Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  November 24, 2014 11:01pm-1:31am EST

11:01 pm
for $50 you can give an inmate in android and android ipad kind of device where they can actually learn, all of these online schooling companies. they can get certified they have a skill where they can go to a job. then you have job employers who get tax incentives to hire. then at least you are giving somebody a chance. a chance. we don't want people using porn and all this stuff. there is no expectation of privacy in jail, but that kind of thing, thinking differently -- look, this is
11:02 pm
a captive audience. you can work with them in so many different ways to make sure that you do more and get that recidivism rate down to the 20 percent where taxpayers are no longer paying 30 some thought to 530 some odd thousand dollars a year to house these people. it is a win - win for everyone involved. the notion of talking about reentry and figuring out practical solutions is something we need to continue to dialogue as we go forward. >> thank you for that. we have time for two really good and short questions. [applauding] [inaudible question]
11:03 pm
>> -- and if you look at the issue of wrongful convictions, it is clear that wrongful convictions more likely affect african-americans and other minority groups. so if we we are talking about bringing an end to mass incarceration, shouldn't we be talking about bringing an end to wrongful convictions? i think we would like to invite a comment on that. >> just before we get there, before you get to the prosecutor you often get to lineups and things like that and tony has some issues that would address that first piece before we get to the prosecutor. >> i don't no how i can make this short. i tell stories, unfortunately. i had to find the chief of police who
11:04 pm
called me and said, could you be on this list of chiefs who are against the death penalty. and i talked to my girlfriend at the time and said, can you believe he is asking me to be on the panel of police -- chief of police who are on this panel. and i made be in the wrong audience, but that's how i believe. so she said, well, why don't you take a look at how many of these rape or accusatory cases where you have dna were you guys got it wrong. so when i started to do research and talk to different friends, he and i had the same conversation. he says, i am very much into the innocence project. we need to take a look at this. we sat down and started looking at how many people
11:05 pm
are wrongfully incarcerated. it is coming out because we have the technology with the dna where it is showing how many times we get it wrong. then we stopped and went backwards. we have gotten it wrong. what went wrong went wrong on the front-end. many of the times it is the practices, the standardization, no checks and balances. and we looked at a case here in new york. political pressure. when someone says do something. the system responds in some way, and it may not be the right way. when the police officers started locking people up and not doing it by due process or through checks and balances then it goes to the attorney, no offense, and they get the same pressure and push it through because their are no checks and balances or you go back and audit yourself. so a part of the paper that
11:06 pm
we drafted tells the police department to have standardized mechanisms and to audit itself. also for the district attorneys and prosecutors, have systems and go back and question whether you have the right person. i just made an arrest in. we had a three -year-old little girl who got shot as a result of a drive-by. so i stopped fans and we we will do everything we can. we put a a lot of pressure and arrested a guy. i said, and i put it into my command staff, go back and double check. could check. could it be somebody outside the scope of what we are thinking? sure enough we popped up with another candidate because we took time away from the pressure and make sure we got it right. right.
11:07 pm
if we are going to put someone in jail, we wanted to be the right one. [applauding] >> the body language that matters is nicole's, and she has told us we have one minute. >> from the prosecutor's.of view we, in our office, proudly say that we are one of the best prosecutors offices in the country, but if you are going to say that you have to yourself be a leader in affecting fair prosecution practices, and there is no issue that is more concerning to prosecutors than wrongful convictions and the reality that people have gone to jail who are not, in fact, guilty. so for our office in 2010 when i got elected i created a conviction integrity program within our office. i looked at dallas, the only
11:08 pm
other office out there that had one at the time, and they are doing great work. but to me, i was not satisfied with just having a reinvestigation unit. to me a a conviction integrity office has to work with training and decisions, on making sure as we do now with checklists. checklists. when we have a case, there is a checklist, the young men and women can go through with supervisors to make sure that we have asked the right questions. we have standard protocols on when someone becomes a ci you can't have someone in our office because you want one. there are things that we no now cause wrongful convictions that we now train our assistance and i protocols to minimize the chance that we make a mistake in judgment, and i
11:09 pm
think it is the right way to go. to end it, above all things, i think, i think prosecutors and perhaps police officers have to understand with all the anonymous power there must be a humility that goes along with exercising it and an understanding that we want to make sure that we have tried to consider all the facts and do not conclude simply because we believe something firmly at the beginning that that should not be questioned. i think that that kind of attitude, self-awareness and self analysis and all of us is going to make us to better had conviction integrity. >> and we will end with a note of humility and think the panel. [applauding] >> albright. >> tonight on teewun, a discussion on free speech in
11:10 pm
the 1958 court case one, inc. v. olesen. >> as democratic policy community chair he we will talk about the next and election results. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. a discussion on the future of negotiations of the iranian nuclear program. you can watch it live at 10:30 a.m. eastern. later in the day pres. obama will speak about immigration at an event in chicago live at 530 eastern on c-span.
11:11 pm
>> here are a few of the comments we recently received. >> i just have to tell you, to see these people in person, to here them have a panel discussion or congressional hearing, it is so important to understand the context and to listen to the statement in its entirety. >> i have been watching book tv for a few years, and i think it is the greatest program on tv. i really like, you know, how these know, how these authors take the time to not only present not just some of what they write, but the moderator always does a great job of stimulating the conversation i think it is fabulous. fabulous. it is what i look forward to
11:12 pm
on the weekends to watch as much as i can. >> i watch c-span all the time when i am home. it is the only station i have on most of the time. i think it is absolutely excellent. thank you for the book talks and for the history. i like all all of it, and i am thankful that it is there and use it in my classroom. i teach at a community college in connecticut. thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or you can send us a tweet. join the conversation. conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> now attorneys on gay
11:13 pm
rights advocates discuss free speech and the court decision one, inc. v. olesen. the court ruled against the us postal service that declared the magazine "one" obscene and band is distribution through the mail. through the cato cato institute this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning. my name is walter olesen, no relation. some of you are knew to the cato institute, so let me explain, it is think tank devoted to research on
11:14 pm
principles of free markets, individual liberties, and piece. we have an active program called the center for constitutional studies which looks at the supreme court in the direction of individual liberties and american jurisprudence. and it was through the work of the center for constitutional studies that i first came to realize just how interconnected issues of individual liberties and civil liberties are. if you read cato's wonderful annual supreme court review, coming out for a couple of decades, you find the connections, connections between surveillance and search and seizure and some of the connections we we will be talking about today. a 1930s case on the right of parents to select a private insurance for the children turned out to strengthen and support
11:15 pm
completely different rights. one of the things i have concluded, concluded, supreme court jurisprudence needs to be taken away from the metrics. you have an important decision. usually one wants it better than the other. they begin citing it. individual liberty is an inheritance we all wind up using. we have a panel on a little-known case from 1966. to discuss to discuss it i will introduce all three speakers before any get the chance to speak. partner in the new york office. she she litigates cases in products liability, civil law, the partner in firm wide diversity.
