terrorists have one goal, to divide people between countries, , andres and religions trying to frame themselves as representatives of an entire community. there was a time when countries, cultures, and religions came together. including the afghans who took an aft depart -- took an active part in condemning that. is -- with thean action in support presented by the community. schools were children, we have 8 million children in the schools today. we have built over 7000 roads alone.

host: the afghan ambassador to the united states, thank you for being on the washington post. you are going to hear from the in therosecutor guantanamo military mission. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> criticizing the obama administration from resuming the military system. we will open the floor to questions and answers. i will kick off the q and a to the and open it up audience. ladies and gentlemen, colonel davis. col. davis: i envisioned a day

when this would happen. taken't envision it would 6.5 years to get here. it has been a long and walking out ofp the library of congress with everything i had in a copy paper box. thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this. when i think about it on the last 6.5 years, i remember when i was a kid one of my neighbors and i were playing. we climbed up in the tree. i fell out and landed on my back. that is kind of the way this , to have my government do that to me would knock the breath out of me. it took 6.5 years to fight this

battle. i'm really happy i can be here today and this chapter is finally coming to a close. back working for the government again. i don't want to be back here 6.5 years doing this again. my personaling views, not the views of any government agency. , on my own personal time. you probably know generally the led up to of what this moment. we could go through it line by line. we will just go over it briefly. in the air force for 25 years. i spent two years as the chief prosecutor for the military mission in guantanamo.

i started in september 2005. i was the third chief prosecutor for the military missions. the chief prosecutor now is the sixth she -- sixth chief prosecutor. we would not use any evidence obtained by enhanced interrogation techniques. what most people call torture. itself --se the term term -- frankly, his trial is still a work in progress. afterhard to imagine -- president bush had made the decision to transfer and the

plane landed in guantanamo and 14 men got off that day, that was september 2006. almost a decade later and the no confirmedl date. there is ample evidence to establish his guilt without using a word he ever said in our custody. at least in a court of law it would make it irrelevant to make criminal charges against him. toward the end some of the people were appointed and moved on, they were replaced by political appointees. general alton berg had a career military officer and served for over 30 years. he had a distinguished career and i think he was devoted to

trying to do this in an .ncredible way susan crawford never wore a uniform a day in her life, but the inspector general when dick cheney was secretary of defense. suddenly by the summer 2007 i was being told that the -- that president bush said we don't torture, who are you to say we do? and all the evidence you are using, you need to dust it off and get these guys convicted. that was the last straw that i lost confidence in our ability to ensure we were going to have open trials. i resigned as chief products cuter -- i resigned as chief prosecutor of the military mission.

i enjoyed planning to do four years to serve my country and get out to north carolina. i truly enjoyed my time in the military. i think a lot of the practitioners have been involved in the military missions. they have changed their mind and are impressed by the ethics involved. i enjoyed my time and if i was young enough i would do it again. i was a point of time when need to decide what to do. anotherime to lee for a assignment, and if not it was time to retire. is i retired because of the housing market. i moved here at the peak of the in 2008.arket

we were so far underwater i couldn't afford to leave. doubt i will ever get long -- i will ever live long enough to get back above water. for jobs in one of the places i applied in the spring of 2008 was a congressional research service. i was invited in for a position that spring. met with -- and i was interviewed with a position there. mulhollandl from mr. several weeks later, saying there was someone else they felt was better qualified for the position, that they had in -- that they had been impressed. he asked if i would be interested in other positions that might be coming open in the future.

i was coming up on retirement. i had to get walter reed for some testing. morning ofarged the the 30th, went to capitol hill. testified before the house armed services committee about guantanamo. we had screwed this up so badly we couldn't recover from it. when i cannot to testify i i had ay phone on and message asking that i give them a call. havingwalking from testified about the metro, i called him mr. mahal and said -- mr. mulholland said there was a job here, we would like you to apply. i met with the deputy director to talk about the job, which i did. the job wasn't advertised for another month or two.

ultimately i was hired. a lot of what was discussed was my role of chief prosecutor. year -- my tenure of the trade division. military we don't get involved in partisan politics. participated. when i retired on 2008, for me it was the time -- it was the first time in a quarter of the century. lived in a gated community out in rural virginia. one of my neighbors set it on fire.

obama campaigne in prince william county, making calls and going door-to-door. i don't think anyone was more excited than me. december i start my new job. what is the first thing he does? he sign the order to close guantanamo. i don't know if there was anyone in d.c. that was happier than me. i was in a job and i liked working with people i respect it. things progressed and seems -- and things still seem to be moving well. rumblings emerged that the president was not going to close guantanamo, that the military missions would be provide -- would provide.

there was an op-ed in the washington post by former attorney general michael mukasey , who said if we bring detainees to guantanamo -- detainees from guantanamo to the u.s., that would be the beginning of life -- the beginning of the end of life as we know it. i wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal. i would say the vast majority of what i have written has never seen the light of day. often i would write something, shop around, edit it, and take an interest in publishing it. by tuesday i had teed up articles. one in the washington post and one in the wall street journal. the next day was veterans day.

i had expressed these opinions my stability to serve as a congressional research service. ironically in a sense, when i was the chief prosecutor the human rights organization generally on the left didn't hold me in high regard. one of the organizations that i don't think was fond of me was the american civil liberties union. i don't think they are particularly fond of positions i was taking. when word got out that i was reading fired for having expressed my opinions on guantanamo, one of the first calls i got was from anthony romero. he said, what can we do to help?

for 6.5 years they stood by my side. we went into court in january 2010, seeking a temporary from pendingrder the litigation lawsuit on what the first amendment protected my right to express my opinion. admit whatted me to i had done was wrong. he wanted me to apologize and said it appeared i put the constitution ahead of the good of the organization. and i said that's true. i could sit here and tell you i was wrong,ight, but i served in uniform for 25 years. i got the letter of termination

saying i was fired. i was fired for exercising my right of free speech in the james madison building, the author of the first amendment. so i stayed on until january 20. tried tot into court get a temporary restraining order. the department of justice argued against granting a restraining order. there are several elements you need to prove in order to get a restraining order. it is likely i would prevail on the merits that it was in the public interest. the one element he did not establish based on the government argument, he was unable to establish irreparable harm. the department of justice argued that if i prevail on my first i can write auit, check for back pay.

if my claim was validated. the deputy director walked out to the parking lot. i had my box of stuff and i left. they had argued that had been a mistake. there was the possibility of getting back pay. to getn fighting reinstated in the decision. we litigated that in the spring of 2010. the government argued mr. mulholland is a government official, couldn't be sued for the action he took. judge walton denied the motion.

