bernie sanders? is a state where hillary clinton has been favored. it will be a relatively low turnout caucus. bernie sanders has been making some headway. the two groups you want to watch our latino voters who should be heavilydeliver hel for hillary clinton whereas union voters will be big for the nevada democrats. where do they go? union leadership has been favoring clinton, but there's a lot of support for sanders in union rank-and-file. host: that could be why they say they will hold off on a presidential endorsement. bernie.a big win for guest: it is a big win for bernie. there's a desire among union leadership to coalesce around hillary clinton to get onboard with the front runner and the likely nominee early even though

bernie sanders is closer to the heart of a lot of rank-and-file union members. the longer he can delay organized labor getting into the canton camp, the more he create the impression that this is still a competitive race. if you can create that impression after strong performances in new hampshire and i will come and that perception can become a reality. host: hillary is featured in both magazine. -- vogue magazine. to reporter having access hillary clinton following her on the campaign trail from iowa to new hampshire. atlanta, michigan. republican. caller: i'm very disappointed in the republican voters supporting trump. they are not voting with their brain, they're just voting on

what they think they can get. a completet finish sentence when he is asked a question. he doesn't know anything about trade. he thinks we are dealing with when he was asked who he would pick for a supreme court replacement for scalia, he quipped, my sister is a federal judge. i might appoint her. a few days later, he said he was just joking. his sister is the most avid pro-abortion judge there is, even sing partial or subversion is ok. -- saying partial birth abortion is ok. death willia's

of donaldhe scrutiny trump. he has made a lot of conflicting statements. he has no real track record of legal and judicial issues. or marcoe ted cruz rubio, this is a really huge issue for you to highlight. do you want to nominate donald trump? do you want to have the judge is that donald trump would choose? it is a big issue that would peel off some of the evangelicals and conservatives from donald trump. host: the stakes in south carolina -- donald trump can talk the talk, but he has not mastered the walk. republicans and independent voters in south carolina and elsewhere call him a moderate

because they cannot fit him into either ideology. helpedfian persona has in the early primaries and caucuses. the risks and challenges this time are considerably greater than usual. every voter in south carolina in the states that follow must keep that in mind. why do you think they write that? because of the math? guest: right now, there is a large anti-trump vote. when you have some one-on-one , it looks like they could beat him in a one-on-one race. we will have to see what happens .

the fact that they are attacking each other so ferociously and competing with each other and calling one another names plays into trump's hand because it keeps that vote divided and creates no incentive for either of them to get out. host: so far giving him the most delegates. ,uest: to the greater extent the race looks like a circus outside of trump. it makes trump look like he is more in keeping with the dynamic of the race. there's this feeling that we have a sophisticated dinner party that donald trump is the boorish guest who hasn't shown upuninvited -- has shown uninvited. a lot of name-calling and anger.

likeore donald trump looks -- it plays into the message that trump is sending that this is a circus to begin with. host: union point, georgia. independent. hello, richard. caller: i think we look at a race that is going to change america this year because look back at what america was founded on was the working class. people came to america to live free. -- whole campaign republicans freed the slaves. it wasn't the democrats. motors forr general 24 years. you keep a budget you can afford.

we can get to a place where -- don't look at what the country can do for you, but when you can do for your country. that is a theme your hearing over and over again. it is across the spectrum of all the candidates. marco argues that president obama is changing the nature and character of the country. it is a really big theme throughout our public and primary. host: on twitter -- jim antle? guest: there is no question that has family ties are why he is so well-funded. you talk to republican primary

voters all the time who say i kind of like jeb but i don't think the country needs another bush and i'm tired of there being so many bush's. it has been a stumbling block as we've headed into the primaries. host: south carolina. kathy, good morning to you. independent caller. caller: good morning. host: who are you going to vote for? caller: we are trump supporters. , myhole family sisters, their husbands. the thing i like about trump, he is for the american citizen. it seems like the establishment -- i'm a registered republican from years ago. i'm an evangelical christian. it seems like every time the

vote came around, the establishment republicans give -- they havelicals gay marriage, they are doing partial-birth abortions, they are cutting baby parts up. i'm angry. don't come ask for my vote now whenever what you have said you were going to do and you did nothing. you sat silently by. because he is for the american citizen. have the same resume as the president in the office today. host: kathy says she is angry.

47% of new hampshire republicans said they felt betrayed by republican politicians. guest: that is a really big thing driving donald trump's appeal. people are saying he did not take that conservative position. you'll hear a lot of voters like the caller who say we have these people who took the right changed? whatwhat was different after we elected them? that is trump's main argument. i'm not beholden to anybody and i can produce these results that politicians have promised and never delivered. host: a fourth line for south carolina voters. continue to call in from south carolina. two days to go before you get to vote in the republican primary there. 202-748-8003.

elijah in florida. democrat. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. like people like bernie sanders and john kasich -- if john kasich one new hampshire -- he needs to team up with rubio or z and ben carson should be donald trump's vice president. host: jim antle? would be on asich lot of people's short list for vice president. he has done some things as governor that have alienated conservatives. the medicare expansion, the

rhetoric used in arguing with opponents of that expansion. solid conservative record in the governor of ohio, he must win state for republicans if they are going to win in november. it is hard to see john kasich's path forward after new hampshire. but i could see him on a lot of people's short list for vice president. host: south carolina and the newspaper down there. guest: a lot of editorial boards really like john kasich. host: a democrat. caller: i have got a comment. i want to say i'm kind of with theted republicans and their party. they do nots like care what happens to america. everything is obama's fault. i have a quick story.

i did not agree with anything george bush had to say, but when he got us through -- a shoe thrown at him, i was so angry they have the nerve to do that to my president, even though i do not agree with him. i feel like republicans do not care what happens to obama. everything is his fault. like someone said earlier, republican elections right now are looking like a circus. every time you have a thereversial president, are trips down memory lane suggesting everyone is happier with a previous -- previous president.