11:16 pm
previously previously she was in the westminster district attorney's office where she was chief of the child abuse and sex crimes bureau. a partner in the washington office and a first amendment scholar as well as an adjunct scholar at the cato institute who previously served as chief counsel to the chairman of the federal communications division. he division. he has been honored by the american library association through its office of international freedom, intellectual freedom, and freedom foundation. foundation. finally, we will here from jonathan rauch's article i recommend to you all.
11:17 pm
jonathan is a senior fellow at the brookings institution in government studies, over the years his highly acclaimed books include two of special interest today, gay marriage, why it is good for gays, good for straights, and for straights, and good for america, and his earlier book, kindly inquisitors, some say the best modern book on why we need free speech. let me begin by welcoming olesen. >> good afternoon. oh, yes, if you word, turn off your cell phones so we have no interruptions during the program. thank you. the society of los angeles formed in 1951, not to be
11:18 pm
confused with the society of dc, this was a nonprofit organization, and it was formed to, among other things, educate the public about the scientific, historic, and critical points of sexual variance. in other words, homosexuality. one of the things that the society chose to do was publish a magazine first published in 1952. it was called "one: the homosexual magazine." now, "one" was an attempt to open the eyes of the public when a time when homosexuality or, frankly, any kind of sexual deviance was not discussed. it was altruistic,, imperfect, bold, evolved. but we cannot start a discussion of "one" magazine
11:19 pm
and the society and the case of one, inc. v. olesen without stepping back, back, without going back and taking a stark historical perspective on what was going on in this country in the 1950s, so i will start there. some of you in this room are way too young to know anything about the 1950s, but some of us are not, the era of leave it to beaver, the donna reed show, post-world war ii, there was in this country and innocence, a belief, a value system based on the american family, a decade that saw growing tension and competition between the united states and the former soviet union, and intensification, if you we
11:20 pm
will, of the cold world. for the federal government in this country the 50s was a time of extreme paranoia, political conservatism. it has been referred to as the second red scare, a time when government officials in this country such as sen. joseph senator joseph mccarthy, senator alex wiley, and fbi director himself j edgar hoover embarked on an anti-communist crusade that encompassed gays and lesbians. it was in 1954 that the postmaster of los angeles declared a a ban on the mental ability of one magazine, the first serious gay magazine of ideas, not pornography and not
11:21 pm
obscenity. the postmaster's band came on the heels of pres. dwight president dwight eisenhower's executive order 10450 april 1954. it declared homosexuals, and it did not use the word homosexuals it used the word sexual perverts, but it declared sexual perversion and national security risk based solely on sexual orientation and effectively banned gay and lesbian people from employment with the federal government. what we what we see from the documents that i am about to show you is a ferocity with which hoover and his cohorts brought the full weight of their authority and that of the bureau, the fbi, to bear on anyone who dared out him. these documents i am about to show you demonstrate that
11:22 pm
hoover was willing to bring all of his government authority and then some to interrogate, intimidate, threaten, and punish anyone who dared to suggest that he or anyone else in the federal government, particularly the fbi, might be gay. when one magazine had the audacity to run an article suggesting there might be homosexuals in the fbi this sparked a war. so let's take a look at what has been discovered so far about kayseven. this first slide was dated march 1952, of 1952, and it was an fbi memo to the director. the subject was a gentleman by the name of john mark and nick who worked for the national labor relations board. at the time of this memo he
11:23 pm
had worked for the nlrb for 11 years. what was was his crime that spurred an fbi investigation? he was at a dance with his wife, and at his table was a gentleman by the name of mr. terry who worked at a local bakery. what is significant? it happens to be across the street from the justice department. the eyes and ears in the bakery. what happened was he made an off-the-cuff remark and said ,, so, is it true that mr. hoover is a queer? with that, the informant, mr. terry, reported this to the fbi, and the next thing we learn is that he was the
11:24 pm
subject of an fbi investigation. there are a lot of sections to this memo. but note the bullying that went on for anyone who dared mention something like this, something so inflammatory, something so baseless. that was a joke. abcaseven but in talking about the interrogation the fbi agent who questioned him says he was subjected to vigorous interrogation to which she appeared to be badly frightened. in the next paragraph below basically he gets down on his knees and apologizes for making such a found was comment about the director and gives his assurance that
11:25 pm
it will never again happen. he will never open his mouth about anyone in the federal government. by the way, while the agents questioned him, they asked if he was himself a pervert. takes one to no one? in any event, event, as the agents reported to director hoover, he had been vigorously set straight and will not engage in this type of gossip in the future. now, i want to bring your attention to the handwritten note at the bottom. basically it says, let's report market niche to his employer and the national labor relations board so that they know about his activities. that is applied applied tolleson, the associate director of the fbi, more recently known as hoover's companion.
