as close as you can come to analogizing the geneva convention, under the geneva convention, a real prisoners of war can be held for the duration of the conflict. there were not alternatives. many people in the administration, for years, thought of every alternative they could. that is why guantanamo bay was put there, and that is why it is still there. honestly, in a the obama administration, that is why it is still there, and i would bet, by the end of the obama administration, will still not be closed. the war on terrorism does not fit the conventions of a regular war in some respects. activity should not be subsumed under the criminal law paradigm. these are not bank robbers on steroids. they are people who are waging war on us, our allies, and our way of life, and they need to be treated in that context. i think it is fairly remarkable, the shift in american public opinion that we have seen. at the end of the bush administration, the media and political elites had beaten the administration into submission to close at guantanamo bay. it was one of the first acts president barack obama und

the fundamental problem is the geneva conventions do not address the problem. >> that's why there's a lot of thinking going on. [laughter] >> mr. brown? >> i expect the generic point on lord lee's question and gibbs has something hat committee exist after the election will have to come back to. that's the adequacy of the league structures to address the much-changed environment and in terms of security that we face in the 21st century. i mean, i'm not choosing anybody of come mr. -- complacency is the comfort with that, sometimes given the light to by the facts on the green, the fact that we have to report back to the significant number of pirates in somalia, not necessarily by us, but by other people. and not taken to kenya. i'm not asking for that generic point. i'm fascinated by the document that was published today on the issue of maritime security and the progress that has been made. the eu operation and the nato contribution, and what the americans do, you know, in aggregate will provide the ships to do -- first of all on sea battle. but there are still serious problems. and dur

minister who shared a gorbachev's openness for perestroika and new thinking, he had gone to the conference in geneva and in a speech he announced the soviet union would hands force in a display of openness agree to mandatory challenge inspections without right of refusal for any chemical weapons facility and he did this at the time that chemical weapons convention was being negotiated. it was hailed as definitely in advance and verification and something the soviet union certainly hadn't put permitted before but after the speech people in moscow began to get word and especially the people in the biological weapons program because they realized that the announcement had just opened the door for possible inspections of their own facilities. they certainly could not bar the door to the inspectors and say no, don't come in here, that's biological weapons, whoops, we are supposed to have biological weapons. by 1989 in july 27th, all the top leaders of the biological weapons convention gathered in office of zaid cough, a bureau member in charge of the military complex. at this meeting was the head of the

>> madam secretary, given your just-completed experience with the russians in geneva, which you may still be recovering from. >> i am fully recovered. >> what is your sense of their inclination to engage in broader, deeper nuclear negotiations in the near term, or even in the distant future? >> i think most of us -- both of us have to get our teams back, get them some rest. there was a heavy investment on both sides from the interagency team. we had approximately 50 people in geneva for many months, and the russians led by their ambassador antonov, had the same kind of hitter agency team away from home, away from family. and these of the key experts in our case certainly that have the most experience, either in the previous start but now have the pedigree of the new start agreement. so we have a ratification process. that is very important 3 we need to have both teams in the united states and russia work on that. but i will say that this administration took advantage of the reset in two ways. first was -- first was to move forward on the negotiants for the new start agreement but also to

which you know as close as you can come to analogizing to the geneva convention is under the geneva conventioneld for the duration of the conflict that it was because there weren't alternatives. there were good alternatives, and many people in the administration, for years, thought of every alternative they could. and that's why gitmo was put there and that's what it's still there. and honestly, in the obama administration that's what it's still there. i would be willing to bet by the end of the obama administration, still hasn't been close because they will be able to find any alternatives either. the war on terrorism doesn't fit the conventional law of war in some respect. but neither is it activity that should be consumed under the criminal law a paradigm. these are not, these terrorists are not simply bank robbers on steroids. they are people are waging war against us and our allies and our way of life, and they need to be treated in that context. i think it's really fairly remarkable, the shift in american public opinion that we have seen that at the end of the bush administration, the me