at that point the government appealed and we went on a d tour to the d.c. circuit, which added another year .5 that the case -- my case was assigned to a panel with intel on the panel. in her case was dismissed by 2.1 vote. finding they have no cause of action. got the exactly i same panel and the exact same result. i cannot bring suit against mr. mulholland in personal capacity.

congress had civil services reform, which provided a comprehensive remedy for and thent employees fact that they exempted the legislative branch, they except in themselves -- they exempted themselves and chose not to include them. remedy, ih i had no couldn't proceed on that ground. had i been an average guy on the similar circumstance i would've had to throw in the towel a long time ago.

to try to litigate this case. years the american civil liberties union will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting for my right of free speech. i thought it was interesting the , if you i have made look at the testimony provided in july 2008, it is essentially the same thing with this notion that congress would be surprised that i have a strong opinion about guantanamo. the obama administration position became a position i advocated. the attorney general later set he had referred back to the military commissions.

had he been tried in federal court, where it had long since been convicted, i mention the 14 men they got off the plane in guantanamo, there is only one of convictedhat has been in this case. brought to the united states and prosecuted in federal court. men that got off the plane with him in september 2006 are still waiting for their opportunity to have their day in court. i was reading on the way over how the house has passed the measure that would further restrict president obama's ability to transport detainees around guantanamo.

ahmed is convicted in federal court. terminated,after judge walton said with my , abs, 25 military years of service, i already advocated the republican side. in d.c., when you managed to alienate both republicans and democrats, it is not an enviable position to be in. no problem having finding a job for the next six months, i would like to thank the district of columbia for the unemployment checks i got, because i applied for over 200 over 200 jobs with

nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, you name it. suddenly i was no longer a good fit with their organization. as one human rights organization said, we totally agree with everything you said. the administration is going to hold it against us. very grateful because up until recently i was in -- i was an assistant professor for the mayor of baltimore. dean of the law school. the vice dean and two of them were willing to take me in when no one else would. it gave me the opportunity to go out and do things that i couldn't have done otherwise. per -- i did a petition

on change.org. i couldn't have done that in the government job. i participated in several protests outside the white house. on an the line at putting orange jumpsuit. , butck with a coat and tie give me the opportunity to do things i couldn't have done otherwise. into the federal government, an organization where i feel welcome. i consider myself very fortunate. a couple of things i have learned in the last 6.5 years, andlibrary of congress

congressional research service are incredible institutions. dr. carla is apparently going to be the next library and of congress. i hope she brings leadership to the organization that is long .eeded if you go back and look at the case, i think there are three published opinions to the district court level. a couple of other decisions that weren't public. library of congress recently retired. i believe congress now changed the rule where the library of congress concert for 15 years. mulholland is also retired, the person who fired me. them i have no doubt

will love the organization. i think they love the organization the way j edgar hoover loved the spi -- j edgar hoover loved the fbi. the library had regulation that said employees are incurred to speak and write about areas that are outside of their official responsibility. that was the official published policy. the unofficial policy is no one should say anything outside the walls of the office. i think this is an incredible institution and organization, especially this environment we are in. for better or worse there was the proliferation of think tanks and organizations that didn't exist half a century ago. organizationan that would provide a research to support whatever position it is you want to take.

one of the disputes we have during the course of our lawsuit -- it is not what the statue says. it is not the device that is nonpartisan. my member has a hearing this afternoon. we would do that. we did that on a nonpartisan basis. not having an opinion on the issues that we cover.

this notion that the taxpayers spend over $100 million per year. in other cases you have to pay someone who has taken that report that the government generated and now they are going to sell it back to you. no reason reports are made available to the public. we often did that for a member. a memo thatwanted loed at a particular angle, we would do that. if you have ever read a report it will sit on the one hand this and on the other hand that. right orstakes out the wrong answer on particular issues. they are great reports that provide a lot of very useful information that i believe the public has a right to see because they are paying a lot of money to produce it. -- i certainly

would not argue that the memorandums are done on behalf of the committee or that membership should be made public a must the member or committee choose to do it themselves. the reports in general, i think, ought to be made available. the government would stand up firmly for your constitutional long as you don't use them. it is like integrity and other terms that people are fond of throwing around. that is what i found here. i think out in the public people like to think of the constitution is being granted. .- as carved in granite it is carved in sandstone. i spent 25 years in the military. we had taken an of to defend the constitution. we had this view is an unbreakable document. but then you see that the government says that in the public and when the lights are

off they take an entirely different view. thatnk it's important people stand up for those rights, particularly the eight clu. i could not have fought this battle without incredible assistance that they provided. after spending 25 years in the military it was in the government that stood up for my constitutional rights. it was the aclu standing up for the rights of the government. i was eternally grateful to them for doing that. i'm really disappointed by the department of justice and the attitude from the attorneys and the department of justice. one of the things i try to stress was when i was senior attorney in the military i had young prosecutors who are overzealous.

i felt that throughout this process it was a very disrespectful word. one of the issues that sidetracked us for another year was when i left crs, i did the same thing i had done after every military assignment. i copied the files off my computer my last day in the. it took two years before they actually looked at the computer i used. they discovered i had taken all the documents off of it, so suddenly i am being accused of theft of government property. it is like the e-mail debate in the presidential debate because doj did not have a cavalier attitude of me taking my e-mails off the government computer. they said it was government property. they insinuated i could face , so i had to go out and get the criminal defense attorney to represent me when suddenly i am being accused and they use words like misconduct,

lack of integrity, things that mean a lot in the military, so i was disappointed in the with the department of justice pursue this. aclu fortunate to have the standing behind me. if i had been a regular guy off the street, i would have been the government's effort and i would have had to given up a long time ago. the other thing i learned was this notion of free speech. there's nothing free about it. it is very costly to speak. as i said, i applied for a nexus of 200 jobs and cannot find one for a very long time. crs had an opening for a position that was comparable to the same level position i had been in and we had tried to get them to have the court order and in-state end of that position pending resolution of the aboutt as i was earning

$100,000 a year less than i was making at crs and the judge walton said using $100,000 figure was not substantial harm. i am not sure that we are in the same financial circle, but i found losing $100,000 a year was very substantial harm in the back pay that congress exempted themselves from the back pay act, so i wasn't eligible for back pay, so even though it was eventually settled and they got $100,000, i lost about $100,000 a year for the five years i was out of the government. free speech cost me about $400,000. in my view, i think the aclu and i have a different opinion. i believe the government has legitimate right to regulate the conduct and the speech of government employees. if there is a significant

government interest that justifies it. i was in the military for 25 years and i understood i cannot go out and campaign for someone running for office. it was in black and white, in the rules. i think the government has the right to regulate speech and conduct if there is that compelling interest and if they make it clear to their employers. the library of congress had a regulation that said employees are encouraged to speak. it, i got fired for doing it. so if there is a compelling reason, there should be a limitation on the government employees exercise of their rights. i think that is ok but there needs to be cleared guidance that needs to be communicated, the lines are on what the employees can do. but we say couple of thank you's. i could stand it for now and name the people that participated, particularly the aclu.