any queue will hear a lot more of that kind of argument being made as we debate the supreme court vacancy. i think the democrat line will say it is naked obstructionism or worse if senate republicans do not want to consider a successor to scalia nominated by obama. front story at the examiner is the senate gop likely to hold line on obama supreme court pick. sandra day o'connor has said to get on with it, that you should not have a vacancy for a year. behind thepening scenes with your story? what are you reporting? all the incentives would be to oppose president obama's's nominee, whomever that is. getlikelihood we will someone who is not a reliable member of the liberal bloc of

the court is very small. we're talking about which lock will soak -- will control the supreme court. that has effectively evolved into the primary policymaking body in a lot of dozen or so issues in the united states. the next supreme court justice will have more to say about the legal status of abortion, marriage, religious liberty, from of action, than any senators. hightakes are every bit as as for who controls the senate. you have as much of an interest to affect that outcome is any senate race. democrat,ip, democrats get to vote. how do you plan to vote? sanders --

bernie sanders wins the nomination, i will vote for donald trump. the republican party, they value god and are evangelical christians. it a were really questions, they were not think about donald is nowhere near that. the republican party are bunch of hypocrites because i say one thing about christianity and god, and they talk about president obama like he is the devil. i think they are a bunch of hypocrites. robert, an to independent. caller: it is not much toferent, i love hillary help me figure it out on the republican side, i could even

but my problem you give credence to us far as who you vote for. i'm thinking about not even i do not want to vote for one of the others, especially on democrat side. andan vote republican here i am thinking about voting republican, but i want to know if hillary will come up on or if ted cruz can qualify with him being born in canada. donald trump's main line of attack with ted cruz was the birthright. he has backed off a little bit with that. obviously, the e-mail question

with hillary clinton i think is more signet appeared -- significant. it is not clear what impact that has happened with democratic primaries of than her numbers who are voting based on who they think is honest and trustworthy, not good. extent the e-mails versus her overall reputation, it is not very clear. talkingmes antle earlier about the supreme court battle, republicans holding strong opposing the nominee in his closing month -- months of the presidency. republicans clash wednesday over how to battle

president obama's is expected nomination as the white house left over in the remote possibility the president might stop a -- guest: it is an option the president has. the supreme court actually ruled at one his use of recess point when it was not evident the senate was in recess. is a chip the president could use. it would not be a lifetime appointment at that point. the samenot have lasting effect on the supreme court majority and it would keep the issue alive into november, whether or not he made the appointment. you will hear some of -- some

republicans debate amongst themselves the optics of what it would be like to stop a nomination by obama and what it will do for their prospects for control for the senate. the moment the elegance were up for reelection, and to be holding firm. i would expect the senate leadership to do so. joshua, independent, you're next. you're quiet moments, do you ever wonder why newspapers are following like dominoes to bankruptcy and lack of interest? back to the campaign, we were to believehildren anybody could be president. your assertion that donald trump does not have macro experience or does not have overview of core jurisprudence, these are falling on deaf ears to people

who believe the garbage men could be president of the united if you surround yourself with the best and brightest people with expertise, you can use your judgment and discernment. most politicians and i am not a huge trump fan, but i like that he is holding politicians feet to the fire. maybe you could do good things for the country and maybe he won't, but i think the assertion like a gentleman -- by a gentleman like yourself, that he has a micro knowledge or he has to be able to shoot magic out of his fingertips is nonsensical. host: i heard your point. guest: i don't remember microfilm out of micronesia, but the question a lot of people have, none trump voters,

thel the majority of republican electorate, is does donald trump have the knowledge to do things he promises to do? say they will make some the great again. getting from point a to point b seems difficult. trump is all caps by saying he has managerial expertise. maybe so. host: james on our lines for democrats. caller: i'm a sociologist. i will tell you donald trump owes his support to barack obama and the reason is that birther movement. if you listen to the pavlovian response the average voter has

been conditioned, you say hillary clinton and harry reid and you get this response. the establishment has been telling the average american it -- the reason their lives are visible is it is the democrats faults, the black's, the immigrants faults, and all of that has been conditioned and their lives are still miserable. they are angry at the republican establishment because barack obama has not been impeached. host: let's take his there he. guest: there is a lot of anger toward the president. i think donald trump, while he got on the map politically through a lot of the birther stuff in his using the birther stuff on his opponents for the it isican nomination, hard to see how he could be doing as well as he is doing if there were not a crisis of confidence with republican leadership.

if there were that the party leaders would do with a promise to do, i do not see trump having quite the same appeal. a lot of it is channeling the anger of the party establishment for not a combatant anything. if there were greater confidence or happiness with the recent record, i do not know if trump would have a leg to stand on. host: in, a republican. we lost him. we will go on to ernie. littleton, colorado. good morning to you. caller: good morning. ben carson, trump, and bernie sanders are the only ones not supported by super pac.

it seems like ben carson is probably the smartest of them all. them on either side of the aisle has mentioned how they would pay the debt off, not just balance the budget, because we know they would go over the budget. just like what happened in greece, bernie sanders is the only candidate on either side that wants to re-implement the glass-steagall act, which would protect us from bailing out or going in to big banks and corporations. what about that sentiment out there? donald trump and bernie sanders, people are traffic to them because donald trump is paying for his own campaign and does not oh anybody anything. right, although he has done well with earned media and has not had to spend much on his campaign, but that is exact right. the view is donald trump would

not be beholden to anybody. the democratic side, it is a lot of bernie sanders appear -- appeal as well. he is not reliant on super pac contributions. he is getting a lot of his money from small, democratic donors. he average of $27, and yet is raising money and a way that is competitive with hillary clinton, who is getting a lot of money from big donors. it is appealing and a time where people are disaffected with the establishment in both parties. host: we will have to leave the up come with the legacy of antonin scalia a. a discussion about homegrown islamic terrorism in the united states. is peter bergen, new america vice president and international security program director. washington journalist like every morning at 7:00 a.m..

you can join the conversation with your calls and comment on facebook and twitter. >> stay with c-span live this morning for the ceremony in the great hall of the supreme court in honor of justice antonin scalia. president obama, michelle obama, supreme court justices, and members of congress are expected to be among those attending. following the private ceremony, the body of justice scalia will lie in repose. watch on c-span, and c-span.org. >> i think we're going through, or the cusp of a progressive revolution. i consider both bernie sanders and hillary clinton progressives. one of them will be the next president, i believe. so now it is a good time to take stock and see how did this guy do what we thought was a real progressive.

what commitment from that experience -- can we learn from that experience? >> seminar come on q&a, radio talkshow host talks about his how obamar's remorse: let progressives down." bernie sanders recently spoke out in favor of the book. >> the blurb is totally harmless. the partyrepeats making every campaign speech which is twofold, one needed political revolution and -- that is his phrase -- and that it means that the progressives have to really keep the pressure of the next president who we hope will be a democrat and a progressive. to really stick to the progressive, be true to the progressive agenda and follow it through and not compromise. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

on c-span's q&a. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> philip kent and spoke to laborers in las vegas. remarks ran 20 minutes then she greeted voters. songthis is my fight a lot of fight left in me ♪