the bush administration, no you cannot make up new military commission procedures that violate the geneva conventions to try the guantanamo detainees. or in another case he lead the court to a 5-4 ruling that said the bush administration had to against its will look at greenhouse gases, that maybe causing climate change. so he was able through the force of his gentle, courtly, civil expertly professional demeanor on the court to sometimes round up five to four liberal victories through his seniority. so we may see a new vote that comes on to replace a liberal vote on the court. but the junior most justice won't have the senior leadership power that justice stevens will leave behind. >> woodruff: john mcginness explain to us the appointee of a republican president gerald ford who did become the liberal standard-bearer on the court, still calling himself a republican. >> two things happened. one i think it is fair to say that the republican party of justice stevens day has changed. i think it's become more interested in social issues than the republican party of justice stevens day. but it'

the distant future? >> both of us have to get our teams back and get them some rest. there was a heavy investment on both sides. we had approximately 50 people in geneva for many months. the russians, led by their ambassador, had the same kind of interagency team. these are the experts, in our case, that have the most experience in the previous start, and now have the pedigree of the new start agreement. we have a ratification process. that is very important. we need to have those teams in the united states and russia working on that. this administration took advantage of the reset to move forward on the negotiations for the new start agreement, but also to improve the relationship. as i said the last time we talked, as a small child, i was an investment banker. the test is never the negotiation. it is whether someone is willing to do a new negotiation with you after they survived the existing negotiation. i am very impressed by the russian willingness, in a post ratification time, talk about new reductions. we have a large agenda. there many different areas where we are engaging. we're hopeful that once we get through the ratification process, we can

non-traditional criminal charges that will be central to the commission's success and the role of the geneva convention sorting out these and dozens of other issues rate by commissions will take years and might render them in a factual. such foundational uncertainty makes commissions a less than ideal forum for trying in this case khalid sheikh mohammed. so they seem to have good support from the bush administration in your view and it's one that i share from my time in the prosecution that that experiential base is very important. i would note that john bollinger who was a top legal adviser to the national security council and the state department under president george w. bush said publicly their rush to the military commissions is based on premises that are not true and kenneth winston we've had before the committee regularly with assistant attorney general for national security under the bush at the fenestration has said that the nine years of access to one-fifth in the favor of the ever can be counterproductive. i see the benefit having both of the systems available. that is the obama a

the future, this war's not going to end anytime soon. we're apprehending people today, and we still yet have a real international accord as to how these detainees should be handled. should we have another genevaonvention to deal with? i think we're looking forward to some broader relations rather -- recommendationings rather than trying to deal with this internal ri within the country. >> i agree with you. i don't think that can be done entirely, it must be done in as transparent a way as we can. there is a symbolic significance to this review process in the same way there is a symbolic significance to the continued existence of guantanamo. we have to deal with this not only on a substancive level, but also on a symbolic level. and it would seem to me, again, taking into account a variety of things, we want to make sure this review process, the existence is something that is widely known. >> when should we expect some specifics as to how these procedures are being handled? i've heard you say frequently, as soon as possible, but it's getting late. >> yeah. i mean, it is, it is a priority. i mean, i think, you know, what has certainly -- we've now gotten to the point where we've made the determ

iran has all but rejected the geneva deal of october 1, 2009, that would have seen iran's low enriched uranium, so-called l.e.u., shipped out of the country and then the eventual return of that uranium enriched to 20%, well below weapons grade. and that could be, of course, used forte ran's medical research reactor. but iran would have agreed to this very good deal offered repeatedly by the international community if it wanted a nuclear program for medical and other peaceful purposes. if the united states is committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise, obligations must be kept and treaties must be enforced -- must be enforced so that the iranian regime knows that we mean business. the regime must face penalties for violating its commitment to the united nations as well as the iaea. france, the united kingdom, the united states, china, russia and germany have made serious attempts to engage with iran through the so-called p-5 plus one process. these efforts have been repeatedly rebuffed and in some cases even scorned by the iranian regime in tehran. iran's