i don't know that he knew what he was buying into and that it would be 6.5 years fighting the government over my job, but lee roland was the last attorney from the aclu representing me over the last couple of years. part of the deal when we were negotiating the settlement, i have an agreement with lee because after talking to an attorney for the aclu every week for the last 6.5 years, i cannot go cold turkey. part of idealistic, he once a month for the next year to wink me off -- wing me off of doing with aclu. lee did a remarkable job in the beginning, in the interim, and up for times that stood me and for my first amendment rights. aclu national capital region, the one attorney on my side that was there from day one until the bitter end was art spencer, who has been with aclu

in washington for a long, long time. it stood by me faithfully for 6.5 years. the loughran of goodman proctor , they have offered their services pro bono -- the law firms of goodman proctor in d.c., they have offered their services pro bono, so that goodwin procter, they did a ton of work and fought hard for me. a number of former colleagues at crs that stood out for me, though fisher, rosenberg, dick from it, all -- did brummet, all of them declarations on my behalf. in the last couple of days, there has been debate in congress. they're concerned about protecting the second amendment rights, but people suspected of

terrorism, the right to buy a gun, congress had a concern about me and my first amendment right to speak and that was senator lindsey graham. i am not one of his constituents. my congressman for my district said it was a legal matter and i could get involved. senator graham did read he wrote a letter to the librarian of congress and it was included rome we went to court and i will be eternally grateful for senator graham. we do not agree about guantanamo , but he did a declaration saying that what i had to say about it in my perspective having been the chief prosecutor was an important voice to be heard. the one member of congress that stood up for me and vogt was senator lindsey graham. finally, the media. it was interesting. the two articles, one in "the wall street journal,". and the other in" "the wall street post -- and the other "the wall street post." they did editorials on my behalf

. again, when you are talking about the government, those mean a lot. that is the 30,000 foot view of -- 6.5 years ofn my life and hope it can move forward. i hope other government agencies look at this and think twice before they ignore the constitution and the government time whenlook at this we have an important election coming up and there's this notion of the credentialing the media and stifling people that have contrary opinions, that is not what we are about. there are a lot of people in government that i think of valuable opinions in the public ought to have the benefit of hearing, so hopefully they will take some comfort that sometimes it is worth fighting the fight. [applause] do not go too far.

you will need to be back up hearing the second. thank you so much for sharing your story and your perspective on this, and we spoke a little cost,out the financial the psychological toll, and we have many op-ed writers in the room with us today. i have to ask, would you speak out again? is: i have thought about that a bit. i think i would, even knowing the consequences. ago. the op-ed 6.5 years it is still as important topic as it was then. it would be great. i wish i could say what i invested led to bringing this issue to closure. it had not, but hopefully contributed to the conversation. i think it is still important. to make guantanamo military commissions and those issues, if you recall back -- i think it

was john mccain early in 2001-2000 two, he said this is more about us than it is about them. it continues to be. i am disappointed. i saw congress is trying to make it more difficult to close debated a, but i have lot of people about guantanamo. it is expensive. we are wasting money. millions of dollars a year to detain individuals when there are 80 left, 30 of those have been spent a couple million dollars a year on detainees that do not need to be there. i think one sentence is about $35,000 a year, so if the senator was alive, i would hope you would present a police award for the government for wasting the taxpayers money needlessly on guantanamo. there are 2000 troops stationed there temporary before the detainee operations. 2000 of our troops tied up to guard 80 people, 30 of we said

that do not need to be there. a credibility around the world, and we hold ourselves but that we have a bright shining city on a hill, but it is not our enemies that their guantanamo in our face but our allies as well that express skepticism. we have long since gotten past the day that there is any way to regain guantanamo. i think it would be worth saying it again in the circumstances. >> you mentioned earlier the terms pentagon required you to use. you cannot say torture, suicide. if the government and the military caught things as they really are -- called things as they really are, we are a firm believer in language year at the press club and you are as well. the languagey used that was appropriate for the things that were happening, do

you think the opinion would have turned returned earlier or would have not made a difference? mr. davis: i think it would have made a difference. it is easy to look back in hindsight and see where he could have done things differently. one of the things i think the obama administration made a huge mistake in not using [indiscernible] to educate the public. i think the public at large has written guantanamo off. if you stop 10 people on the street, nine out of 10 believe that worst of the worst merited that all these guys would choose to the hydraulic lines on the airplanes on the way to guantanamo and we have to have this facility for people only capture the enemy on the battlefield. all of that is true, but it does not apply. if you look at the notion, we have to have this facility and this court process for people that our gis captured on the battlefield, you can count on your anger's the number of detainees captured by a member of the u.s. military on anything that looked like a battlefield.

omart all, i can think calder, he was apprehended after a firefight with the u.s. ground forces. that wouldn't exist, but if you look at the detainees, all 14, not a single one was captured by u.s. g.i. on the battlefield. where heer the picture was rusted out of bed in pakistan by the isi? and then turned over to the u.s. , the sophos meredith has been presented -- this whole narrative has been presented. when president obama signed the order in january 2009, thick kind of said that was it. they did not anticipate the backlash. the other side that immediately said our goal is to make him a one term president, so i have said this several times. the best way for president obama to close guantanamo is to say he loves it and he will keep it open forever because the other are.will say, the hell you i do not think he anticipated the pushback because remember

when john mccain was running, he said he would close guantanamo. it was a nonpartisan issue. george bush said he wanted to close guantanamo. when barack obama said he would close it, the other side, no, you are not. i do not think he anticipated that. you have to look at the times, the economy was an adept spiral, health care reform was his top priority. i do not think they were willing to expend the political capital to make it happen. you have people like dick cheney and others going out there telling these home or stories that were not true. it and thereught were not getting the other side of the story. if the public and the truth about guantanamo, they would insist that it be closed today, but they do not. >> thank you. i would like to open up the floor to questions. please, state your name and your outlet before asking the questions. bob with republican news and we are one of the op-ed writers you are talking about. you have written some pieces on

the subject. i wondered what you would say is [indiscernible] you quit over torture. general geoffrey miller, director of the questioning at guantanamo, then said [indiscernible] people said he [indiscernible] now we hear brennan on he willon saying that not create an answer if resent foreign people to countries for torture. then he sings right around the thisioning and tracks for -- and the tracks for the statements he has made that don't answer the question. has he learned a lesson from guantanamo? is the torture still going on in other countries? you must be following this. is it still going on today? countries or other cia countries?