11:26 pm
the yes was mr. hoover mr. hoover himself. let's fast-forward. this was 1952, so this was around the same time that "one" magazine issued its first edition. i'm sorry. i cannot see that. let's look at these next few documents dealing with senator alexander wiley from wisconsin. now, happens to pay a visit to new york city. he saw the publication published for and by homosexuals dumbfounded was the word he used. such a magazine was being out for public sale and
11:27 pm
being set through the us mail. he became a a crusader and decided to write to the postmaster general about the use of the mails. this is a document from the u.s. senate a a copy of the magazine as well as the letter kind of a long letter he says the purpose of my letter the so-called magazine now, now, if you
11:28 pm
look at the next page he appeals to the keen sense of moral principle to give this matter prompt attention. some six months later after the summerfield letter what happened? it was october of 1964. banned from male ability by the los angeles postmaster. thus infringing on the first amendment protective rights. we have reviewed documents that demonstrate the government conspiracy that was brought to bear against a tiny publication that was not about obscenity but rather about the federal government's attempt to
11:29 pm
silence an emerging gay and lesbian subculture. let me quickly flash through some of these documents, this one in particular. this was a couple of years later, but it shows the fbi investigation looking in to the society, a homosexual group. you will see that the bureau opened an investigation because of the possibility that the group was communist controlled or infiltrated. the closing report was later submitted because they could
11:30 pm
not find evidence of subversion. what i want to.your attention to is, i think we should take this crowd on, on, meaning the homosexuals, the society, and "one" and make them put up or shut up. the comment, i concur, by mr., by mr. hoover. they brought in william lambert, the chair of the board of "one" and accused him of having written the article in which members of the fbi were accused of being gay. what do they say about mr. lambert? simply no good. and they talked about the society and said that they were all no good. this next document from february of 1966 confirms the handwriting on that january 56 document was, in
11:31 pm
fact, from mr. tolleson and the director himself, mr. hoover. this also says so they close the investigation because there was no evidence of communist infiltration. the last slide i want to show you of historic value is this one dated march 1956. and of 1956. and what is significant is mr. hoover himself wrote the department of justice, assistant attorney general and said to him, here is a copy of "one" magazine. look at it. tell us. is this obscene. for the director of the fbi
11:32 pm
to get down in the weeds and try to influence the male ability of "one" magazine tells you the extent to which the federal government was hell-bent on making sure homosexuals did not have the exercise of free speech. and what's more, the federal government made sure that the public would not be educated. these next few documents i will show you real quickly. these are responses from some of the freedom of information requests that
11:33 pm
they have worked on in an effort to get historic documents that we believe the postal service has either destroyed or is not being forthcoming with. as a result we see that the postal service in response to our request said things like, hey, that is a long time ago. we don't no where these documents are. and when we went back and appealed this decision which frankly we thought was a denial, they came back and again said, sorry, we don't have this. in august we subsequently learn that the national archives did a search for documents. they did not find postal service documents but they did find 250 pages of documents that are out there, we have to get our hands on them, and the society of dc is not going to stop until we do. let me quickly, and this is something that i hope we will discuss a little bit later, let me talk to you briefly about why we're
11:34 pm
doing this work. some people have said, this is is interesting, but it was a long time ago. who cares. and to that, i i say to you, the work of the society is a testament a testament to history, a testament to uncovering deleted histories of lg bt americans,, giving voice to individuals who did not have the opportunity to stand up for themselves. fired from his job just about the same time the petition. fighting and was one of the
11:35 pm
founders. a lot of reasons why the work we are doing is particularly relevant, educational, accountability, and evidence year he. you may recall that the chief justice made a remark in his dissent. i believe it was in the windsor case where he said that their were snippets of history, snippets, and they do not add up to animals and discrimination and bigotry. i'm here to tell you these are not snippets. we are uncovering critical evidence that show a very lengthy and
11:36 pm
robust paper trail of animus and discrimination for going as far back as 1940s in the 1950s. with that, i will turn it over to my colleagues works i will step in for a moment. thinking as i do about how lucky we are. retaliating against its critics. they -- we sure got them with that one, didn't we. okay.
11:37 pm
>> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i have to say, i find this history of the fbi particularly fascinating, particularly since this is the agency that has devoted the resources of the number a number of field offices from around the country to determine whether or not the song louie louie is obscene. this is this is in its own way part of the same tradition. a tradition of discrimination against homosexuals and a tradition of. i first learned of this case not that long ago. the 60th anniversary. i was surprised i had not heard about but was a little bit gratified to find out
11:38 pm
the issue was issued the month that i was born. what i cannot find is an interesting, recurring theme , the idea that younger people, and maybe their are a few of you out there, not that many, but many, but a few. hard for anyone under 40 to understand what life was like for gay americans a couple of generations ago. the same is true when we talk about. people have no idea how pervasive it was in all aspects of american culture. for. for example, radio was subject to a great deal of. people do have an awareness
11:39 pm
because we still have an fcc, fcc, but it used to be even more active. for example, 1938 the fcc issued an admonition for an episode of charlie mccarthy and mary west. they said there was nothing improper about the language that the intimations of missed west were suggesting. so that was enforcement, but everyone is familiar. there was also pervasive of cinema and at the movies. in world war i under the espionage act, an example of the film,, actually the producer was convicted and sentenced to five years in
11:40 pm
prison because it showed british soldiers committing atrocities, and this was seen as damaging to the war effort. of course sex was the subject of as well, and this continued. it was it was not until 1952 the supreme court decided that cinema was under the protection of other media but it was not until 1965 that the courts reviewed state boards. as a matter of fact the last one continued to exist in some 1993. poetry was the subject of. allen ginsberg's howl howl was subject to city protection.
11:41 pm
fortunately florence for and yet he was found to be not guilty. ironically 50 years later you still can't read whole on the radio because of fcc regulations. arrested and prosecuted all over the country. in the late 50s his act was beyond the pale. he died of a morphine overdose. in 2,003 the governor issued
11:42 pm
a posthumous pardon. and of course books have always been subject to ranging from books about lesbianism to just straight sex. there there is a long and unfortunately rich history, and it is hard to imagine how pervasive it was. if if you go back to the 1920s their was a magazine that was determined to be unavailable. in 1928 customs and postal officials got together to determine which publications should not be allowed to be imported into the country. that was 1920 alone. the reason for all of this
11:43 pm
is the history of that goes back to the 1870s thinks to anthony comstock, the driving force in the first serious regulation of obscenity. obscenity. the first dry goods cook who became -- i don't no if you can make it out. it is a remarkable bit of work showing one man apprehending a miscreant a miscreant and another burning books. that is how the society of suppression of vice wanted to be known. the act for the suppression of trading, circulation of obscene literature and articles of immoral use. this was this was a very broad law. comstock was a puritan in mind and practice not only wrote the law but that was
11:44 pm
appointed a special agent of the post office. to enforce to enforce city would make arrests, break down doors and this was the days when they burned the book and melted down the plate. you will notice that it is not limited to obscenity. it talks about limiting any information about prevention of contraception and abortion, so by the way still on the books today. now, this was a product. she looks okay. time was time was not good to her, but it represents the mindset of the times in the legal standard that was
11:45 pm
imported to the united states. a british case involving their 1857 obscenity 1857 obscenity law basically saying that anything obscene would tend to deprave or corrupt the minds open to such immoral influences and regardless of any merit. a single passage in a single a single book to the most susceptible person was the standard for obscenity which was the standard the united states adopted so that it could be used to suppress anything involving sex. this changed as constitutional law developed. the landmark case decided in 1957, and the timing is critical. the case that many people learn that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment. it was a transformation of obscenity law.