♪ hillary clinton: >> how are you? how you guys doing? this is nevada. listen, i had the honor of serving as your attorney general for eight years. [applause]

now, i am running for the united states senate. [applause] >> on saturday, i'm caucusing for hillary. she will adjust the challenges we face every day. she knows our issues, she is here. i told her my grandson can't -- grandfather came from mexico. because of his courage in the hard work of my parents, my sister and i with the first in our family to graduate from college. -- passingve thumbprints of immigration reform is not just important to me, it is important to all of you. hillary is fighting for that, for all of us. i will tell you what, let me just say this -- thank you all

for getting out and caucusing and being a voice. most importantly, let me introduce you to the next president of the united states, hillary clinton. [applause] hillary clinton: thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you. i will tell you what, i sure be herat catherine will next united senator. i will need her when i am in the white house to do the work we want to get done. laborers fornk the having us in their home. i love seeing those orange shirts everywhere i go. i appreciate your endorsement. on your side. i always have been, i always will be. i will fight for workers, fight for unions, fight for the wages and working conditions that you deserve.

i have got some friends with me, you just heard from catherine, you also heard from tom, the most dynamic labor secretary who gets up every day and goes to work trying to figure out how to enforce the labor law so that you don't get disadvantaged in the marketplace. that you have your rights protected. thank you, tom, for your work and for being here with me. i want to thank members of congress who are here with me. fudge froman marcia ohio, she is a great leader. the congressional black caucus endorsed me, it made my day, month, my year. [applause] another greatn: champion and advocate who has been on the front lines fighting waters,tles is maxine

the congressman from california. [applause] i will inviten: them up when i finished a you can get a look at them and take a picture of them. they are dynamic and it was somebody else i want you to meet. a lot ofor granted things in our country. one thing that's took years to realize was forming a union for farmworkers. and dolores who is with us here -- [applause] she is an icon: of american history. she never gave up, she never gave in, she made it possible for farmworkers and their families to have better wages, better living and working conditions. she is one of my dearest friends. i am so proud she is here in

nevada campaigning for me. thank you, dolores, for your lifetime of work. [applause] hillary clinton: you got to see the town hall, right? you know, i just love answering whereons and making clear i stand, where i have always stood, and what i will do as your president. i am going to fight for you. we have to knock done every barrier that is holding americans back. there are a lot of them come economic barriers. i know what i am against. i have been very clear about that. i will stop the bad actors from ever wrecking our economy again. that people say is the toughest and most comprehensive. you know what? after he finished saying let's stop the bad stuff from happening, what are the making some good stuff happen? how about creating more jobs for hard-working americans? how about raising income, defending unions, making a

prevailing wage, making sure that every american has a chance to fulfill his or her dream by making sure there is no barrier that hold you back? it is not just economic barriers that we have to knock down. we have to go after barriers that really still leaf people behind. to go after systemic racism. we have to go after the treatment of women. we got to go after making sure we don't have barriers that prevent the lgbt community from getting ahead. we have to go after the barriers that some states are trying to put up to prevent people from voting. we got to defend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. we got to defend planned parenthood. we have got to fight for, and achieve, comprehensive

immigration reform with a path to citizenship. we have our work cut out for us. i am always a little bit bewildered when, you know, somebody says why are all these union supporting you? unions like the laborers, most of the building trade, most of it public-sector unions -- is because i worked with them. i have led to fights for them. i am no johnny or janie come lately to this. discover that unions were under pressure from the republicans in the right. i've doctors wake up one day and say oh my goodness, workers are being mistreated. lines.n the front i represented new york for eight years. , was there day in and day out

fighting against the obstruction and the barriers. those two business that the right wing, the republicans come are putting up. why do you think you have so many scars? i have been taking on these vested interests my entire life. before there was obamacare they call that hillary care. i tried to get us universal health care coverage. sure we didn'te have people being denied health coverage for themselves, and their families. the stories i heard literally made me sick. i will probably just one. i went to a children's hospital in cleveland. to me, -- to meet with parents of sick kids and figure out what they were up against. ory told me back in 1993 1994 when the insurance company to totally in charge. they couldn't get health care coverage.

what they could pay they still couldn't buy it. there were disqualified because of pre-existing conditions. one man said i am successful, i have done well, i provide health care for my employees. i can't buy it for my two daughters of cystic fibrosis. what do they tell you? he said i go, i shall do my financial statement and the medical record, and say i just need a little bit of help here. what do they say? you don't understand come we don't inshore burning houses. -- insure burning houses. he looked at me with tears in his eyes and said they called mother who girls burning houses. i got to work and help create the children's health insurance program which provides health care for 8 million kids. [applause] wasn't clinton: that everything. i know a little bit about how you make progress in america. i like to make progress.

i don't want to give the speeches come i want to get things done. i want to produce results list that i want to make a real difference in your life. hillary clinton: i was thrilled when president obama pass universal health care coverage. i will go after the drug companies again to get prescription drug costs down. we will go after them to get medicare and the authority to negotiate lower prices. i'm going after those predatory pricer's, those companies that are up in the price of drugs 4000 5000%. when i get done they will not be able to put their greed over the health of patients and customers ever again. [applause] it is important that theo know

republicans want to repeal the affordable care act. they want us to go back to those days where we are all of the mercy of insurance companies. their standard is a different idea. -- bernie sanders wants to start all over again. he wants to throw it into a big contentious national debate about health care. first of all, i don't think we need them. we need more jobs, rising income, we need to make sure that we get equal pay for women long overdue. [applause] here's myinton: comment on this, we are at 90%. 100% isrom 90% to easier than starting over to get from zero to 100%. a lot of people can't wait, people can't wait, can't take a risk with what they have achieved here. i will make sure it works.

opposethe reasons why i the cadillac plan taxes because i don't want people who have good health care to lose their health care. i want everybody to have better health care. there is a lot that i want to get done. i can't do it without your help. i believe our country is still the greatest country in the history of the world. [applause] hillary clinton: i am proud to be an american. i am not going to spend my time insulting americans the way some of the republicans do. being not spend my time pessimistic about america. we're always rolled up our sleeves and got into work and fixed things. that is what we're going to do again. if we are able to have an nottion about real change, promises you can't keep. but real change, then i go into the white house with a mandate

for that real change. i hope i go in with a senate that is turned democrat. you will elect them to keep the democratic. i now come after president, that i have to work on a lot of different issues. i am not a single issue candidate. this is not a single issue country, my friends. [applause] tell youlinton: i will something else, it is not enough to just elected president. you are electing a commander in chief. you are electing somebody who one day one has to deal with whatever comes our way. feel that is one of the most solemn responsibilities. i will take good care of the men and women in uniform and their families. i will fix what is wrong with va, fixing the health