mr. davis: i retired from the military in 2008, so i don't have to access that i did back in the day. i have not seen any conclusive evidence that we are continuing those practices, but i would not be shocked if we are. i think the answer is no, i don't think we have learned the lesson that we should. that is something i think the wouldcould do that be valuable to the country, not to let this die. keep telling the story, letting the public here the truth -- hear the truth. people often make the point about torture about how it works and saves lives, what would you do if you had -- the guy in times square was going to set off the bomb/ number 1 -- the bomb? number one, that has never been the case. that has never been the scenario. best argument that

shows that torture does not work as the iraq war. remember when colon powell went to the u.n. and we had a source that said the connection between bin laden and al qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction became clear there was not true and they went back to the source and they said, why did you lie? and he said, you are torturing me and so i told you what you wanted to hear. torture is great to make people talk but not to tell the truth. we are going to take actions and start a war with another country, and i think we would like to get the truth and not just have someone talk. think anyone on either side can point to anything concrete that torture has done for us. i think you can look at the iraq war and c were tortured it to us. i think we really lose our credibility's in the eyes. we have led the effort [indiscernible] for of like how we lead

criminal court and we are really good about preaching but not practicing. until we officially condemn torture, until we hold people accountable for torture, then we are not -- we are talking the talk and not walking the walk. [indiscernible] i am retired after 34 years at the congressional news service. >> can you speak up a little? >> i am retired after 34 years at the congressional research service. believe that wrong -- that what is wrong with guantanamo is no due process. men have been there up to 15 years. the site of the denial of due process seems to be important

with moving his men to the united states and would increase their efforts to due process? dad is a really good question. if you recall in the early days of the obama administration, the plan was to move the detainees to illinois to a prison sitting empty there. closing guantanamo and moving detainees somewhere else just made a new guantanamo summerhouse. you are right. it is the legal principle and other location that is important. you have to look back and say, why did we have guantanamo to begin with? these people were picked up in the afghanistan area and refer them halfway around the world. we had the attention facilities there and we detain people by tens of thousands. why did we buy the dozen state people halfway around the world? was a thought guantanamo law free zone we could do anything you want it to anybody and no one could do anything about it and that is why it was

picked. that is a sad comment about our country, that we are the shining city on the hill but we are looking for a law free spot on the planet to extort people. prosecutor, ief was looking at the process and in ourwhether torture attention was how would we feel if it was an american on the other end? pick a country that we don't lie, iran, north korea, if they were doing the same thing to an american that we were doing to someone else, would we say it was ok? if we wouldn't, wise and ok when we do it? if we had americans that have been detained for 14, 15 years and never been charged, if we had americans that had 14 years or 15 years and the of a government said that we don't need to detain them. most of them are from yemen. i think americans would pitch a fit.

when it not suitable happens to one of us, it should not be suitable for us to do it to somebody else. i work for the gray sheet. one of the things in the journalism industry is one obama would have the most transparent administration in history. so far i think we have seen someone of the opposite, at least in the journalism industry. crs,your experience with could you speak about what kind seenanges you may have over kind of abilities you had to talk to news media? when i contacted crs for information, questions usually end up in a black coal somewhere, or if you ask for congressional report, your answer was usually go to this specific office in congress.

speaking of the -- speak about your relationship with the press and what you are getting from the administration. fordavis: crs works congress, not for the president, so i think it was more of a function of -- i had a very into the first year of the obama administration. they came in with optimistic ideals of the changes they were going to make. i think the active governing was a lot more difficult than i think many had anticipated. it seemed to me that in the early first year there were a lot of idealists that wanted to make this a different pastistration than the administration had been. i think time had shown in many respects that it has been noticeable improvement. with crs, one of the problems

with crs is i think they are so concerned about defending someone over on capitol hill that they just do not want anybody to say anything. in fact, you may have seen a debate about using the term -- i cannot recall -- there is a term that congress insist they use versus another. i waswas one back when there, the division iran, that aboutout an issue allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military, the actual policy was the homosexual policy. there are concerned that there were a couple members on the hill that that homosexual was a derogatory term. how do you write something when the title of the policy is this and they cannot use that term? i think there was so much concern about doing anything that might offend someone on capitol hill. citedcited -- the example often was a sister organization

ota, and theand perception was they came out with some positions that were contrary to congress wanted so they shut down the organization. there was a lot of that in crs where we have to tap dance around anything controversial or congress will shut us down. i think a lot of congress tends that to the organization will give them the opinion that supports their preconceived i think the crs could play an important role in providing that independent and nonpartisan assessment. been always or has always a very focused on congress and not the public. i think your experience is not -- i think everybody gets that and reaction when they ask

get that information. >> [indiscernible] questions. the first one, yesterday, cia thattor testified individuals were held -- i want to get this right -- for the management of systemic failures of an interrogation program. anyould not go through details publicly in an open session about how they were held accountable, so i would like to get your thoughts on that first. and then the issue with any special repertoire on torture and i guess it was settled for taking the standard toward guantanamo bay facility and then

monitoring the military commission, so your thoughts on u.s. role and the interventions on torture and human rights and then disallowing the officials. mr. davis: it is disappointing. you said, he did not go into a lot of detail. no one has been prosecuted for engaging in or permitting or censuring torture. someone is alleged to have been a victim of torture, there is an avenue for them to seek to address. it will be compensated for their injury. the obama administration has fought every torture case that has been brought in federal to see any person that was an alleged victim of

torture and they certainly got their settlement and not their day in court. i think one of the most egregious examples is a canadian citizen, did you either -- if you ever saw the movie "rendition," it is like the story. they took a lot the plane and laguardia and he ends up in syria. a few years ago, we were sending people to decide -- to assad as you did with the canadian citizen, he spent one year in syria being tortured into the syrians realize this guy was not a bad guy. they sent him back him to commit -- to canada. the canadian government apologized a given monetary competition -- gave him monetary compensation. we have yet to say we are sorry. when he tried to file suit in wast, the administration

successful in blocking in him having his day in court. give we are willing to people the opportunity to pursue their cases in courts, and so we will hold people accountable criminally accountable in engaging -- and what we would consider a war crime if anyone had done that to us -- we are only good about assisting others in the prosecution or other .eaders that engage in there have been convictions in south america and africa were accidents that happened a long time ago, so i am hopeful at some point that there will be accountability for what we did because you cannot ignore it and pretend it did not happen. >> we have time for one more question, but before, housekeeping. the newsmaker series brings

prominent speakers on new words -- on newsworthy topics for q and a's and visit our website at www.press.org and follow us on twitter. one last question for the kernel. -- one last question. i have got one. we have discussed that congress has been unwilling to accept the guantanamo detainees on u.s. soil and allies around the world have taken them. has that helped or hindered our relationship that are allied friends and a cleaning up some of our mess question mark -- some of the less we created? mr. davis: people i know that have been involved in the efforts try to repatriate some detainees. i think we have been to just about every country on the face of the earth to try and get them to help us out. the first thing they say, how many have you taken? the answer is none.