11:46 pm
it would be like saying that new york times versus sullivan stands for the proposition that libel is not protected by the first amendment, and it does but it sets a high bar. in in the same way this was a revolution. one thing, to read this statement. sex and obscenity are not synonymous. indisputably through the ages one of the viral problems of human interest and public concern. quite concern. quite a contrast. a very sex positive attitude even though it recognizes their is an area of law beyond the pale. the standard was also a
11:47 pm
revolution in thinking about these issues because it overruled the hickman test which had been a victorian era british test. it also said that instead of looking at the most susceptible person you look at the most average person. you look at the work as a whole, and you look at whether or not you are dealing primarily with a. interest and whether or not something is utterly without redeeming social importance. a piece a piece of work had to meet all of those elements. by the way, that is pretty much what the fcc still uses ,, but that is a different presentation. when this happened it was at a critical time.
11:48 pm
decided by the ninth circuit in early 1957. a couple of months before the supreme court decided the roth decision. basically you see it here. into whose hands publication of this sort may fall. so when it comes back to the supreme court in 1958 it took one line. granted he did not have to say anything more.
11:49 pm
was this unique? not really. at this time you have a had a series of cases that were reaching the supreme court under the previous test. so between 1957 and 1968 and 1968 there were 13 different obscenity cases that were produced and 55 separate opinions. needless needless to say the court was having to figure out how it was going to interpret what obscenity meant. as i mentioned, a range of opinions. justice potter stewart believed that only hard-core pornography. i might not be able to intelligently defined obscenity but i no it when i see it. it turned out he did not because he agreed with a minority of justices that
11:50 pm
there really should not be an obscenity law anymore. justice brennan, chief justice warren, materials short of hard-core obscenity should be banned only so long as it had redeeming social value. the states could be given more latitude. given given this range of opinions they were facing a quandary in every case they could not agree on the reason. that's what happened in one versus olson -- one, inc. v. olesen. there were 31 reverses.
11:51 pm
a representative example of another landmark case decided. critically important,, but we don't have a supreme court decision take .2. there have been attempts to reported in one attempt to publish it. this led to a prison sentence of three years. finally finally in 1961 it was published by global press. this was reversed. it was issued on the same day.
11:52 pm
how did the court deal with the law? it came up in a case. this involved in the prosecution of three-game magazines. a post roth decision but he wrote that the magazines in question taken as a whole cannot be deemed to be beyond the pale of temporary notions. you have the court in 1962 :
11:53 pm
whatever else you may say about these magazines they are not taking away your pencils. also wrote an independent examination of the magazine. so that was one opinion on the court representing two of the justices, brennan, the chief justice, and the third took the opinion of the post office simply should not have this power to declare magazines to be on mailable. that is the underlying history.
11:54 pm
because we have recognized greater freedom for both we have attempted to use morality as an excuse. freedom is really the true morality. >> my job is easy today. i want the keeping new line. two people could not be here today. more about him in a bit.
11:55 pm
he took on the 1d olson. took it to the supreme court, a heterosexual man and is alive and well. it is absolutely not. the principle is alive and well. we may be about to get a supreme court decision saying that same-sex marriage is a federal, constitutional right. it will be the most important gay right in history, but until and unless it happens their is no doubt in my mind, the
11:56 pm
most important civil rights case we have ever had. i would argue it's the most important civil rights case you have never heard of. yet what happened in 1958 essentially put gay people on the path to freedom. all we have was our voices. we had no money, no votes, no organizations, our people were deep in the closet. the powers arrayed against us were mine bogglingly huge two people show you just what was arrayed against homosexual americans. like all minorities in that situation we had one and
11:57 pm
only one thing. our ability to transmit those ideas and our ability to strip fold -- stepped forward and freely proclaim those liberties. it also published an issue in which an article, a short story appeared. now, in 1953 being banned from the mail meant that you were silenced if you are were a magazine. there was absolutely nothing you could do. an interesting.about that particular issue that was
11:58 pm
banned by the la postmaster was not set up zero remembered but the cover story. it was cold, you can't say that, and it was an article criticizing the united states government. that's right. i'm not making it up. what the federal government was censoring was criticism of federal. the author of that article was one eric gilbert. yes, the same. in the context of the 50s, in the context today of africa, eastern europe, we see again and again that the first thing that you do to repress,, persecuted and
11:59 pm
harassed minority is to silence it. you make it impossible for them to speak and then it is easy to demonize, and that is precisely what we have done. that is true of all minorities, even more so for gay people because the fundamental weapon used against homosexuals from time immemorial was what we called the closet. we were not harassed some of the time if we would agree to pretend that we were straight and live completely out of public view. ..
12:00 am
at man received a letter from the u.s. civil service commission, announcing he had not only been fired from his government job but was banned from government employment. because he was a pervert. camdy was unusual. unlike other people he was not intimidated. he appealed the decision through the federal bureaucracy. he lost, and then filed the first major gay rights brief about b before the u.s. supreme court. the supreme court denied cert. he went on to challenge the ban in his employment and other people's employment through
12:01 am
congress. he became the first openly gay person to run for congress in 1970. he challenged, again, using words, his great weapon. he challenged the ban in 1972, being a disease. i could go on and on. this man lived long enough to safe formal apology of the u.s. government from the agency that hired him whose head by that point was openly gay. but i want to remember frank specifically for a few words in his supreme court brief. 1961. he is representing himself because no one else would do it. and the society of washington, and notice what he tells the supreme court in two crucial passages. he is arguing that his loss of
12:02 am
employment on grounded of being a homosexual are unconstitutional. he doesn't in this passage talk about the 14th amendment, and of course there were no antidiscrimination laws and federal civil right statute tattoos on the book. what does he talk about? in world war ii, he writes, petitioner did not hesitate to fight the germans with bullets in order to help preserve his rights and freedoms and liberties and those of others. in 1960 it is ironically necessary that he fight the americans with words in order to preserve against a tyrannical government, some of those same rights, freedoms and liberties, for him and others -- for himself and others. notice the key two words there, "with words." he knows this is his weapon. he nows this is his only weapon.
