the decision made at the beginning of the 20th century by then first lord of the admiralty winston churchill to convert british ships from coal toto oil fuel change world histy by making access to the middle east oil reserves and national security imperative for all developed nations. more recently on 9/11, 2001 when nearly 3000 americans lost their lives in the terrori a

the decision made at the beginning of the 20th century by then first lord of the admiralty winston churchill to convert british ships from coal toto oil fuel change world histy by making access to the middle east oil reserves and national security imperative for all developed nations. more recently on 9/11, 2001 when nearly 3000 americans lost their lives in the terrorist attack directed from afghanistan, on new york's world trade center and the pentagon, we learned a hard lesson, thatn though separated by an ocean, what happens in the region does not stay in the region. finally, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the nuclear aspirations of iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, to attain them, the relative stability and security of the middle east has a direct connection to our national security as was that of our allies like israel. with the administration recent announcement that use will begin withdrawing troops from syria, this debate and these votes could not be more timely. while i'm comforted by the national security advisers john brings region statem

minister in 1916, in which she tells him that he needs to reemploy churchill and not let him leave the admiralty. although it got him nowhere and got her nowhere and rather sniffy about the letter, actually, when you read it today, you would be so proud as a man to have a wife who could write a letter loo that. actually, i've got a wife who could write a letter like that, in fact. >> i strongly suspect we have a very large number of questions from the audience, and so i think we will turn to that now. if you do have a question, please raise your hand. anyone? we've got one over there. we've got a mona will come to you -- >> lady in red -- >> lady in red back there. there we are. >> hello. thank you very much. voice of america eurasian service. i have a very specific question. so, you know, the question of the caw cay saws and the british withdrawal was debated between lord hair soften and churchill. what. >> yes, in september and october 1922 that brought down the lloyd george government. and it was at the heart of what the british empire was going to be about. a because the governments, lloyd g

minister in 1915 in which she told him that he needs to reemploy churchill and not let him leave the admiralty. .. >> they wanted to make sure they stuck to the treaty. stuck to the treaty. it. we would have gone to war are with turkey which no one wanted to do. others such as andrew really brought down the government in order to prevent this from happening. we will be a continuing empiral power. or were we going to stand back and effectively accept that we would be a declining power. the meeting on the 19th of october made it clear it would be the later. >> juniogentleman in the bow ti. >> hi, thank you for coming, we thank you for coming. in christopher andrews book defend the realm is the history of m.l. five. churchill, the impression i had was that churchill was fighting a war in the runup to him becoming prime minister. he was concerned with the rise of fascism. he was also concerned about the rise of communism at the same time. in some policy circles it was an either or. i just wondered if your book speaks to him trying to address that and get people to take it seriously. >> absolutely,

state so it's not the old common law system were judge it's we don't develop common- law crimes in admiralty and pockets like that. there is a trend in government that is developed a democracy and we have a government of laws it's the job of the legislature to promulgate with the loss will be. by stressing the text in the structure and history of the statute in that order and looking at specific legal traditions to resolve ambiguities, he tried to move away from judge's own policy preferences toward a more determinate, lexical priority of meetings, a way that you start an argument and then move on to displease more meaning of the individual board of a provision in the context of the remainder of the law as a whole. not a broader search of legislative intent, the legislative history. these are things he was associated with from the beginning on his time in the court. initially on the court he was a relatively strong supporter of chevron deference and giving deference to the administrative state and so not fixating so much on the statute but even so he was very particular about taking seriousl

had not moved out of the admiralty. and chamberlin supported churchill, and i think that was outrageous, i'm afraid british and american filmmakers have very little respect for history. ... >> you can criticize. i think cornelius rand didn't want to criticize the british too much in it. he also, you must remember, in fact, he was actually dying of cancer when he wrote that book, and i don't think that sort of necessarily helped in many ways. he had a brilliant research team, and i will admit freely that i sort of profited because there was much of the stuff that was never used sitting there in this extraordinary archive in athens, ohio. and there are some wonderful bits in the film, i found in the archive a letterer from major julian cook who was played by robert redford. i was surprised to find this letter from later colonel cook complaining about being played by robert redford, i would thought he would have been flattered -- [laughter] it was, i think, very good, but it did not show enough in any way about the sufferi

old common law system where we don't develop common- law crimes in the system anymore outside of admiralty in a few pockets like that. there is a trend in government that has developed and democracy and the other government of laws not met and it is the job of the legislature to promulgate what the loss will be. by stressing the text and the structure and the history of the statute in that order, and looking at specific legal traditions to resolve ambiguities, he tried to move away from judges own policy preferences toward a more determinant order of lexical priority of meanings and the way you start an argument and move on to squeeze more meaning out of the individual word of the provision and in the context of the structure of the statute and in the context of the remainder of the law as a whole and not a broader search for legislative intent. i say that these are things he has associated with from the beginning of his time on the court. initially on the court he was a relatively strong supporter of chevron deference and giving deference to the administrative state so not fixating so muc

the decision made at the beginning of the 20th century by then-first lord of the admiralty winston churchill to convert british ships from coal to oil for fuel changed world history by making access to the middle east oil reserves a national security imperative for all developed nations. more recently on 9/11/2001, when nearly 3,000 americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack directed from afghanistan on new york's world trade center and the pentagon, we learned a hard lesson -- that those separated by an ocean, what happens in the region does not stay in the region. finally with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the nuclear aspirations of iran, the number-one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, to attain them, the relative stability and security of the middle east has a direct connection to our national security as well as that of our allies like israel. with the administration's announcement that the u.s. will begin withdrawing troops from syria, this debate and these votes could not be more timely. while i'm comforted by the national security advisor, john brennan's recen