system, get to the benefit actually delivered instead of hung up and paperwork for years. i will not let the republicans privatize the va, i will not see our veterans thrown out into the marketplace to fend for themselves. i won't let the republicans privatize social security either. [applause] hillary clinton: what i will do is make college affordable, and the debt burden down to more young people can get on with their lives. [applause] i am reallyton: confident and optimistic about our country. that doesn't mean i am unaware of our problems. i lived with them for years. i worked on them for years. i believe in us. i believe in we can get this done. i know we can. we can build on the progress of president obama. we can go further, make it clear that we are going to have the

best of days of america ahead of us if we all work together. [applause] i can't do any: of that without your help. here's what i am asking you. i love your enthusiasm, it gets me all pumped up even though it is a little chilly out here tonight. i didn't prepare for the cooler nights in las vegas. here's what i need you to do. oneed you to go caucus saturday morning. you1:00 a.m., how many of already know what you're caucus site is? [applause] hillary clinton: i love it. how many can bring friends, relatives, neighbors? [applause] , i can'tlinton: well thank you enough. if you don't know you can go to my website hillaryclint on.com/nevada and we will tell you where to go. you can sleep in.

sleep in the next day. you have to get there and be patient because jeff to wait a little while while they say who you are for and divide you up. it is like democracy inaction, my friend. i was at the town hall tonight. that was a miracle. that was america. i was thrilled to be there. what are the series without them. you are the future of our country. we have to make sure it is a good future. you have to be there at 11:00 a.m.. by supporting my campaign, you were helping me begin to break down these barriers. you are helping me make it clear that we are going to make progress together. i am a progressive likes to make progress. i want us to understand what we

can do together. here is how i judge my success -- our people better off when i ended that when i started? i want you to hold the accountable. the reason why i'm telling you all these plans, i'm not just making speeches and freedom and free everything. [laughter] [applause] crowd: hillary! hillary! hillary! i need you ton: hold me accountable. i want to do hold me accountable. i was you to remember here tonight and i told you what i was going to do. i even told you have much they're going to cost. i will level with you, i have too much respect for the american people. i want you to know exactly what i will do and how i will do it.

i want you to be part of it. obvious that is the first big step. , talking withwork the american people, which i will do every day i am president. i want you to know what we're doing, how much progress we're making, and where i need you to help me as president to get things done. together, together we are going to live up to our dreams. we are going to live in accordance with our values as americans. i am excited by this. i am energized, i am ready. i need you to make this journey with me. starts saturday at 11:00 a.m.. thank you nevada. tiger have the eye of the hear me roar ♪

♪ ♪ this is my fight song ♪ thank you soon: much.

♪ ♪

[indiscernible] [cheers] ♪ eye of thethe tiger you're gonna hear me roar ♪

♪

>> ♪ i got the eye of the tiger you're gonna hear me roar ♪ ♪

♪

>> here it's a look at some of the campaign and released by the sanders and clinton campaigns. >> i was raised by my father, my mother left my family when i was nine years old. bad to worserom for me. this isn't just about numbers. this is about real lives. this is a system that isn't working for the everyday person. one of the reasons why i decided to endorse bernie sanders because they're looking for people who are willing to think big, be bold, and fight for everyday people. that exactly is what bernie sanders is doing.

>> i am bernie sanders, and i approve this message. >> they have different interpretations. >> come here. [applause] >> i will do everything i can see don't have to be scared. you don't have to worry about what is happening. i feel really strongly you're being very brave. you have to be brave for them to. they want you to be happy, and successful. you don't want you to worry too much. let me do the worrying, i will do all the worrying. is that a deal? i will do evident that i can to help. [applause] -- everything i can to help. [applause] >> i'm hillary clinton, and i approve this message.

>> center bernie sanders will speak at a campaign rally being held in the las vegas summer -- suburb of henderson, nevada. we will be live at 11:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's coverage of the candidates continues this week with campaign events in south carolina and nevada leading up to the south carolina gop primary in the nevada democratic caucus. start onve comfort saturday at seven:: 30 eastern and your reaction to the resultant c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> coming up washington journal we look at the legacy of antonin scalia a. then a discussion about homegrown islamic terrorism. newguest is peter bergen america vice president and international program director.

washington journalists like every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern you can join the conversation with calls and comment on facebook and twitter. >> stay with c-span live this ceremony in the great hall of the supreme court in honor of justice antonin scalia. president obama, michelle obama, supreme court justices, and members of congress are expected to be among those attending. following the private ceremony, the body of justice scalia will lie in repose and the great hall will be open to the public. watch on c-span, and c-span.org. >> the chicago council on global affairs hosted a debate on the military use of drones as part of u.s. counterterrorism strategy. notre dame university professor mary ellen o'connell blames drones strikes. -- isis on the rise of drones strikes. alberto coll defended the use of

drones. this is an hour and 10 m. coll defended the use of drones. ivo: good evening, ladies and gentlemen. on the half of the council for global affairs, i am delighted to introduce our distinguished panel tonight. i look forward to a spirited that isn an issue answerly without a clear to right and wrong. and others, we are thrilled you have taken time to come here tonight. thank you. as you are aware, in recent years, drones have become an important weapon in the war on inror, conducting attacks afghanistan, pakistan, and beyond.

the increased use of drones for targeted killing has become an increase controversy. many questions arise both at home and abroad. this is a particularly interesting debate for me. as a former infantry marine corps officer, both the pros and cons of this debate -- and of drone strikes in general -- hit closer to home them probably for the general audience. on the one hand, drones are quite attractive. they provide the capability to have me here or true -- near or true reconnaissance coverage, and issue strike coverages on criteria being met, all are removing the risk of a downed pilot scenario. by the way, which would inevitably lead to hostage rescue situations. hand, there are

very real second and third order consequences from these strikes. collateral damage may be lower than the alternative, based on analysis from academics as well as the cia, the potential increase in the actual overall number of strikes makes these consequences very real. because when we talk about collateral damage to we should be very clear what that means. we're talking about civilians. so each person needs to ask him or herself, you know, how many future enemy combatants and we actually created through these actions? so clearly, there is much more to account for when debating drone strikes. much lesst debatable, drones are here to stay. according to the intelligence review, the market for military drones is expected to almost double to over $10 million.

given this, we must grapple with them, their effects on our as well, our society, as political and legal frameworks. so tonight, i'm truly looking forward to an in-depth and informative discussion on the topic. you all have biographies on your chairs. so please allow me to briefly introduce the panel. director alberto coll, of the european and latin american legal studies program collegel university's of law. previously, he served as dean as principle secretary of defense. o'connellmary ellen is a professor of law at notre dame university, where she also does research on international dispute resolution. she previously worked for the u.s. dod in germany, as a professional military educator.