12:03 am
he wields it very effectively. and what is the fundamental denial of right that happened with this firing? is it his job? his livelihood, income? all of those things. but frank goes somewhere that is unexpected and profound. michigan deeper. the commission's regulation, as it stands, is unconstitutional, he tells the court, in that by establishing a tyranny over the mind of its citizens, it is inconsistent with and violates at the provisions, stipulations, , spirit, and intent of the first amendment to the federal constitution. i read that the first time and i did a double-take. establishing a tyranny over the mind. what camdy is saying this the is not just about expression and
12:04 am
it's certainly not just about making a living. this is about whether we can be free as human beings to live our lives as who we really are and to be sovereign over our own mind, which, of course, al means over our own life. i still get a bit choked up when hi think about what camdy knew and understood, and i hate to think what would have happened if the case had gone the other way, if the supreme court denied cert, which it might well have done. i if ross has not come down the year before. frank camdy would have been in jail for his advocacy, and the people who came after him would have taken, what, another generation to get to where we are today? and the idea that i could now be married in the state of virginia, recognized by the
12:05 am
federal government, and by the state of virginia, to a man, and that the supreme court will not only hear us today, but may rule in our favor, this, i believe, all dates to that fateful decision in 1958, and that is why i am so happy to be here with this amazing group, not just those here with me but all of you and special lie charles francis, whose work has done so much to dig this out. i'm so happy to be celebrating it with you today. this is a case i, i believe, which after languishing for 60 years since its inception will never be forgotten again. thank you. [applause] >> we're moving now into general discussion and you'll be coming up with excellent pointed question. while you thing those up, let me
12:06 am
first ask charles francis to stand up since he has been mentioned four or five time inside many ways. [applause] >> the effort to redocument this case with the help of the law firm. i before we turn to general questions i'd like to ask the panel to react to each's presentations. lisa? >> well, i was very moved. to hear such a scholarly discussion of the standard, the obscenity standard was informative and helpful because it does show how things change, even when we're at our most desperate and we think our government and our courts are really not getting it, ites helpful to remember that thing do change. it takes work, advocacy, unstoppable force like this society of d.c. and charles and
12:07 am
so many others, but we can make change happen. and as to jonathan's comments, i'm like -- they were lovely, and he is right. this is a very -- it's a very significant case that has not had it place in history and we're all very grateful to wallter and the cato institute for shining the spotlight on this very important case, and at this time, when it's been 60 years since that postal service ban on the october 1954 addition of one. >> bob? >> i just briefly add that it's fascinating to hear the broader perspectives of the history with the documents unearthed with the freedom of information act requests, the context that jonathan brings to it as well. when you read cases you often
12:08 am
miss that important context because they focus on other slice of hoyt. when you broaden out and see what else was going on at the time, it really gives you a better sense of what kind of social change is taking place. the only other thing i'll add is a plug bus jonathan was too modest but if you have not gotten his book, please do that. it is one of the best reads you'll have on free expression issues, and his presentation today was just a small slice of what you can expect. >> i have to disagree with bob. it's not one of the best things you'll read. [laughter] >> a few ground rules on the question and answer period. please wait your hand, wait for me to call on you. when i do-don't start in right away. it would for one of the helpful
12:09 am
people to bring a microphone. that look like a helpful person. when you get the microphone, then go ahead and announce your name, and affiliation if you feel like it. remember that we have a broadcast audience so be clear and also be brief. make it a real question. rising inflection at the end. [laughter] >> in the back we have a question to start off. >> my name is cammy but i write for the poisey spectator pakistani spectator. my question is obama's tradition and foreign policy, given that gay lifestyle is very prevalent in indian army and pakistani arm asky and office in closed society, is very norm for guys s who are social status to have two or three guys, even he has married the woman. so we are fighting for these values in afghanistan. do you think obama has every
12:10 am
right to bring these kind of reform or changes in afghanistan? >> i think that jonathan may have written a little bit about the emphasis in american foreign policy to try to reach out on issues of persecution of minorities. do you have any particular comment on the overall program? which is kind of person to eastern europe and other countries as well. >> i don't know the facts about the cases or countries you describe. i know that secretary clinton, working for president obama, has been far and away the most aggressive advocate for same-sex rights and equality around the world, and that is something very new. it's really an amazingly recent change, until fairly recently the u.s. state department used to drum out people who were homosexuals. we have some distance to go in our country, but, yes, the administration has changed postures and i think it will make a difference. that said, one of the big
12:11 am
surprises to me about gay marriage is the predicted backlash in the united states has been much smaller than one might have thought. on the hand a backlash has occurred overseas. africa, eastern europe, russia, and part of that is justified in the name of anticolonialism and resistance to an over weaning united states trying to impose its values on others. so we do have a lot of work to do there overseas and that i think is going to be one of the next big jobs of work, of civil rights activists here and elsewhere. >> second row. >> rick with gays and lesbians for individual liberty. this question is for miss lynn ski. one of the enemy knows you showed showed the fbi finished an investigation in 1953 and found no security threat.