the meanings and geneva october october 1 looks to be a promising start, but that in fact the iranians in fact have not pursued that. it looks as though the iranians are pursuing belligerents, not call operation at this point. but i think one thing to emphasize is that simply because the iranians have not responded to a u.s. offer for greater engagement doesn't mean we have simply stopped and waited. .. when he came into office and did in fact offer to engage syria as well. i traveled to damascus a couple times, something i never thought i would do certainly in 2006. senator mitchell has traveled a couple times. we had a syrian visit here in washington. i will just say the start of discussions that we are having with the syrians. what's different is we are now talking not just about the syrians, we are talking to the syrians about all the issues that we've always talked about the syrians on. so these new lines of communication do not mean by any means that we are somehow putting aside our concerns about syrian policy or we are somehow looking suddenly sellout our lebanese partners. the

non-traditional criminal charges that will be central to the commission's success and the role of the genevaon sorting out these and dozens of other issues rate by commissions will take years and might render them in a factual. such foundational uncertainty makes commissions a less than ideal forum for trying in this case khalid sheikh mohammed. so they seem to have good support from the bush administration in your view and it's one that i share from my time in the prosecution that that experiential base is very important. i would note that john bollinger who was a top legal adviser to the national security council and the state department under president george w. bush said publicly their rush to the military commissions is based on premises that are not true and kenneth winston we've had before the committee regularly with assistant attorney general for national security under the bush at the fenestration has said that the nine years of access to one-fifth in the favor of the ever can be counterproductive. i see the benefit having both of the systems available. that is the obama administra

heralded for its justness and established a human rights benchmark that would later be built upon in the geneva convention. this june 11 will mark the 94th annual king kamehameha day in hawaii. his statue is part of the national statutory hall collection. i urge all members to go down and see it. it now sits in the capitol visitors center. so it's visible to all millions of americans that come here to visit the capitol. i thank the sponsor of this resolution, congressman hirono, and i thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this great resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from hawaii and sponsor of this resolution, ms. hirono. the speaker pro tempore: the hawaii is recognized for four minutes. miss her robeo: i rise today in support of house resolution concurrent resolution 243 which would authorize the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitor ce

non-traditional criminal charges that will be central to the commission's success and the role of the genevaorting out these and dozens of other issues rate by commissions will take years and might render them in a factual. such foundational uncertainty makes commissions a less than ideal forum for trying in this case khalid sheikh mohammed. so they seem to have good support from the bush administration in your view and it's one that i share from my time in the prosecution that that experiential base is very important. i would note that john bollinger who was a top legal adviser to the national security council and the state department under president george w. bush said publicly their rush to the military commissions is based on premises that are not true and kenneth winston we've had before the committee regularly with assistant attorney general for national security under the bush at the fenestration has said that the nine years of access to one-fifth in the favor of the ever can be counterproductive. i see the benefit having both of the systems available. that is the obama administration

predator strike goes are like and the leaders of the organization got an argument city and returned to the geneva convention of course and the other sit know that's not going to be useful we should turn to the star trek prime directive for guidance. [laughter] i love that but i can't call captain kirk as an expert witness in the real court of law. this coastal also questions of who can use these technologies which is something that shane touched on as well which is the military is using them but so is the department of homeland security. so are the local departments, miami-dade commesso or the border militias, these vigilante groups. so have a group of fiefs. the point here is that we have questions before word of who can use this technology remember interviewing a district court judge and they said the question of who gets to use robotics and how is going to be a supreme court case because it touches on constitutional level questions of privacy and probable cause. in the last issue that i would raise that is a ripple affect out of this as will america go the way of commodore computers. that is i

the two leaders in organizations i was meet with got an apartment at one of instead we turn to the geneva conventions of course pick the other one said no, no, no. that's not going to be useful but we should turn to the directive for guidance. [laughter] >> i love trek, but i can't call captain kirk as an expert witness in a real court of law. this goes to also question of who can use these technologies which is something shane touched on as well, which is the militaries using them, but so is the apartment and homeland security. so our local police department, miami-dade. so are the board of militias, these vigilante groups. . . soldiers to speak that has made in china written on the back. and their software is increasingly being written by someone sitting in india. so in in an think of others to simmered would make out of this. in all these questions about this ripple effects will tend to financers. we can debate back and forth we have issues at five minutes caboose at an exponential pace we've got to figure to keep it because the distance between technology and are human institutions is