our moderator tonight's ivo daalder. he is director of european affairs at the national security council. so without further a new, ladies and a moment, please join me and welcoming the panel. [applause] ivo: thank you for the very kind introduction. and for setting the stage for the issues that we're going to be discussing in the next hour that yout dilemmah have sketched out. we are just talking about the drones that are going to delivering your packages next week or that your kids are flying in the backyards. or at least mine are. we are talking about a

particular kind of drone, armed and capable of inflicting harm on people who are capable of striking with military weapons. these drones, they came and were developed as part of our counterterrorism strategy. the idea of actually putting a missile on a drone came from the desire by the united states to target a single individual. osama bin laden, who was in afghanistan. and this was well before 9/11, it was actually done during the clinton administration, and spurred by both the agency, the cia, and the defense department. but encouraged her very much, by people inside the white house. so it was very much thought of in terms of a counterterrorism strategy. the employment of these systems in the last decade's plus, really since 2000 an01, has

raised a whole host of issues. issues that are important for us to understand, because whether we like it or not, these systems are with us. they are here today, and they're likely to be here tomorrow. and more and more people will have the capacity to decide when and how to use them. they raise fundamental issues of morality and ethics, issues of effectiveness and military strategy, and issues of legal that the legality of the use of these weapons. particularly, when it comes to killing civilians in a foreign country. but possibly in other ways. so, that is what we will be discussing today. debatesomewhat of a format for the two participants here do not necessarily agree on every single point when it comes to the legality of the use of

these systems. the unarmedioned vehicles, drones that have been around for a while. they were used by the u.s. first in the military in the 1990's. they were then armed for counterterrorism in afghanistan in 2001. after a whole variety of other theaters, afghanistan and pakistan and the middle east in libya and yemen, and in other places, it is not just the united states that has these capabilities. increasingly, other countries are using and employing these weapons, as well. so, here is how we will have our discussion. i will say nothing. for about 10 minutes. willse our two panelists

each have five minutes of introductory remarks. we will start with faster o'connell and move on to professor coll. light, andave a red orange light, a green light. but let me tell you, we are going to try to stick to these times so we can have a little discussion. o'connell: i am a law professor and irishman was a speaking for five minutes will be challenging. just two years ago, we were so focused on the drone. i attended a wonderful conference from tom durkin who is here. some of you may be asking why we're still talking about drones? isn't isis the only issue on the agenda? i think you are right to ask that. but in my view, the comments i want to make, i will bring these two topics together. a policy ofink

counterterrorism that soaking to focus on and use the drone has been, in part responsible for the rise of isis. isis came up from, according to the cia, nowhere. but of course, they were around. just did not watch as they were focused on using drone killings. drones that terrorized the , note who are affected just the targets, but those who have to live under the constant threat of attack. and they are open to the recruitment by groups like isis, when they say, the people who sent you the drones are our enemies and we are going to train you to fight them. in fact, the drone has become the single biggest recruiting tool for islamic terrorist organizations since guantanamo was used for that purpose. actual may be the success of isis, and self. reliance on drones has

distracted the u.s. from pursuing other, more effective counterterrorism measures. it has distracted the cia from intelligence gathering, and they are associate with destabilizing the governments we need in place to oppose groups like isis. the focus on drones squanders precious resources that could be used to a college far more good, especially in establishing conditions for greater global security. drone use models violence. and in defiance of the rule of law, as an acceptable means to a competent positive goals. in a world awash with conflict, the u.s.'s failure to develop alternatives to the unlawful use of drones has helped give rise to groups like isis. lay out thebriefly law that i am talking about that we have defied in using drones.

then spend a very brief moment, with more evidence on the negative consequences of that defiance of law. the drones we are talking about tonight our military drones only, as ivo said. the ones we used the reaper -- which is the main drone in our arsenal now that fires only one weapon. the hellfire missile. it was designed by lockheed martin to kill tanks. this is not a police weapon. if you're going to use a weapon like that outside the u.s., you have to meet the rules of the united nations charter. these are the rules for the force which are binding to the u.s., a full party in the u.n. and to other rules of international law. the charter says that all use of

military force is prohibited, with two narrow exceptions that are in the charter, itself. the security council can authorize force, which it did most recently in libya in 2011. or a state may use force in self-defense to an armed attack. occurs, thatttack is what the charter says, and for such time -- until such time the security council enters in and helps defend the country. so when the united states went to war in afghanistan, after 2001, we dider 7, so on the basis of article 51 -- self-defense under the u.n. charter. that is what our letter to the security council said. but it does not end there. not only do you have to have an armed attack, as we did with the 9/11 attack, but you are using force, and must meet other principles.

it have to be a last result. achieving the defensive purpose. second, the force has to do some good, it has to accomplish the necessity of that military defensive purpose. and third, it has to be proportional. you cannot kill more people would do more destruction, create the conditions for ongoing revenge in your strategy whatrry out defense than was originally inflicted upon you. so, this is a very narrow right to use force as self-defense. and if you're using a bomb against the territory of a foreign, sovereign state, regardless of who is there, you have to only attack the country that is responsible for the initial triggering attack. droneoblem with using the in places like pakistan, yemen,

somalia -- those countries never attacked the u.s. and what has happened and what has been the result of the u.s. using the drone? unlawfully in those countries to which i contend has been the case, yemen is in far more worse condition than when the first day we use the drone there -- in december of 2002. our drone use, constant military force against that small, fragile country helped trigger the civil war that --the stabilizing destabilizing the country. i could give other examples of what actually works. but we actually did in the case of osama bin laden, we did not get him with a drone. we use, basically, police tactics. we used intelligence gathering, and we sent a commander team that apparently according to john brennan -- with orders to

arrest. and if he resisted arrest, we could kill him in the resistance to arrest. we did not use a drone against bin laden. that is actually a model case of how to go about in countering, not military force. we have been hearing from more and more of our experts in this field, that drone use has this unlawful use in all of these countries. and at the end of the day, as of today, it has been counterproductive. just spoke atlger notre dame in the fall, and he on terror haswar been lost. we have been using military force, which is not effective against terror to them and dictatorial governments. general michael flynn, former head of the u.s. intelligence agency, said drone attacks have been a failed strategy. 18, 2015, four

former drone operators, all veterans, publicly criticized president obama's targeted killing for inflicting heavy civilian casualties and developing an institutional culture callus to the death of children and other innocents. well, when you're children are being killed unlawfully in this the through drones, families are going to send their surviving children off to an organization like isis to get revenge. there is a better way, one that is lawful, ethical, and effective. ivo: thanks very much. as a law professor and an irish person, you can stay within the time. can a human person to the same? want to thank the