12:12 am
dot is say something about the competence of the fbi investigators they didn't notice that hairy and will and other members of the society were in fact communists? >> i haven't come across that in any of our documents, but how about that. >> more questions. way back there it would for the microphone. >> so i was impressed with your presentation. now, i have a more fundamental question about the government of the united states, and our -- of the people who control this country, the right and the left, both together. now, the kind of activities we are engaged in at this time, the spying on american citizens, the
12:13 am
entire war crimes that we are committing all over the world, all these things, 20 30 years from now we'll be very, very ashamed, as we are ashamed of the thing that were being done in the 50s and '60s by those who controlled our government. how do we change this -- we are continuously doing such tremendous amount of activities which are inhumane and barbaric. >> we could have a separation discussion how bad the conduct of one or another american government is at any given time. one over the things we bring out from today is that if you can't speak freely about it, you can't document it and you wind up wondering, decade later you wonder how bad was the government's conduct because they won't let you into the documents that will let you found out. we found out some unpleasant things howl the fbi operated and yet when we opened the files, it also exonerates some other
12:14 am
things that we thought they might have been doing bad. so, we have gone down a long road of openness in government. i has benefited the fiscal interests of avoiding waste, but it has been tremendously beneficial to correct the mistakes, both domestic and foreign policy. >> i would just add that the premise of your question illustrates the need for eternal vigilance, these fights never end. you have to continue to look at where rights are being retricketted and also, since you mentioned the nsa, it indicates why it is so critically important that we have access to information about what the government is doing. the foia requests for what the fbi was doing in the '50s, bringing that information to lying is critical. and the nsa and the wayed a ward snowden brought to light the idea that the government us doing many things we are not aware of. now it's comforting, spokeswoman
12:15 am
in a way to hear national security officials say, oh, it's very good we have this debate now. i tend to look at is in a somewhat different way, usually belter to debate things before the government starts doing them to you, but at least we're having the debate now. >> and i would add, that's a really great point you raise, sir, and it really underscores the work that the society of d.c. and mcdermoth are doing together. nico hastings, the curator and library afternoon of book ted university of michigan's library sid the following. i think it's relevant to your point. in preserving documents and records archiveis have enabled the documents to be revisited and re-entered as arch year of history reshape the collective memory. she was talking about the internment of japans americans during world war ii but that statement is so relevant to really all chaptered of or
12:16 am
history. certainly with respect to lgbt history are we are are revisiting it and reinterpreting it, particularly as our civil rights are continuing to evolve. human beings take time to evolve. when you look back at the era of the '50s and that was going on, we think we have progressed so much, and we have in many ways. the fact we're even having this public discourse, this conversation, it's being televised, is tremendous progress. at the same time, look what is happening elsewhere in the world. people who are being killed in uganda because they're suspected of being gay. we have a long way to go. we have to -- when jonathan was talking about dr. camdy, i couldn't help but think, well, okay, that was 1957, when he was terminated from his job with the federal government, but guess what? a lot of lgbt people can still be terminate from their jobbed.
12:17 am
we don't have a federal law. so we're not there either. >> for the other side, check my article at cato. i wanted to use the moderator's prerogative of throwing out a question, because we promised in some of the announcement materials to shed light on the relationship between freedom of expression and historically marginalized groups, and not a day goes by when you don't see arguments in the press, both near and countries like britain, that free expression is dangerous because it allows hate to flourish and hateful forces to organize and propagandize, two examples from england. a couple of weeks -- the conservative government has announced its proposal are so so-called extremist disruption order by which the government would be able to go in and forbid supposed extremeis from using facebook, twitter, or
12:18 am
other social media, and they intend to use this apparently against alleged extremists from militant islamist, to people who preach racial hate or hate against gays. even more recently a debate was shut down at oxford about abortion, and one of the students who helped shut it down wrote a boastful article in the independent, one of the leading newspapers there, explaining why she was part of doing so, quote, the idea of putting a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has detrimental effect on marginalized groups. if she was here, what would you tell her? >> who first? >> if we haven't plugged it enough already, kindly inkyes temperatures has a new -- devoted to this and i mention it because it's a very live issue right now. the argument has gained traction
12:19 am
especially in europe, not so much in america, that if enough people start saying enough things that are hateful or just wrong-headed or just big gotted, that -- big gotted, that cretes a hostile environment for minorities, they become repressed and need protections at various sorts, and i reject that entirely. as a gay man. a lot of ropes -- a lot of reasons for that which you can read about in the book. have i done enough of that yet? >> author signing afterwards. >> but a sentence for each. we have whole lot of hoyt that shows that minority rights north safely trend u to majority enforce errs and we see laws against obscenity and hate and religious definition defamation used against groups that -- and
12:20 am
i hate to think what would have happened to bay people if you had these laws when they could be used against us. by the time you have a consensus to have a hate crimes law you don't need it because the minority is involved and generally have social protection. second and more important and going back to point that the gentleman in the back row made, how do we get out of is? we make moral progress. we evolve as a species in a morally positive direction, generally toward freedom and human dignity, and we do that through the system of debate and discourse and we deposit debate in starting with the right answer and then eliminating wrong ones by brute force. dot they bit bit prejudices against each other, treating them like a use resource, and trusting as over time it almost always does that the superior moral opinions win. that is what worked for gay people and the lost thing i would do is see that shut down
12:21 am
by well-meaning people who claim to speak for me but in fact do not have any best interests at heart. [applause] >> very little to add after that. just to say that whether or not you're using the government to enforce good ideas or bad ideas, guy back to the word of frank camdy that johnson quoted that the government shouldn't have power over the mind, and that is precisely what in the first amendment exists. and from a practical standpoint, hate crime laws in europe have done nothing to quell the growth of right wing nationalist movements and yet in the united states where the supreme court has held that even the lunatic rant little of the westboro bantive curse and he homo phonic protests are protected, and that has done nothing to slow the growth of progress towards same-sex marriage and acceptable of homosexuals in tee united states.
12:22 am
>> in fact hate speech helps us. i wish i could put this across to the well-meaning people who try to help us with all these protections. first, these protects confirm the stayow teen of weak homosexuals who need help and can't protect themselves, whichn't true. second, making the haters have their say patients us look good by comparison that's how we got here. so please, spare is attempts to protect us from haters. >> i would just add that i think one of the best ways gay people can fight this kind of thing is to be out. stand up. and be out. and i realize that for some people it is dangerous to do that. i realize for some people it's damn scary to do that. and i say, do it anyway. be but, because when a person who claims to hate gay people gets to know you, they may just change their mind about gay people. [applause] >> lisa? you're doing a lot of document
12:23 am
requests from i gays lot of presidential libraries and archives. what kind of attitudes are you fining of 0 years later, stone wall and reluctant 0 cooperation and acceptant? >> all of the above: i don't think that the stonewalling, if you will, is necessarily about antilgbt sentiment. i think it's bureaucracy. i think it's red tape. i thick at trying to navigate through a large organization or organizations to find the documents. i don't know that, for example, someone who sends a foia request that has nothing to do with lgbt issues is having any better a time it's than we are. >> i do think you're on to something, both in the federal government and the presidential libraries, where the foia requests are seen as work to do that someone else does and meanwhile you have some project that you want to do that was
12:24 am
your own idea and you'd always rather give priority to carrying out your own ideas. yes. in the third row. >> nicholas with the center for inquiry. i think it's interesting when you talk about the government controlling ideas, because if we look at lawrence, it was actions, about same-sex individuals. if you look al-at marriage it's the action of two men or two women getting married. was there ever an attempt by the federal government to define homosexuality in a way to take it outside of just the controlling of ideas? because it seems like otherwise it's a purely mental concept. once you take the actions out of it. >> we deny my world. we deny the distinction is meaningful. the point of sodomy laws in
12:25 am
practice it's targeting a behavior -- i'm sorry in principle it's targeting a behavior inch practice it tarring anyone who is gay, who is seen as advocating what was then seen as a crime so solicit what was seep as a crime you. got fired from your job and you can't be what you are and think your thoughts and go about your life in a meaningful way if you're under threat of political persecution. for acting on that. it's like saying, okay, you can be okay believing believing beln anyones of judaism ump but you can't goo to synagogue you can't practice. no ju would say that is a meaningful distinction. so i would in that sense push back against the premise and say it's all or nothing.