we have big been bribed fix they else to try to problem and we had taken none. if we skip these guys up in terms of guantanamo, we quickly realize there were no threats to the u.s.. china said they would be happy to take them. we had this problem, what do we do with the leaders? we were saying, these guys are not dangerous, help us out and then you have a judge and d.c. that says, we cannot have these people coming to america. went toly, several bermuda. thee who are supposedly in land of the free end home of the brave, you'd think we could be as brave as bermuda and we have not done that. it hurts when we have other countries when we created the problem and we have them to help solve it and we are unwilling to do anything ourselves and undo

the harm that we caused. >> thank you some much to everyone who joined us in the club today, online or on television. we look forward to seeing you soon. thank you very much. [applause] [indiscernible chattering]

[indiscernible chatter] >> if you missed any of that, see it online at www.c-span.org. live now, less than one week before the uk's referendum on membership in the european union, the heritage foundation has a discussion with margaret thatcher's former speechwriter,

looking at how she might vote if she were alive today. others who will be joining us on c-span, as well as other television networks today, we want to remind everyone in-house to check that your cell phones and other mobile devices have been silenced or turned off. it is a great courtesy to the speaker. i internet viewers are always welcome to send questions and comments by simply e-mailing tage.org.eri dr. nile gardiner, director of our margaret thatcher center for freedom, and served as a former aide to lady thatcher. he has worked at the heart of washington policy for over one decade as a leading expert on the u.s.-u.k. special relationships. he is the contributor to the "london daily telegraph," and appears on an american and british television. he received a doctorate -- you

in history from harvard university. please welcome me in introducing dr. now gardiner. thank you very much. it is my great pleasure to introduce are very good friend mr. sullivan. i have known john for over 15 years and met him when i worked for lady thatcher's office in london. he is one of the most gifted conservative writers of his generation. responsible for crafting some of margaret thatcher's most powerful speeches. he joins us today to talk about margaret thatcher and brexit days before the historic british referendum on the membership to be held on june 23, next week. as special advisor to prime minister thatcher from 1986 to 1988. he assisted her in the composition of her best-selling memoir "[indiscernible]

currently, he is editor of the magazine in australia and president of the downey institute free market transatlantic think tank in hungary. he is also a senior fellow at institute and editor at large, or he served as chief for over one decade. , he was a writer and editor on both sides of the atlantic. sullivanand -- john served in prague as editor of the foreign policy national interest and editor-in-chief on united press international. his book "the president, the was and prime minister" about the revival of western market. it has been published in sentiment which is. join me in welcoming john sullivan. [applause]

ladies andn: gentlemen, many thanks for inviting me today. and for giving me such a generous introduction. [indiscernible] me a highlyen controversial topic, namely brexit. the trouble on that question has been briefly stilled in britain by jo cox, who was murdered yesterday in the most brutal and horrible fashion by one of her constituents, who was mentally disturbed and not some kind of critical fanatic. most of us here in this room were not sure of her politics, at she was very spirited, funny opponent, a wife, mother

and someone who had risen from the background and the first member of her family to go to college and to the anteroom of high political office. we should seek justice for the murder. all quarrels called at the grave. we carry on disagreeing here. my topic is thatcher and brexit. ago, it was almost the first battle of the referendum campaign and there was the question, what would maggie do? more precisely, how would maggie thatcher felt the next thursday's referendum? mrs.s a quarrel between thatcher's former aide, friends of mine. outsidehousehold names of that small circle, but it was the well-informed debate. what is more interesting, even in the outcome is the fact that

fully a quarter century after she left office, margaret thatcher is one of only two coastal prime minister [indiscernible] whose role remain contested and important to a large number of british people because whatever other criticisms may be leveled and may be believed, both leaders aren't recognized aiversally to have had visceral patriotism that made them love their country and fight harder for it the interest. beforer prime minister's or since inspired quite that same belief, and that is why people ask what would maggie do? i will return to that question in a few minutes, but to do so, i must first described the thatcher legacy of what is called thatcherism. if you want to understand the basic emotional drive of margaret thatcher, it is to be found in some words that she

addressed to a television interviewer toward the close of the 1979 election campaign. with the election campaign almost over, she felt able for a moment to let down her guard, and she exclaimed "i cannot bear fruit in decline. i just cannot bear it." that outburst was completely sincere and prophetic. was designed to halt and reverse the decline of britain. margaret thatcher was a practical politician rather than a philosopher, and her legacy was the record and result of practical responses facing britain today. initially, reversing britain's decline was seen as are an economic term because the most obvious problem were economic ones. her remedies are cautious, flexible and responsive to those problems as they crossed the

government's past. --far as they were routed rooted in ideology, they were drawn from the anglo religion of economics. as was pointed out in a fine study, "the anatomy of thatcherism," it had been brought to first the both parties and was seen as a conservative as much as the classical liberal one. it was also an intellectually normal tradition with most of the problems facing the new government. above all, the most obvious rival sect of economic solutions, central democratic version, seemed to have come to the end of its tether. they were strikes that brought britain to a standstill in what became known as the winter of discontent. had a strongm claim to become a new, economic sense of following the implosion

of postwar consensus economics, but that sure is -- but was never purely economic set of ideas. when britain interest is challenge from other directions, mrs. thatcher drew another relevant traditions, notably on the tradition of tough-minded national interest realism and liberal internationalism to justify what the patriotic purposes were of the day. impulses,thatcherized whether in economics work policy, were not the final determinants of policy. fierce hatred -- a hatred was governed by a practical prudence and two central victories in the whiners strike show that this is so. she did not expect or plan for an argentinian seizure of the fort, but politics of natural

regeneration could hardly refuse such challenge. though she was annoyed by mediation efforts, she let them play out until the end and to calculated risks diplomatically. only after she had digested the best economic and diplomatic and military advice. at several points, she often concession to portal saris -- two buenos aires and populated that greater dangers of weighted [indiscernible] she maneuvered to victory as much as moving boldly. threatened the miners union demands in 1981, when she was informed that britain had coal stocks to resist strikes, but she had once began the build up of coal stocks and other preparations to resist strikes that might come

later. when it did come three years later, she defeated it. the two outright political bit release -- political victories ran counter to the usual british politics of compromising and splitting the difference. together, with prominence and diplomacy and success of economic policy, they established or domestic dominance, entrenched her economic and labor union reforms as a new consensus in british politics and elevated the international profile. in foreign affairs, mrs. thatcher personally played a crucial role in helping other western european governments to resist the proper peace movement, thus getting u.s. stationed in southwestern europe. she brought together reagan [indiscernible] toward ending the cold war peacefully at the various summits in the mid to late 1980's. thatcher was obviously