counsel for the hard work. and also my good collie, mary ellen. i have had the pleasure of knowing her for over 20 years. i respect her profoundly for scholarship. and all these things do not prevent me from disagreeing with her, quite vigorously. [laughter] which shows that, of course, one can disagree with people very strongly and still admire them soundly, as i do. so, here is the problem the united states has. ok? we have individuals in certain parts of the world who are engaged in planning and carrying out attacks against the u.s. ok? and they operate not in china, not in russia, not in iran, not in great britain, or mexico, where we might be a would extradite them or be able to ask those governments to detain

them. they operate in areas where we ofnot have a peaceful option detaining them or incapacitating them. and so, as a society, we have an obligation, ok? to respond to those attacks by attacking them. and that is covered by the ruled nations charter's on article 51. mary ellen talks about self-defense against the armed attack. and indeed can only use drone strikes against those individuals, we are responding to an armed attack. we are not responding against an attack by human. the yemeni government. we are responding to an armed attack by the individual operating in yemen. she did not tell you, of course, that under international law,

yemen, pakistan, and somalia have a legal international obligation to prevent individuals in their territory from carrying out attacks against the territory or the nationals of the state with which they are at peace. just as the united states as a similar obligation. you know, we are obligate to prevent any individuals from carrying out attacks from u.s. territory against any nation or state with which we are at peace. now, these governments -- pakistan, somalia, yemen -- either in able or in some cases are unwilling because of deep domestic political divisions to prevent these individuals from operating. and so my question is, what are we supposed to do? do we simply cross our hands and allow them to operate with impunity? they are not operating in a zone of armed conflict, and might be area, or iraq, or afghanistan.

but they moved to another area and we allow them to operate with impunity? is that what natural law, morality, what the law really allows? and i suggest to you that when the language in the united nations charter was written in 1945, ok, we did not have this problem. we did not have the capacity of individuals and terrorist organizations operating in these lawless areas, striking against the u.s. or against other countries. so, we have to respond. now, i agree we have to respond using necessity, using proportionality. we may agree that sometimes, perhaps, we have used too many drone strikes. and we might agree that maybe we have to be more selective, more careful. ok? but to ban drone strikes as

unlawful, i think, makes a travesty of what international law is. as it has been famously said, it is not a recipe for suicide. state saidetary of this about height of the cuban missile crisis read and so last cases,and yes, in many it is a last resort because peaceful resolution, detention, arrest does not work. i find it interesting for mary ellen to call obama's osama bin laden operation a police operation. it was not a police operation, ok. and it was not a police that it was the use of u.s. military force. it was an attack, a combat operation against an individual who had engaged in an armed attack against the u.s. now, obviously, had osama bin laden surrendered, we were under

a legal obligation to arrest him and bring him back to the united states. and we would have done so. if he did not surrender, we were there to kill him. ok? and it was a combat operation. obviously, you, know drone strikes are designed to be proportional. sometimes going to do cause collateral damage. innocent people get killed. and we look at how we could make some of these operations much more discriminate. we do go out of our way to make these operations very discriminatory. and we try to avoid collateral damage. we make every effort not to hit individuals who are present in mosques, and hospitals, in places where there is a high likelihood of collateral damage. we still wind up killing innocent people. but i suggest to you, that if we

were to use so-called police tactics, as mary ellen has suggested, to arrest these individuals, we was still have massive collateral damage. we was still wind up killing lots of innocent people because the militants against which we would direct the so-called police tactics would have armed supporters around them. and they would use shelters in the civilian population to force these civilian casualties. our member very clearly, of course, and somalia, we actually sent u.s. forces there to arrest mohammed, the somalia warlord. and we all know what happened. he mobilized his militant sympathizers, they surrounded a group of u.s. special operation forces, it was a firefight. and the result was hundreds of innocent people killed. so, we have to look very closely

and at the question, what options does the u.s. have in some of these cases? ivo: great. thanks to both of you for i think of very clear, definitive statement. i will throw out a few questions, in order to get the disagreement going. [laughter] i will not discourage any of you to - - mary ellen: i think it is going great. ivo: let us hope that this of it. mary ellen, let me start with you. i was intrigued by the idea that it was the unlawful use of force that was a big recruitment tool for isis. which seems to imply the lawful use of force against isis would not be a big recruitment tool. and yet, we know that, of of 2014, the june

u.s. has engaged in military action in a lawful way against isis. because it was invited by the defend iraqment to -- they cametack from syria, not a foreign country -- i do not think there is any dispute that the u.s. was acting on behalf of of the iraqi government, or with the support of the government. and that ava has of the government, -- and at the behest of the government, it is likely that isis is using that as a recruitment tool. because the bombs falling from an aircraft, as opposed to a droned,from a hellfire might not be distinguishable, particularly to the person being killed. so what is it about the unlawful use of force that is a

recruitment tool, as opposed to the use of force? mary ellen: there is a very clear understanding among people who have been victimized by drones whether they are living in a combat zone, a place that has fomented an attack on the u.s. ort they, or their neighbors country responsible for it, there is clear understanding between that and people who believe that they have done nothing to this country. and yet, are being victimized. the evidence is overwhelming. political scientists collecting data, journalists collecting data, have shown time and again, the people living in a rural pakistan, that do not believe they have done anything to the u.s. -- and they are correct -- they are the ones who are saying, if we're going to be victimized we're going to look oura way to respond, government will not stand up for us. it is under the thumb of the

u.s. and we are going to do something, we're not going to just try and live our lives and put up with this kind of business. so, that is how the recruitment tool -- and that is because international law, ivo, really does track -- it is older than u.s. law. up incrementally brood it does follow a great deal of common sense. the rules, as alberto already suggested, on the use of force in the u.n. charter are rules that alberto seems to feel we can adjust as our own u.s. policy permits. rules dating from, or emerging from, the just war doctrine. they are very deeply ingrained natural, moral understanding of what is right and wrong. and people around the world have a very instinctive and strong

moral sense of when they should be free of this kind of violent attack, this kind of destructive attack. and when they are on notice, the example,r syria for when opposition to the members of the government decided to people throughout syria and they were now in danger. but the people of pakistan, where we have been attacking and have made some of the neighbors have common cause with the afghan taliban, they do not see that as an attack on the u.s. and they do not understand why they are being victimized. so, that is where recruiting -- and i can make the same comment even stronger about yemen -- ye men had a problem with certain coming, terrorist groups there and taking advantage of their relatively weak government.