12:26 am
>> gregly deangelo. i'll agree we have not experience that much blowback the wake of marriage equality rulings and legislative. all these years after this case, people who are christians, who are claiming similar freedom of speech protections when it comes to photography, baking the wedding cakes, i wonder -- this question is open to anyone on the panel -- how they -- if you see the supreme court having to consider a similar case about freedom of speech and how that impacts an individual's perhaps right to discriminate in those cases, and if that could inform the supreme court's marriage equality ruling if they do cake up the case in the next session. >> this is something that has been of continuing interest to the cato institute, which has filed amicus briefs, on behalf
12:27 am
of -- religious objections to same-sex weddingsful psychologically you can imagine that supreme court justices might be worried about both issues at once. that doesn't mean that a case will present both issues for resolution at once, but the feelings run very high out there among commentators on the idea that once you have a discrimination law on the book, it's supposed to be a sweeping and have as few exceptions as possible. it's not clear to me the supreme court is ready to stand against what seems to be the spirit of the edge on the more antidiscrimination laws that get passed the better. i believe these laws will be better if they had greater play for individual autonomy and choice. but that's not in a big theme of
12:28 am
the court's rulings in recent years. >> i would just ad that your request focused on that growing tension between antidiscrimination and freedom of expression. i think you can ask the question, could an editorial writer be forced to write an editorial praising homosexuality? of course not. obviously firsthand violation. you can say the same thing of a photographer who is compelled by law to practice art in favor of a lifestyle. that person does not want to associate with. can extent to a baker. -- can extend to a baker. again, there is a tension there but i don't think you resolve that tension by having having te government come in and be the referee and decide who is going to be compelled to expression themselves in a way the government decides is the one acceptable way. >> current you you -- you do have the government forcing you to make such decision.
12:29 am
>> it gets would took that eternal vigilance i was talking about. >> more questions. >> there is one -- okay. >> bob spiegel, member of the board of the stonewall association, i waited until the owned 0 so i could go through a few opinions before i asked my question. >> questions, brief questions, please no speeches. >> any question is there are many people who believe that hate crime statutes, implicate the first amendment. and it would appear that many in the gay community support what would be called a hurt feelings exception to virtually every provision of the first amendment. so i'd like to hear the panel speak about those two issues. >> hate crimes and hate speech are two different issues. anyone want to start? >> first of all, we have to start with definitions. hate speech, what is that?
12:30 am
basically it can be whatever someone finds offensive. and that is why there can be a significant tension between wanting to have a civil society and forcing people to limit their speech. greg is sitting here in the front row, the president over the foundation for individual rights and education. one of the continuing battle offed the organization and i'm proud to assist, is to address campus speech codes where you have basically the enforcement of civility on college campuses, meaning it is what greg calls an offendedness sweepstakes, people are who offended by -- well you name it, anything, can then appeal to the sanctions of these very broad and indefinable codes to put a clamp on whatever speech they don't like, and you see that in the wave of commencement speakers who are being disinvited during what fire called disinvitation vane
12:31 am
if they're going to speak on something that is considered to be politically inconvenient or that a vocal minority on the campus or vocal majority -- considers to be wrong-headed. i think that there needs to be a greater recognition, as jonathan was saying, for protecting the speech we hate, because then you have a true debate and people in a free society can decide for themes what they want to believe. >> i take the question to be about hate crimes laws as opposed to hate speech laws. >> many people believe that hate crimes -- [inaudible] >> i think they do. i don't -- hate crimes laws for those who are not on top of this are different. they're additional penalties for people who commit crimes targeted at minorities and motivated by hate. i income they do implicate the first amendment. i don't think they're as
12:32 am
clearcut and don't get near worried about. the is a haiti speech laws because in hate crimes your punishing thing thatten punishable any and you're debating the length of the sentence. one of my first openly gay articles is rotten crime policy so i worry about first amendment. on the question -- i think the premise of your point was that a lot of gay people favor these protections. is that it? and that is certainly true. but here's the thing. my experience has been that gay americans are no less supportive of the first amendment than other americans, and that the broader issue is, my first very fitte manager edit or at my first newspaper job said if you put the first amendment up to a probe side of the american public today it would lose. so that's the ongoing educational struggle that i do with my gay friends and i do with my straight friends just as well, which is, every generation
12:33 am
has to be taught afresh that the very counterintuitive proposition we should make room in society for the most vial things that people think and say. that got to be taught all over again every year. it's easy to to going get in 17 -- bill orights when james madison put free only dove speech number one, this -- freedom of speech number one, this was a completely radical in the entire history of the world. no one has even thought you could have a government without some method to control speech and thought. and it still deeply counterintuitive. i don't think it's harder among gay people than straight people. >> part of bob's presentation i meant to note at the time was remember the victorian standard of obscenity, which is not as later changed in roth, not whether it would tend to corrupt the average person but whether
12:34 am
it would corrupt what you might crawl at the eggshell corruptee, the most susceptible, the most fluttery person and if i corrupted even that one person it was too obscene to be allowed publicly. we have somehow revived that with the new law in that the test for whether or not a career is ruined or someone is allowed to speak on campus is not what they say would offend the average person but whether they would offend the eggshell offendee. we are about ready to adjourn for lunch. let me give you some directions on that because -- it involves going up two flights from here to the conference center. you can do it either by crowding into the elevators which may take you longer because of their capacity, or simply by walking up the spiral staircase two flights. i if you are looking for a restroom, when you're on the
12:35 am
second floor are and walking towards the conference center, you will notice a yellow wall. that's where the restrooms are. i will see you there for lunch in a few minutes. please join me in thanking our wonderful panel. [applause]
12:36 am
so, two things, get rid of the filibuster, on legislation as well as nominations, but on the other hand, i've often said the rubs have a legitimate argument here, by the way, and nat they're not being allowed to offer amendments. well, they're not being allowed to offer amendment because the filibuster bills. they filibuster bills because they're not allow today offer amended. chicken and egg. the best way is to get rid of the fill buster and guarantee to the minority that the minority will be allow to offer germane amendments to any bill on the
12:37 am
floor. germane amendments to that legislation, with reasonable time limits for debate. you do that, then we can move legislation, and the minority will have the right to -- i've often said the minority doesn't he the right to prevail, which they're doing now because the minority can control the fill buster and stop things so the minority prevails. so, it's not the right -- it should be the right of the minority to amend or offer amendments, to have full and vigorous debate, and to have votes on those amendments. i think if we did that, the senate would begin to operate very well.