subordinate partner in the -reagan relationship on military and diplomatic policy. given the relative size to the economies and militaries, it could have been otherwise. theshould also have been union partner in terms of economic influence, too. that she was not. it is mrs. thatcher who will be regarded by history as the more influential and revolutionary economic performer. by should that be so? in the first place, the recovery of the british economy in the 1980's was more in precedence because it started a lower economic point and occurred in the more left-wing country. besides groaning and economy, but he did not match the socialists who had been running britain for the postwar time, and this was harder position to overcome. market to regulate the

and had to overcome resistance alyssa labor. as finally, the reforms had major non-parliamentary challenges from the labor unions. once the miners were defeated, the british economy joined the american one in providing a demonstration effect of what free-market reforms could accomplish in a relatively short time. there was a menstruation affects were not identical -- those administration effects are not identical. privatize asian was britain's. of the two, privatize asian turned out to be more important tionally -- privatiza turned out to be more important globally. it was a ready-made solution. succeeded, ittion was the most unlikely converts

that took note. thatcher, even more than reagan, posed the economic challenge to the soviet union. a comparison between the british economy after a decade of economics and the continuing stagnation of the soviet economy after 70 years of communism was simply too embarrassing to ignore. introduced, it very rapidly destroyed the communist system it was designed to save. the economies of the soviet thereollapsed in 1989, was an extraordinary wasteland produced by state planning, and it was the thatcher model that the new democracy mainly sourced to emulate. thatcher, reagan [indiscernible] were all heroes in post-communist europe, but it was thatcher to whom the new economy ministers, such as czech

, looked tod estonia as the model of how to reform the bankrupt and socialist economy. they say as much. more subtly, the post-communist societies follow the thatcher model more quickly and their economies rose from the dead. it was not only in the post-communist world that margaret thatcher was seen as an inspiration. watch herism have them -- intcherism had a good role asia and africa, the reduction of trade and capital movements, they became the new conventional wisdom's and ministries of finance around the globe. their broad results of globalization has -- became the watchword of world bank's. there are other points of view much more critical of the

thatcher legacy than you have heard for me. they argued that her economic failed. simply it is undoubtedly true that errors were made in the thatcher years. it is hard to imagine any government that does not make some such errors, but they were far outweighed by the economic successes of thatcherism, noticeably a sustained rise in productivity. some successes were evident at the time for richard left britain as the world's fourth-largest economy. it continued through the major administration's right up to the 2008 financial crisis. under the coming chancellor in 1997, after the labor victory, graham was given a treasury briefing and it was concluded on the economy with the words "these are wonderful figures,'to

achieve -- figures," to which are applied? -- to achieve replied "what do you want me to do? send a thank you note?" they were not complete of her record. her defeat of coming as it had traded and they were plainly ,oth important and political even if the improved -- completed nothing to economic improvement. not possible to persuade open-minded people that they are substantial failures or political disasters. and liberalor

democratic party's continued to dislike them but they did not .ropose their appeal was most of the critics believe that it maintained a historical era that her party and the country would see in retrospect the nostalgia and should be left behind by history and britain when it is eventually embraced in the european future. it isthe last few months, split down the middle of whether .he future are truly european it is clear that this question is still an open one, and since her views will and do influence others, the referendum debate on what would maggie do began? it began when charles, now the

lord of the water, -- the lord of bay water, argued that she would say vote yes in the brexit referendum. charles was fading thatcher's closest -- was lady thatcher's closest [indiscernible] there were the only other guest at the dinner party and sir dennis gave [indiscernible] they were six people around that table. devotedned a close and friend to lady thatcher until the day of her death. he was the last friend to see her. so does the opinion of probably harass -- depending of robin harris. he was an advisor to mrs. archer, ahead of the

conservative research department and before that, one who helped with their biography, as i did, and has helped with the state and helped her with her final book. he declares adamantly "i know that margaret at sure would have thoughtbrexit with -- would have fought brexit with all her strength." it was seconded by a former administer in thatcher's cabinet. was succumbed by a more politically substantial one. also, i recall by you. wayne and from the sidelines was charles moore, the distinguished most recent biographer. he did not speculate usually on what margaret thatcher would have done about issues that took

place after her debt, but he concludes that in the end she is firmly but privately embracing brexit by the end of her public life. this is a distinguished list of magnificos. who is right? i customarily take the same position as charles when asked what mrs. thatcher would have done about the iraq war, brexit or anything else. it is impossible to know what someone would have done before their death because for the simple reason that the deceased under no circumstances know what the event takes place. principle is in discriminating color and discriminated establishing color and effect. i what everynces political game, either noxious, tor

mankind. in this case, charleswoo would argue that what david cameron brought back with britain's relationship with europe were a real improvement .n the european union equally, robin harris would respond to these that they are so trivial that they do not only failed to render the european union less of noxious to britain, but they would lead to lady thatcher for her book to this -- for her desire to vote to leave. is given all the facts of the case, and when that happens, we bring all her personal biases to making sets judgments and we risk putting our opinions on the deceased great that said, we need not observe the stricter

standards in such policies in the interest of reaching the common sense verdict. to do that plausibly, we must test the reasons that these well-informed and intelligent people get for holding such opposing views. side harris and his that in herated last book in her last book indication of public speeches and private conversations criticizing the european union. they criticized federal ambitions and the direction of travel. she went further until -- and told a number of people that she wanted to withdraw. charles did not deny this but argued that there were effectively two thatchers who

feared back-and-forth between her rhetoric and irrational decisions. be as harsh asld the european skeptic and "would settle for the best in what she could get in european negotiations." there is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in the picture that charles paints. i was in the room on a few occasions when she did that. she was blowing off steam at the antics of british and european partners. concede and to [indiscernible] he did not also believe that he would not be able to work with a similar deal with her on this occasion to sustain europe on better terms. said, which version is

closer to a dispassionate reality? that suggests three criteria. there were occasions when mrs. thatcher conceded later in that they were cautious, well calculated and reflected in the attended policy. from her last year in office, until she left public life, her speeches on the european union were almost critical and security into domestic policy and on the weakening of national sovereignty. here is an excerpt from a speech she gave to the congress of prague in 1996 -- "the overall european federalist project, which was envisaged by some from the start, but which is only in recent years come out into the open, is in truth a nightmare." from her book -- "that such an

unnecessary and irrational project as building the european superstate was ever embarked on would seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era, and that britain with traditional strengths in global destiny should ever have been part of it will appear to be a political error of historic magnitude." i think it is hard to accept that this consistent line of in more than a decade was the case of blowing off secm that she would discard -- would discard, and secondly, although she did change of mind, she did not six agon europe and go back and forth in policy terms. there is a clear trajectory in her career that takes it from endorser ofusiastic you can membership in the 1975 andrendum through growing