much stronger than the situation in yemen now. and in those days, the u.s. was working with the yemen government, during the clinton administration. after the attack on the u.s.s. cole in 2000. and the fbi, another response to alberto, was being very effective and rounding up a small groups of individuals who are carried out that attack. they were prosecuted, they were in jail. men.ook our eye off ye we did not give them the report that that small government needed when they invaded iraq. and it was easy for al qaeda members to get out. and at that point, the u.s. was using drones regularly in yemen and in pakistan by then. and they were able to use al qaeda members in yemen -- they

were able to use that fact to say, do you want to see muslims, innocent women and children, being attacked? because when a drone strike attack, it is not like a bullet in the head. an assassination of that kind. these early strikes especially, they were inevitably taking 20-30 people every time. not just the intended target, the people who had nothing to do with anything that individual might have done in the past or the future. it is a clear, straight line between drone attacks, which began in 2002 in november, and the growth of al qaeda in yemen. so those drone attacks were unlawful. people knew it. to thehelped recruit, point where isis does not need the point of drones anymore. the fact that they have been successful against u.s.-backed forces from iraq, and the u.s.-backed opposition in syria,

it is that very success against the military might of the united states and the proxies in the area. so we are now in a very bad situation, created by the failure to take the wisdom and guidance of this ancient area of international law, restraining the use of force, with the embedded morality. follow that, maybe it takes more patience and time come alberta. but at the end of the day, the ira,he british control the the germans control their terrorism problem: the way were having great success against al 1993 world trade center attacks and the 1998 embassy attacks, we took our eye off the ball. we had it under control. we did not do the good police work, we did not patent into the

intelligence in 2001. and we exacerbated that mistakes are using military force and thearing and exacting global war on terror. you could ask, but i have said enough, so i will say that for later. ivo: because we do get into a very different argument about the global war on terror, versus the one instrument. i want to stick with the instrument, the centrality of the instrument in this discussion. and alberto, you make the observation that we do not -- that we are living in a slightly different world. that is different than one in 1945, when we drew up the charter in san francisco. in which we were concerned about to war against nations. now, we're talking about individuals were going to war against nations or other individuals in other nations. facehat is the dilemma we

from an international legal perspective, but also from a practical security perspective. as i think you made the case. how far do we want to push this? let me take the case of the united states deciding it is ok to kill american citizens in other countries. as indeed, the u.s. did in the of --f yemen, in the case scott, was here a few months ago, he wrote a book on the dilemma. where is the legal justification that says it is not just a foreign individual, but now an american individual, who can be targeted? yes, i do not have a problem with that. nationals, ok,n

who leave the united states and have planned attacks against the u.s. become combatants. and we have a series of u.s. supreme court decisions going back to the 1940's, the very famous case of the german saboteurs, two of them were american nationals. ok? and we have lots of german-americans who at the outbreak of world war ii, they went to germany and joined the german armed forces. they put on german uniforms. and when we were fighting against them, we did not say, well, we have to detain them because they are american citizens. we simply engaged in combat with them. and so, american nationals, like who leave the u.s. and become combatants, they are

assuming the risk of becoming combatants. and the president can order that they be attacked. now on there has to be a process in place. ok? ad the president has to have process in which the intelligence is reviewed very carefully, to determine that indeed they are combatants. that they're not just preaching fiery sermons in a mosque, but they are indeed engaged in planning an attack on the u.s. and that intelligence should be reviewed by legal counsel in the administration. ultimately, the president, under the constitution, has the obligation to protect the u.s. planningeople who are attacks. let me make it very clear. we are not attacking simply an enemy. this is not a case of political assassination. ok? i do not condone political assassination. i do not condone trying to kill fidel castro, who may have been enemies of the u.s., but who

were not planning attacks against the u.s. that is the key distinction. so, as combatants -- individuals placing himself at risk -- you cannot simply say to the u.s., well, we have to arrest them. of course, we can try to arrest them, mary ellen. i am all in favor of peaceful solutions. i think your comparisons with is inappropriate.yer migh we have the appropriate legal instrument to deal with them. but these individuals who operate in lawless areas, in which the governments are either unwilling or unable to turn them over to us or to allow us to work with them, we have to be able to defend ourselves. and to the extent that the fbi was able to do this in yemen early on, i have bought their

efforts. i think that the airstrikes -- whatever we can -- but i think we are not able to do that in every place around the world. there are places around the world were the fbi is not able to operate to bring these individuals to justice. and you also protect ourselves from the dangers they are posing. think from the rules, i of are still there. i'm a strong believer in morality, the just war tradition. the rules of the charter are there. but an armed attack is not the same thing in 1945 as what it means today. in other words, armed attacks are carried out not only by states and also by these individuals, who because of technology and globalization, and all kinds of development including social media, they're able to attack us in ways that they really cannot do back then, 70 years ago. did not say this before and i want everybody to understand, regardless of

alberto's argument based on practicality and the world changing, the law has not changed. in 2005, the united nations held a world summit in new york city. and every member of the u.n. agreed to abide by the u.n. charter rules that i explained to you, as written. there was no exception made for this idea that was first trotted out by some think tank folks in the u k. that instead -- ivo: nothing wrong with think tank folks. [laughter] ellen: but we do not let them decide for our countries what international law is. and they want to allow a state being unable or unwilling to prevent terrorism.

the world community is never going to accept that. really, we're going to allow vladimir putin to decide the ukraine is unable and unwilling to control a lawless problem? seriously? we are would let the ayatollah khomeini decide that israel -- no, it does not work as a general rule. and it will never be adopted. nobody gives the u.s. and exceptional right to decide who is unable or unwilling to control their lawlessness. they say it is lawless in yemen, or alberto does, that is not a view in yemen. yemen is to control its own country. and the lawlessness there you find it a, in fact, has a lot to do with us. a we get back to becoming cooperative, supportive country helping to build the rule of law, supporting criminal justice, we will be able to do the extradition, the deportation of the people that did work in the u.k. and germany and the

u.s. itself. regardless of what works or does not work on the law does not permit what alberto is suggesting. here, scott shane was talking about his new book, which is focused on and war a la this, this very technology is driving people to think that what you can do with it must be lawful. you have the capacity command you want to use it, and therefore, that is crowding your clear-eyed view. shane's careful reporting showed that he was no combatant. he was guilty of propaganda and of inducing people to commit terrible crimes, although he is never been tried for that in a court of law, as opposed to inside the white house. and shane makes, i think, a very strong case that he was killed

out of revenge. not because it was lawful under our constitution, under the human rights treaties that we are committed to, or under the u.n. charter that this country, our president franklin delano roosevelt, wrote. this is an example of how careful you have to be with seductive technology like the drone, that makes it so easy, with very little risk to the puttingitself, not their own individuals in harms way, not asking them to pay the price and patients with doing the right thing. -- and they have some short-term benefit -- but really long-term costs. that is absolutely the isis story. want to give you one chance to come back. and then we want to open up the floor. so, start thinking of your questions, if you do not have any. you have not been listening.