the opportunity for dialogue. american and iranian diplomats let -- met in geneva in october and for the international atomic agencysion, with strong support from the united states, france, and russia, the iaea put through a creative effort to produce nuclear fuel using iran's enriched uranium. it was an offer with humanitarian benefits which would ensure that iran would meet its needs for medical isotopes. it gave around the opportunity to show that its nuclear program was in the for peaceful purposes as it claims. it would build confidence on both sides and the possibility of a further agreement. in addition, the united states went to great lengths to demonstrate our commitment and to establish assurances for iran. sadly, to date, we have seen no indication that around's leaders want to resolve these issues constructively after initially accepting the offer, they rejected the tehran research reactor proposal. they have refused to discuss their nuclear program since what they p-5 +1. the resolution of a covert enrichment site further suspicion about iran's intentions. they recently increased the rich and levels of

the kids. it is almost like world war ii, geneva convention told allied forces you can't bomb the churches and cathedrals that have been around for hundreds of years. but then, the allied forces are outside the cathedral and the germans are shooting through the windows but you can't shoot back because you can't destroy the cathedral. that is the kind of tactics that i see that that presents. >> it is touched on in the book in pretty great detail. can you talk about the hostility that you have experienced again in the grandstands but also you talk about the hostility that a driver like chris woods, a black driver who is part of the program and carolina, talk about the hostility. >> there is a lot, especially specially when you show up for the first season, a black driver or a black team is looked at as a threat, that you are coming into the sport and this is the only sport that is left for white people and now we are going to lose this. so what happens is the crash damage, which gets in the sponsorship budgets, increases about 30% or 50% for a black driver because they are trying to go out of t

the treaty at this point? >> i very much support it. both senator kyl and i in november went to geneva. met with the american negotiation team headed by rose gutmuller and with the united nations team we head an opportunity to discus various aspects such as verification, different kinds of weapons systems. so since then i've certainly been following it. the... it's a 17-page treaty, so it isn't too long. read it this morning. i think it's a step forward. i think people have to remember that the start treaty that was in effect went out of effect in december. there is no treaty today. there are no restrictions today. there is no verification today. and absent a treaty, there will be nothing. essentially what this treaty does is seek to reduce warheads by 30% over moscow treaty levels and launch vehicles by 50% over start levels. it is a step forward. in terms of arms control, it certainly is not the sun, the moon, and the stars. but what it aims to do is begin a level of trust and confidence building between two powerful nations. nations which have never been fighting enemies but which, i

geneva. it goes at that level. we have the largest summit in the world and you leave that iran and pakistan? that is observed tha-- that is p cert. -- that is absurd. >> it was a great public relations mo. it had serious moves in it. as a result of this meeting and these first steps, the united states has outlined and apparently has at least a chance of getting past very stiff sanctions against iranians. >> we heard the president say a minute ago about the consequence is that the american people will be safe and the world will be more secure. >> president obama levitate above the group. he moved around the room 10 feet above everybody. somebody would say he was just showing off. he gets credit for nothing in some quarters this was an important first step for it is the world safer? no, but the world is more cognizant of the problem we're facing. that is an important first step spread he got a consensus on that issue. there has to be a follow-up. >> on tuesday, the russians closed down a side during reactor that had been produci

. >> first of all, as you know, the human rights council is in geneva. nited states took the decision last year to seek a seat on the the human rights council after many years of not choosing to do so. we ran and won overwhelmingly, because we took the view that despite the council's many and manifest plots, that it was a body whose mission we are -- manifest flaws, that it was a body whose mission we are committed to. we thought that we would serve as our interests and the interest of human rights in a universal application by working constructively from within the body, however flawed, rather than standing on the outside and complaining about its behavior. we think that was a good decision and the right decision. it gives us an opportunity to engage in the process that we think is important. it gives us an opportunity to play an important role in the review of the human rights council's work, which will come up before the general assembly in new york next year. faugh while there are -- while there are a number of state, not the majority, but a number of