to her latest criticisms. she moved erratically but europeently in the direction and there is no proof of a move in the direction labor. charles is right in saying that she made the groundwork for making the european union more have adult institution for the british union. it is also true that prime [indiscernible] it is hard to imagine her voting for a european order that means that sovereignty rest with the european court of justice [indiscernible] the only way to remedy this is with brexit, all of which inclines me to the robin harris

side of the argument. it seems to be obvious that the woman who said "i cannot stand britain in decline, i cannot just stand it," would be appalled by the campaign -- i am psyched, the basis in the case or the eu that in arguments that britain's fifth-largest economy in the world, thanks to her, is too small and people to exit a german run [indiscernible] i'm already on the brexit side keepe argument, so we must the theme of bias of my own views. let me try to go deeper into thatcherism rather than consider thatcher as a political leader would have said on this. in her important study of thatcherism, it is argued that thatcherism drew more broadly on the distinctive english morality and in philosophically sophisticated but, she always that

he had a morality that going on the classical, distinguish passions,ason and thinking that reason should be busted in a government powerful enough to control the hourly passions of its citizens, and prevent their descent into conflict. the english, however, have developed a different view, not distinct from or opposed to the passion that this integrated with them and a single faculty. vision, the reason -- enableslty unit human being to interpret and respond to experience as they will. an individual is neither a mechanical effect of larger social causes nor a plaything of his or her own ruling passions.

as she writes, i human being is hepossession of its faculty is both potter and clay because he decides what to make whatever happens to have. individuals are rational human beings and what of the opportunities open to them, those voices should be respected. social and political institutions should not be there permanent guardians, imposing order on them against their desires, but enable them to make their choices without bumping into one another, allowing them the maximum freedom in doing so. thatcherism is the recovery of this almost lost social vision. she doesn't believe that mrs. thatcher herself had arrived at the same vision self-consciously

, indeed she knows she has not. thatcher,s that mrs. and part, because she was provincial england at heart, had held fast to the remnants of this traditional morality when it was retreating before the advance of status and socialist ideas in the metropolis. wasthatcher on this view reada -- finger, unable to a note of music but able to hold a tune, hold -- sung sang song from her youth. they see things a as they want silent. a surprisingly slippery 50 of england's vigorous virtues, and latent enterprise. the swift recovery of british industry once it had been given

thatcher like freedom -- freedom sprayed one need not shared this entire analysis in order to see the recovery of those forgotten songs. they are and on the theoretical spirit of individuality, both liberal and conservative, but patriotic and open-minded that once encompassed all english people and across both parties. now, they mark a new division between those who still resonate to this older spirit liberalism europe. you have thought my argument and conflict to be abstract, and i sympathize. consider this. the founders of the european union explicitly justify their new political order as a means for preventing their peoples from following that pattern into conflict.

that is why they have deprived them of democratic institutions that we in this country tend to take for granted. and yet, inevitably given the is thees of history, it european successes to those founding fathers who now aggravate national, flights by their own unruly passions for uniformity in the case of the euro and other institutions. that was of course, mrs. badger's last battle. -- mrs. satcher's last battle. she took time to do so. the practical politician

more she encompasses the european union, the more became.us she it seemed to her to concentrate the centralizing and leveling passions and sensitive both of the sovereignty and aspirations of citizens. it simply did not suit the british. on this issue, she will prove to be either head of her party or behind history. might be adoes occur new phase of english history. from elizabethan england, or to a renewed closeness of the countries of the anglo sphere in the world.

if it remains in your, she will seem to be behind history. thatcherism will look like a glorious last stand i liberal england. event she, in either will have deserved well the people she governed for 11 years. without her, it would not be having any choice in the matter. thank you. [applause] thank you very those beautifully crafted remarks. really insightful. i would like to ask you an opening question. with regard to the impact of see, -- brexit, how do you

britain post brexit shaping the relationship, and could you comment on president obama's intervention where he worn the british people against leaving the you -- the european union. in the british vote for brexit, that will start the process. it will start the change. there will be two years negotiating a new relationship between britain and europe. i think that will be accomplished much more easily, then president obama has argued. market for thest goods and services for the rest of europe. it is not in anyone's interest that there should be a kind of sides willand both

act rationally once the shock is over. suppose the british don't reach an agreement on an entry into the sickle market, that does not mean that trade will stop. most of the world is not a member of the european market. if america traits more with the britain,ies then does exports more to them. i think there will be a. of rational reconsideration of deal that both sides can get. i think it will be a better outcome for both. when of the disadvantages the british has had in europe is they were always objecting to will most of what the other european countries wanted to do. they can be reasonable from the british stand point. we are much more critical of

regulation, want a much rear economy than the rest of europe. i think the best way to deal with those question is through weisdictional competition, see which works out best when those countries compete. i think we will be moving to the euen -- if we leave through brexit. that will promise to be massive change. in the long run, i think the british will tend to look first at the countries now known as the anglosphere. one of those countries will be america. some of the early arrangements will be with canada, australia and new zealand. he has developed some right to which ared plans

available online, and i recommend them to all of you. i'd believe that without having james technical knowledge here, i believe there will be and relatively easy development of close relationships, which were severed by the british to send -- decision to enter the european -- in the 60's and 1970's. the special relationship will play its part, but it will be the only relationship. there will be a slight nervousness at the beginning and the ministers in the cabinet, and seeming to rush to be america's best friend, because at the moment, the special relationship in england is the -- suffering a decline. i think we need to work on that. they will be looking at other

members of the anglosphere family. then they will feel there a strong position to approach the u.s. with some suggestions are in >> i'd like to invite questions from europeans. identify yourself and any institutional affiliation you may have when you ask a question. national strategic studies association. you make the point that leaving the eu is not the same as leaving europe. outcomeyou feel the of the and what you make the view that it should remain in the eu? >> the tragic death of joe c has brought all of the

discussionox, to a halt -- halt. maybe it will have some effects, , producing axample -- imental vote, and maybe haven't got the latest news -- but the murderer seems to have a connection with the fanatical group. if that is a case, it will be a disadvantage for the brexit side. these things happen. i cannot predict the outcome. i would have said last week that brexit seems likely to win, because the momentum is towards it, and because the campaigns has been a failure. they have lost the battle in that sense. a result,happen as whether it is just or now, theher it remains or goes,

european debate has been transformed in british politics. we now know that people who want to leave the european union are half of the population. 52%, they48%, or won't fall below 40%. it won't go above 60%. you cannot have half of the publication -- population believing something with the rest of the structure, the major parties, the bbc, the media acting as if they are a small handful of cranks. the european debate has been transformed in britain, and that is a permanent change. it will have to be reflected in the conservative party. one interesting point about this.