[applause] [laughter] but as you come back on this point, international law, like youlaws, the dilemma that have with states no longer being able to control necessarily what happens in their territory. as for example, changing humanitarian law with the responsibility to protect -- which 200 world leaders have accepted -- the we have not agreed what to do about it. but that is true for most of the things we do under the law. how does international law change? because it changes international law reflects festivity. professor thomas frank, the late professor, a wonderful scholar of international law and a wonderful supporter of

international law, he argued in the last decade of his life, the article does not prevent absolute prohibition on the use of force. it had to be interpreted in light of what actually was going on in the world. and nobody would accuse him of being a nihilist. but he said, look, you have to recognize that the use of force is not just simply conventional armies invading another state, 90 saddam hussein did in 19 when he invaded kuwait. what we have here is a very serious problem. ok? and regarding russia and the ukraine, if ukraine allowed armed groups in its territory to carry out attacks against russia, ok, russia would have legitimate grounds for holding the ukrainian government to its international legal responsibility. these governments have an international legal responsibility to control the

launching of armed attacks from the territories against another state. and when they do not exercise that kind of responsibility, you cannot expect another state to say,y folded his arms and welcome and might take 10 years. we're going to try to arrest them. in situations were that is not practical, i mean, if it is practical, yes, we need to do it. and so, i think that we need to understand this. and you united states, can look at the policy and say let us see how we can improve it, and maybe there have been to many of these drone attacks. but to argue that this analogy is simply unacceptable, i think i'm basically deprives us of a very legitimate means to right toour self-defense against individuals who are planning attacks. i think there was a lot of intelligence. he was not just a simple preacher. he was involved in operational planning activities. ok?

and i think that was part of the intelligence that led to president obama to authorize his killing. and so, i think that, and the answer we have to look at these issues and say, states have a right to defend themselves. and this is not simply a matter of discarding the rule of international law, but recognizing that these rules have to be applied not just in terms of restraining the use of law, but allowing law to be used to justify self-defense and legitimate situations. ivo: at this point, i really want to go to the audience. and weput up your arm, will have someone bring a microphone. one of the things we like about it when you ask questions, that you actually ask a question. so that we can have as many people participate. we will start right here, up front. wait for the microphone. there you go. >> thank you. i teach university level courses

on terrorism. the question i have is a question of fact. whether or not before 1945, considerable non-eight actors that involved attacks on civilians and on governments, one thinks of the beginning of world war i for example, but also the people's will in russia. and a all host of other examples, how does that fit into your factual statement, that in 1945, the law was based only on nationstates. presumably, the treaty of wes t phalia. alberta: the treaty was not there. you can mention, for example, in serbia, there were people who hated austria. and hungary. and the prince came from those groups, ok. but there was not the ability to

systematically organize and carry out attacks against transnational boundaries, across large distances, azeris today. very different situation. mary ellen: they absolutely did have non-state actor groups in mind. there are provisions in international humanitarian law, of course, that were built on the spanish civil war. where there was plenty of non-capacity to carry out a lot of violence. technology becomes more and more widespread, the -- it will become incumbent if you want to have any kind of sense of order and restraining of the taboo onaise the violence.of to stick to the rule of law as agreed by the international community and not take the soft interpretations that your needs of the moment, but they do not have the idea of how we're going

to really raise in people lines that violence is beyond the pale. and the answer is not to turn to the bomb. you do have the possibility of being part of a government that gives you a voice. the emphasis by alberto that somehow, i am saying you do not have a right to self-defense, yes you do. but the united states treating a combatant, one individual, and use the law that was created to defend the modeled on germany's invasion of poland, that is where we are putting debt where we are really getting things wrong. and not understanding the lessons of history. thanks for your point. a good one. alberto: just very briefly, when we attacked him, we were not attacking the country in which he was located. we were attacking him. mary ellen: that is not what

yemen thinks. of course we were attacking the country. ivo: let me pointed out. frankly, that is dilemma. right? if you are attacking individuals in your country, another thing if there are none other country. that is where they exist. the question is, is it a combatant or not? maybe it is or is not a factual one. but let me bring on another person. with a question. >> yes, i am dr. dale lemmon. we are watching everyone. come visit us. i would ask you, professor w talked about the seductive technology of the drone. let me ask you what a drone is? it is a flying robot of death. now, and we not set a dangerous edentonvenient prec of killer robots limiting certain human beings?

and the robots will continue to evolve, by moore's law. over 18 months, how long will it be? think about the unintended, secondary consequences in the future. of allowing robots to become bringers of death to human beings. mary ellen: i thank you very much for the comment. because one of the things we do not have time to talk about is what is happening. in the laboratory in the u.s., the u.s. is hard at work on what we call the fully autonomous robotic weapon. and this will allow us to attack, atrone to some time the distant future, years after the programming, on parameters that the programmer today thinks are important. technology,sensor

and other means that are also being developed, the robotic weapon carries out its legal task. that is a super problem in my mind. technology is now the subject of the you win review in switzerland -- the u.n. review in switzerland. and there is a very strong effort to try and create a rule that fully autonomous robotic weapons will not be permitted. there always has to be a human being. in the near time, the decision to kill. and i support that. but what support even more is understanding that the best way to -- we are not going to -- the history of arms control is that we are not going to stop the intervention. the way we succeeded in the past is creating legal barriers to use. the prohibition on the use of

the nuclear weapon, the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, the prohibition on the use of a blinding laser weapons, that is what has exceeded. so, we need a legal prohibition on fully autonomous robotic weapons. and we need to restrict the use of drone technology, with the hellfire missile, to armed conflict zones. and not to policing matters. alberto: i think we are in danger of confusing issues. one, is the issue of technology which is not supervised by humans and i fully agree with professor o'connell read absolutely, we do not want a situation where weapons themselves make the decision. right now, that is not the situation with drones. they are fully controlled by the president. they are under full command. there is no robotic drone out there on its own, deciding who to target. so let us not be overly dramatic about this issue. the second thing i want to say

is that, with regards to , if the american people want to have a conversation and decide that we want to ban drones, along with other states, and we might ban chemical weapons or biological weapons, that is a very legitimate conversation. but we need to be aware of what the costs will be. ok? twitter different from the costs of banning chemical -- which are different from the cost of banning typical weapons. we are vulnerable to attacks by these individuals, who will not operate in an armed conflict zone, but will operate somewhere else. and they will have impunity to plan attacks against us. in areas where we will not practically be able to arrest, detain, or get the government to do that. if we want to incur thask