the iron curtain. and when he signed on to a very extensive change agreement in geneva, november 85, we said there may be a possibility. let's keep pushing. actually, i felt my own thinking turned a corner finally in may of 1988. when i read the thesis for the party that was coming up that had no marxism in them. it was purely a design for democratizing the soviet union, and i told reagan at that point, he was on his way to moscow. i read the thesis and i said if he means this and he must because he put it out officially for the communist party this country will never be the same and so at that point i realized and then when he continued with elections and continued these reforms it became clearer and clearer that he was something different and he was serious. but, you know, the change was gradual and i think that many of us who knew the soviet union were at first certainly a bit skeptical. how far could he go? with a stop him before he got to a certain point? >> host: one of the most important and controversial points of your book is that the united states did not win the cold war. that actually gorba

pushes is will he expand exchanges and begin to bring down the iron curtain and when he signed on to a very extensive exchange agreement in geneva, november 85, we said there may be a possibility. let's keep pushing. actually, i felt that my elma sinking turned a corner finally in may of 1988 when i read the thesis for a conference coming up, which had no element of marxism in them. it was purely a design for democratizing the soviet union. and i told greg at that point -- he was on his way to moscow. i read these thesis and i said if he means this -- and he must because he spit out officially for the communist party -- this country will never be the same. and so, at that point i realized -- then when he continued with elections and continued these reforms it became clear that he was something different, that he was serious but, you know, the change was gradual and i think that many of us who knew the soviet union were at first certainly skeptical how far could he go? would they stop him before he got to a certain point. >> host: mr. investor one of those important and controversial points in your book is the united states did n

the. i don't think you would matter for administration to administration. of course, law constrains us, right, and it genevaconvention, but those only constraint people. laws do. only as long as they are in force. as long as they're on the books. what i think constraint is more than a thing else is our values. our values as an army, our professional military ethic, our ethos. so what defines us as soldiers in our behavior are mainly our expectations of each other. and i think that the army has really taken a hard look at how to make sure that we use, you know, applied ethics education but in units where discipline and expectations of each other in terms of our code and professional conduct. i don't see that changing. i think our army is getting stronger every day in that connection. as we prepare soldiers for the ethical, moral, psychological demands of the very complex environment in afghanistan, in iraq by setting the culture, studying the history, developing empathy for the population, really understanding that the murders ask of this enemy cannot be justification for less constraint on the use of firepo

the legitimate iranian needs but also addresses core international concerns, we can have that discussion. unfortunately, iran has not come forward with any kind of follow- up to what was discussed in geneva. >> the israeli prime minister netanyahu discussed this. can you comment on that? >> our goal is to have a strong, meaningful, credible conversation. >> are you aware that a senior iranian official has said that the country is taking steps to try to decrease its imports in order to protect itself or to mitigate the effects of any sanctions on its gas imports? >> i am not aware of that. it indicates their disregard for the welfare of its people. if it reduces gas imports, it will only increase the hardship on the iranian people. iran has a clear course in front of it. it can answer we have on the nuclear program and end its isolation and allow for the kind of relationship and benefits of that relationship that come with countries that are integrated into the global trading system the fact that date -- system. they are not really interested in the welfare of their people. . . there are trying to spare hardship on the iranian people. in terms of legislation that might move forward, provi

negotiators on the ground in geneva trying to hammer out these final details. it gives you an idea of the scope, the magnitude of all the detail. to pick up on what michael was saying, he is absolutely right. there was a lot of direct involvement by the u.s. and russia presidents. there was about 15 all together, ten phone calls, five one-on-one meetings over the last year and few months between these two leaders, trying to hammer out these details. just eight few weeks ago, we are told by the u.s. side. the russian side was suggesting maybe we should pull back a little bit. there were some things we still quite hammer out. the obama administration kept pressing saying, let's give it another shot. we are going to have to see all the details. you'll remember from the reagan administration, trust but verify. both sides, they will make sure as they lay out these details. a lot of people will be looking closely at what is in this treaty. we have not seen all of the language. >> sure. there is definitely going to be a lot of scrutiny on the agreement, not so much on

i mean, the particular treaty in question here, the vienna convention on diplomatic relations, was hammered out over a series of years in genevathe little known organ called the international law commission, where we've always been represented recently, and it lets people who are technical lawyers, who can worry about kind of a slip and slide or cherry bombs, if i may explain that badly, of course, they can look at the text and really try to nail doufpble you also get negotiating in history, which would help the judge not familiar with diplomacy who understand what was intend. so in general, though i take your point, a treaty can lock you you in in ways you're not happy about. a treaty has the advantage of clarity. i'll tell up, if did you to a judge in a local court in any country, make it another country and you've been arrested by the village for gambling and you're a diplomat, you would really be happy to have a text in your hand, because otherwise there's a thing called customary law which he's never heard of and you're going to have to wait in the slammer for about a week. but it's very handy. they google the calculation