it is being conducted entirely within the conservative party. the other parties just haven't got it. --y haven't counted because people thought they were uniformly committed to remaining within. but that's not quite true. it contains a lot of people who want to leave here they are discovering this. some of these people moved to brexit. u.k. itself is a part of the british structure. inbritain decides to remain it will be a watchdog to make sure that any other government will continue to keep the promises it made to the british people in this campaign. the british politics have been altered permanently by this the result.hatever it will be altered in a way that i think is better. people are british

skeptics, and to treat them as people who are not worth listening to. i know tony abbott as you probably do. i think highly of him. i think he is wrong on this. it's not surprising. establishment,s he would have had to spend a lot more time thinking about it and looking into it before he felt he could come out with anything on the other side. , hisnk his main motives main concern is the unity and stability at a time when it is threatened by putin. i understand that. it is a very serious matter and we have to respect that. competitive enterprise

institute. you did not discuss the future of the united kingdom if we have brexit. can you comment on scotland and how that might fit in? u.s. news & world report. i am just curious about your thoughts on whether or not europe is willing to let britain go, regardless of the voting of the referendum. here in the u.s. we have operated from the idea that we are sovereign political , anrests tease -- entities idea that was put to bed in 1865. will europe actually let britain go? >> first of all, mice to see you again.

we have to pile hypotheticals on hypotheticals. supposing brexit passes, we don't know if it would pass in scotland. willbody says the scouts vote against it, by how much. bill to have a second referendum, it will have to be agreed by the british government who probably wouldn't agree because of the referendum two years ago. and finally, we don't know that it would get through the scottish parliament. they no longer have a majority there. most of the other parties would be opposed to leaving. it is a possibility. it may happen. independenceottish

referendum, i did not want scotland to leave the union and it turns out they didn't. but they have a right to go. -- s icthey would not the price of oil in the , high price of oil was the economic case for independence. and with the spaniards , by letting that s in.' finally, after all, if the scots

want to go, we will let them go. they may come back. question?ould your it is possible to imagine the circumstances 200 years, in super statepean wouldn't allow one of its members to disappear. i think we are talking about a different world. we don't know what it will be like for the moment. the great desire in europe to keep people in. the way it is done is not with guns, but with large checks with the northern your appearance -- northern europeans right in the southern europeans cash. i think that will be true until .ermany runs out of money then i think it will be interesting. i don't think there will be a battle. center for individual rights,

i have a question about the effect of brexit on the relationship between the european union and russia. both that western europe tends to be more accommodating with russia and britain. and also, the populist parties, the pro-exit parties of the european union tends to be accommodation list unless they are on the border. all this tendency to a comment by germany, won't those eitheries get greater -- for the breakup of the union or for more accommodation -- my own view is european

defense policy, the attempt to create a separate european defense -- european army for example. it either diverts resources or duplicates what major already does. it is a set delete -- subtly backed thing. not gone alonge with that. they should have insisted the european defense treaty, risk protects the whole of europe that has done so since 1949 is nato. except no substitutes. those substitutes are a distraction, and the resources at a time when the europeans are not spending enough money on defense of any kind.

that's what we should be saying to them. instead of creating these fancy --ss uniforms, but we needs need is for europe to spend more on defense. i think that may happen as a result of the rising of putin and russia. i think britain's leading a european defense structure would be a plus, a good thing. we should not fear it. that i think this stuff about the accommodation of central europe is overdone. it is a reaction to the fact that in 2009, president obama told the central europeans -- he withdrew the deal over the missile defense treaty, he took the pole on the sovereign .nvasion of poland of 1939 they have quite reasonably begun to fear if we have an aggressive

rush on our border or next-door to the border, we have to find of not irritating them. is, more than anything else, is the response. you will notice that the central european countries have continued to play their part in -- a don't upholding like it because it harms the economy's. maintainedd kept and the sanctions on russia. i think this is overstated. today immigration and sovereignty are motivated the rights in the u.k., and what you morality, youlish

associate that with economic and foreign-policy. [indiscernible] the immigration policy should always be in all countries should be determined by the capacity of the country. both in economic terms and in cultural terms. what you want is immigration to run as a level, that means those people don't feel -- that new arrivals don't feel a small imitation enclave of their own country without joining america

or britain. in general, that has been true and successful. it has been successful until sometime in the 80's. sense that they want to maintain a separate kind of institution, nationality within america or britain, that has led to serious problems. problems of national cohesion and social order and terrorism. we have to bear those things in mind in a practical way. mrs. thatcher did control immigration. she did not stop it, continued it at a moderate level. -- rise ofreally level which it created attention in the society.

people -- groups assimilated fairly well. not all groups, as we know. muslims are always harder to assimilate. they have an impervious, separatists culture. and they assimilate and they get .roductive members of society the problem in britain is that they encourage this in an interesting way. we no longer teach our own children to be proud of being british. it is something which has disappeared. thatcher certainly wanted them to do that. at one point in the war, churchill was asked by one of are we going what to teach the children in the new schools we're planning? said, tell them how will took quebec.

he is onto something. we need to work out the application of churchill's remarks. interesting why countries like india for example, do, stressed commitment to the country. they have the same kind of attitude as americans do, they pledged allegiance to the flag and the end of thing. it is hard to imagine that happening in britain today. but if britain will survive, they will have to think about it again. i am curious about your views is ainted out, immigration successful arm and -- argument that the arms campaign has used against the state campaign. i remember reading a canadian lady thatcher's governance of the united

kingdom, about his proposal of a monetary union within the canadahere between u.s., -- between canada, u.k., australia and new zealand. the question is? >> [indiscernible] i am not an economist. euro makes me think there should be serious test before we have a monetary union. that to theleave monetary experts. i can see where something is failing, like the euro. i don't necessarily want to lay the round were clear.

as regards to immigration in the debate. way, in brexit has been a battle between the people who say we have to remain in europe to be prosperous. i personally think that is false , and so do a lot of economists. not in thes majority, but when experts differ, it's for the rest of us to make the best choice that we can. that is what they are saying. look, i amide says happy to remain in the free trade area, but, we don't want to find ourselves living in a country in which we don't govern ourselves. britain has been self governing democracy, and we don't see any reason why we should give that up. the problem with the sovereignty argument is that it is a in abstract argument.

unless you have an example of how the loss of sovereignty is damaging to you. that thease, the fact european union, you are not able to control the entry of european citizens into your country at all. laborave free movement of , and free movement of persons. you have lost control of immigration. ,mmigration has been very high all from the eu and other parts of the world. the majority of the citizens are very worried about it. during the campaign, new figures came out suggesting that the government didn't know how many people were coming into the country, and how many people are claiming tax relief and so forth. been angration has important part of the brexit debate. a very strong illustration of the loss of sovereignty, and what it can mean in practical