that says something on the internet is going to get the same level of protection, and the result of that may well be because i continued to believe is a answered a moment ago that everyone will wind up with the same protection at the end of the day. the result of that maybe that

the press may end up with less protection than it has now because it will be impossible or the judges will be unwilling to draw lines between the person in pajamas who is on the internet all day and a great newspaper. in a perverse sort of way that could wind up hurting >> my name is gary cole. question for the panel. u.s. courts after additionally interpreted freedom of speech with the rubric of saying that speech is not protected by yelling fire in a crowded theater. can you not make the distinction

between depicting the prophet mohammed in "charlie hebdo" and the french comedian who promotes violence against jews? >> you can make a distinction between what constitutes incitement to criminal conduct. and we do that. direct advocacy of incitement to criminal conduct within a high likelihood that it will occur is not protected, for example, by the first amendment. but that is a pretty polar extreme of speech. my reaction to that -- falsely crying fire in a crowded