>> the conference on disarmament in geneva last may agreed in a very historic way for a program to beginrial cut off tree. there is one country therethat is blocking the work on disarmament. we are working hard to convince the country that this is just the beginning of negotiations and that they should go with what the majority has said it is the consensus and begin negotiations and not stand in the way of that. so far our efforts have been unsuccessful. once the fnc tt begins the negotiations, that will eventually have to be ratified by the senate. >> these things are not necessarily interdependent. they can stand on their own. >> yes. >> i have been very much concerned about tactical nuclear weapons and whether not, as we dealt with the large systems, we have dealt enough attention to the smaller systems that could be dangerous if the terrorists got their hands upon them. what do these agreements do for that? >> what we have said is that, after ratification and entry into the star tree, the administration would like to engage with russian bilateral discussions that are aimed at address

the love we give our fragile craft. that was adlai stevenson speaking in geneva a week before he died 45 years ago. is our country doing what it can to avoid the desperate future we see in "avatar?" are we dealing with resource exhaustion? are we people the other people of the world can look to for earthly salvation? second, immigration. how are we doing with the desperate people who want to come here and work here? are we dealing with them in a just and fair manner using honest rule of law or exploiting the recent most desperate arrivals to gain the cheapest possible source of labor? one, lead the world in dealing with the real prospect of climate change and get serious about renewable energy. two, show how a just and clean government deals with immigration, begin honest documentation, begin fair, open and transparent treatment of people who come here to work and stop the scandal of under the table employment practices and let's call it what it is, the exploitation of the desperate. that's "hardball" for now. "countdown" with keith olbermann starts right now. >>> which of these stories will you be

the first time. she spent a great deal of time in geneva, working with the negotiations that began last week. we thought we would start this with the undersecretary for arms control. we have more on how it got to this place and where we will go from here. >> good afternoon. this is my first time up here. it would be nice to be here sooner, i am going off the brussels tomorrow. before i get into talking about this, i want to echo the words from obama about the horrible things that happened in moscow. >> i spoke to my counterpart to express my condolences. our prayers are with the people who were innocently cut down today. this is a very big month for national security issues. the tree will be signed early next month, on april 12 and 13, obama will host the security summit and they will release the review and this conference begins in new york in may. those are additional parts of the agenda. the president supports the ratification of this. we have no specific time line for the consideration. we are doing the best that we can to move this forward. we have the conference on disarmament, and we k

iran and pushed for my release and also in a meeting with president mahmoud ahmadinejad, the president in genevat the u.s. state department? >> the u.s. state department i know hillary clinton made calls to my release and various members tried to help my parents as well. actually found out about hillary clinton calling for my release one day when i told you about the false confession. i recounted it while in prison because i felt so guilty about it and i told myself i don't want to be free online is. i would rather be in prison and tell the truth and i told my captors that, too and when i said that my interrogator said we knew from the beginning the confession was false and it made me think why did they arrest me then, they didn't want me to write the book or they wanted to intimidate and reach out when president obama had just taken office and was trying to engage and hard liners don't want that in iran backs like that thinking these things. i ended up staying in prison two days after the authorities announced and was granted be free. i didn't know that. instead of freeing me they kept me and s

animal rights activists take two attacks geneva convention animal research. -- against animal research. the intellectually dishonest approach is to say that animal research does not benefit humans. and as we've already seen in this convention where it does but they will say well, a drug is not 100% applicable to a human so -- and we've had drugs that have been tested on animals and gone out and used on humans that had to be withdrawn so, therefore, animal testing bad. well, that would be true if you went right from the lab rat to your doctor's office. but, of course, that's not what thats. before it ever gets to the medical clinic you have to go through three stages of human testing. it takes several years. a lot of money. and i explain that in the book. finally, i defend human exceptionalism in the book. the last chapter is on that that the importance of being human. and i just want to read just a little bit of what i wrote in that regard and then i'll take questions. the idea that human beings stand at the pinnacle of the moral hierarchy of life should be and once was uncontroversial. aft

the iron curtain? and when he signed on to a very extensive exchanges agreement in geneva, november 1985, we said theremay be a possibility here, let's keep pushing. actually, i felt that my own thinking turned the corner, finally in may of 1988 when i read the pcs for -- theses for a party conference that was coming up which had no marxism and it. it was purely a design for democratizing the soviet union. and i told reagan at that point, he was on his way to moscow. i read these theses and i said if he means this, and he must because he is put it out officially, for the congress party, this country will never be the same. and so at that point i realized, and then when he continued with the elections and continued these reforms, it became clear and clear that he was something that he was serious. but, you know, the change was gradual, and i think that many of us who knew the soviet union, were at first certainly a bit skeptical. how far would he go? would they stop him before he got to a certain point? >> host: the one the most important point in your book is the united states did not win the cold war.

the u.s. was slowing down negotiations deliberately in geneva on wto, that they were basically asking questionsbut not really offering anything. >> i think i will defer to the trade representative's office. i think they'll take the lead on that. >> is there no policy to slow down wto negotiations? >> obviously for any country that wants to come to the wto they have to qualify and there has to be steps that they take in terms of opening up their economy, best business practices, transparency and so forth. as the secretary expressed yesterday we are supportive of russia's entering the wto but there's obviously work to do. >> today, the american organizational state -- not although it is an internal affair of the u.s. many countries in latin america have expressed their concern about the situation in arizona. many countries say that they are going to put new consulates to help some of the immigrants that are there in california and-- sorry, in arizona. i want to know of the department of state is taking any action with all of these concerns? >> well, let's make it slightly larger than the state de

the foreign minister to discuss our range of bilateral interests. he will also meet with peruvian analysts and opinion leaders and political leaders. he will travel to san martin tomorrow. earlier today, in geneva, the u.s. and russian negotiators held their last plenary session in conjunction on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, which the president signed in prague yesterday. it is fitting to thank our chief negotiators and the negotiating team. the negotiations began last april in rome. president obama and medvedev instructed them to include a new treaty to include on the start s.t.a.r.t. -- on that s.t.a.r.t. treaty. the interagency team engaged in intense negotiations with their russian counterparts. the delegation was guided by instructions and support from washington, succeeded in concluding a treaty that needs the security interests of both sides. we will welcome rose back to office. she will be back in the office on monday. moving to cut our -- qatar, regarding the in a corporate officer behavior on a flight this week, the foreign minister has decided to reassign its diplomat and we expect him to leave the country shortly. law-enforcement officials have indicated there were no explosives with the

was never going to constrain us in any way when it comes to protecting the american people and allies specifically. when i was in genevaiating was to make sure that was what the president got in the end of the deal. of the russians say that is not attributed to anyone. it is what it is but we have every incentive of a reason to believe the russians are serious about maintaining the life of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and is certainly in progress was proud to watch president medvedev and president obama sign the treaty last thursday and it is clear our relationship well we don't agree with the russians on everything but a much improved relationship to the things that we want to do including things like iran and other issues, this relationship is working for us and we're working diligently to make sure the stability created by a positive american and russian relationship is accruing to the friends and allies at the same time. i am glad you are reassured by it once again i don't know who this russian was that was quoted but it is not an attributed i do not know when it was made. but they know what our systems are and what they

the opportunity for dialogue. american and iranian diplomats met in geneva in october, and through the international atomic energy agency. with strong support from the united states, france, and russia, the iaea put forward a creative offer to produce nuclear fuel using iran's own low enriched uranium. it was an offer with humanitarian benefits, ensuring that iran would meet its need for medical isotopes. it gave iran the opportunity to show that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. it would have built confidence on both sides in the possibility of further agreements. in addition, the united states went to great lengths to demonstrate our commitment and establish assurances for iran. to date, we have seen no indication that iran's leaders want to resolve these issues constructively. after initially accepting it, they rejected the tehran research reactor proposal. they have refused to discuss their nuclear program with the p5+1. the revelation of a previously covert enrichment site, construction of which further violated iran's npt obligations, fed further suspicion about iran's intentions. iran recently

the american people. this is specifically about missile defense. when i was in geneva part of my job was making sure that is what the president got in the end of the deal. what the russians say is that is attributed to anyone. we have every reason to believe that the russians are serious about maintaining the light of the treaty and their commitments. improv out is very proud to sit and watch the president sign the treaty. it is very clear that our relationship, what we do not agree repression from everything, we have a much improved relationship. this relationship is workig with us. we are working to make sure the stability is accruing to our friends and allies at the same time. i am glad that you are reassured. that is certainly our position but there once again, i do not know who this russian is that was quoted. it is not after the did. i can assure you they know what our fiscal defense systems are. they know their constituted to do. they are not constituted against them. we will have a good relationship going forward. >> if i could add quickly that the russians kno

geneva to paris. and we go tomorrow. and we were lucky enough to finally fly today. >> reporter: maaldrink said the unexpected days off wererelaxing. >> arranging travel plans, which change daily.so we were q. >> reporter: like many travelers we spoke to across the week, frank ropic, in southern france for business, found information and help hard to come by. >> until we find out what is going by internet and communication to your colleagues in the u.k. you get told the next flight is tomorrow, and we don't know whether we'll go or not. so there is no notice. no communication. ç >> reporter: as european airports struggled to reduce the mountainous backlog of passengers and freight, there were unexpected consequences playing out. a nissan factory was idled by a shortage of parts expected by air and wounded american soldiers from iraq and afghanistan had to go all the way back to the u.s. rather than military hospitals in germany. and the questions started. did the air travel ban go too far? did european authorities try hard enough to keep limited service operating as the risks were assessed? willie walsh is the chairman of

the u.s. embassies in costa rica and mexico. as a bachelors degree from geneva college, a master's degree from georgetown university school of foreign service. please join me in welcoming david shedd. thank you. i've [applause] >> good morning and thank you, congressman hamilton, governor kean. thank you for hasty in this great event in which we have an opportunity to evaluate five years and to intelligence reform. where we stand and perhaps more importantly where is it headed? as representative hamilton was doing the introduction, it struck me that my association with intelligence reform and underwriting of the intelligence reform act. back in 2004, after the 9/11 commission issued its report reminded me that i want to take credit for what's working. and i have no idea who was behind the things that are not working today. last night i also want to thank the bipartisan policy center on the national preparedness group for taking on challenges like this that are so critical to our nation. i recognize their interest in national security and the u.s. intelligence ca

the future? this is not going to end anytime soon and we are apprehending people today and we still yet have a real should we have another genevantion to deal with this? i think we're looking forward to broader recommendations than trying to deal with this internally in this country. >> i believe that that review mechanism -- it must be done in as transparent way as we can. there is a symbolic significance to this review process in the same way there is a symbolic send all notes -- symbolic significance to the existence of guantanamo. it would seem to me that again, taking into account a variety of thing, we want to make sure that this review process -- the existence of this review process is this is why we know. >> when should we expect some specifics as to how these procedures are being handled? i heard you say as soon as possible, but is getting late. >> it is a priority. we have not gotten to the point where we have made the determination. the task force has made its recommendation and agreed to abide by the principles that 48 people should be held in this way. before we were talking about something that was a revocable. or

the opportunity for dialogue. american and iranian diplomats met in geneva in october, and through the international atomic energy agency. with strong support from the united states, france, and russia, the iaea put forward a creative offer to produce nuclear fuel using iran's own low enriched uranium. it was an offer with humanitarian benefits, which would ensure that iran would meet its needs, it's stated need our medical isotopes. it gave iran the opportunity to show that its nuclear program was indeed more peaceful purposes as a claims. it would have built confidence on both sides and the possibility of further agreements. in addition, the united states went to great lengths to demonstrate our commitment and to establish assurances for iran. sadly, today, we have seen no indication that iran's leaders want to resolve these issues constructively. after initially accepting the offer, they rejected the tehran research reactor proposal. they have refused sense to discuss their nuclear program with the p5+1. the revelation of a previously covert enrichment site, construction of which further violated iran's npt ob