12:38 am
>> i've often said the republicans have a legitimate argument here, by the way, and they're not being allowed to offer amendments. well, they're not being allowed to offer amendments because the filibuster bills. they -- it's a chicken and egg thing. best way to get rid of it is just get rid of the filibuster but at the same time guarantee to minority in rules in the senate that the minority will be allowed to offer germane amendments to any bill on the floor. germane amends to that legislation. with reasonable time limits for debate. >> the late henry, probably -- i won't even qualify the toe say probably -- the most eloquent orator in the congress. henry told me one time -- i think i remember this correctly -- i'm not wild about impeachment but he said there are 23 americans serving active prison sentences for having
12:39 am
committed perjury. he said, how do you justify that and then turn a blind eye to the president? said, i can't do it. and i'll always remember henry saying that. on thursday we take a history tour of american history tribes. then at 1:30, attend the groundbreaking ceremony of the the diplomacy center in washington, and supreme court justices clarence thomas, samuel alito, and sonia sotomayor at 8:30 p.m. eastern. this thanksgiving week on c-span. four complete schedule go to c-span.org. >> the carnegie endowment for international peace held a discussion monday on radical extremism and the increase in violence across afghanistan, syria, and iraq. this is 90 minutes.
12:40 am
>> welcome to this session of jihaddist movement in afghanistan, syria and iraq in a rise of policy failure. it is my particular pleasure to say this event is cosponsored by the middle east program as well. and in that regard i'm happy that we have our dear colleague with us. the question is entirely in the title, jihaddist movement in afghanistan, syria, and iraq. what are the reasons for the sentiment we see today, where are we going, where is it leading to, and what is the part of responsibility of the policy itself? to what extent is a social sent
12:41 am
or -- sentiment or the result of not so smart policy over the past decade or even longer. this is at least part of this question that we'll try to address this afternoon. to do so, we have three speakers, four speakers, has been in the past resident fellow at the carnegie endowment and still a nonaren't fellow who is a professor of political science at the university of paris, and numerous reports on an article on afghanistan, syria, including afghanistan revolution. next we have author kenny, a fellow of the french institute for near east studies center, located in three places, actually. damascus, ammann, and beirut,
12:42 am
and which is part of a larger network of some 27 french research institutes across the world. a network which is a member of young french researchers to get accustomed to the field, and i insist on the field in the countries where they are in residence for a period going to -- from one year three more most of the time. and so we have -- works as the order conflict and violence fellow at yale university, ph.d student in political science at the -- in paris. we needed no less than colonel of the u.s. air force reserve, i am naming, of course, my colleague, who is here -- senior
12:43 am
at the middle east program, and was previously, as you all know, a fellow at the rand corporation, and a number of actual field research. he focuses on gulf political affairs, libya, and u.s. policy in the middle east, and we could dream of no better discussion than him this afternoon. so that leaves the floor to gilles who will introduce the topic ask then we'll move on to the other speakers and then as usual we'll have a q & a at the end. >> thank you for the kind word ask all the work for the organization. a pleasure to be back at the carnegie. a very peaceful invasion. so, what is the question? we are doing -- the three of us,
12:44 am
field work in iraq, afghanistan, syria, and the u.s. policies is some kind offing offing nil anything ma d offing anything ma. it's difficult to understand and the question we're going to try to understand is if the u.s. policy is at least partially responsible of the chaos we're seeing in afghanistan, iraq, and syria, and trying to answer this question, i would like first to say that in the three crises we ask the same moments in the u.s. policy. first, intervention, and most of the time too much money, too many men, or too much something. the second time is always with law. but not kind of slow and
12:45 am
controlled. withdrawal, because something or somebody in washington decide it's over with, this crisis, and the third step is that because the situation is totally out of control, we are going to -- we are obliged to be back in the crisis. and more or less it is describing the three crisis. the u.s. policy in these three crisis. and the idea we have is that first we have a failure to build allies. most of the time we are speaking of state building but i'd like to speak about allies building. allies have been a -- in these three countries -- then the withdrawal was not done in very reasonable condition, because it was dictated by political considerations in washington.
12:46 am
and it makes abuse of the fragility of the -- specially in iraq and afghanistan. and then the comeback is the dilemma. the u.s. is coming back without allies on the ground, and what we are seeing now in iraq and syria, what we are going to see the next few years in afghanistan, is this problem. as intervenor country when you don't have allies. first i'll talk about building allies and, then he'll speak about withdrawal and consequences, and then finish with the dilemma of being back. so, the first one is building allies. so here we are mostly two problems. the first problem, and it took me a few years to understand --
12:47 am
what was exactly this problem -- is the perception of the local society by the u.s. administration, and modern that inside the diplomacy, the u.s. diplomacy, a perception, very particular specific perception, of the local society. meaning afghanistan, iraqi or syrian society. the first very wrong idea is that almost without exception it's overplaying the -- the u.s. policy is overplaying the local ethic, in the tribe, all about fragmentation in this society. the tribe in afghanistan and iraq or syria but at the same time, the way is perceived is as if tribes were the basis of the
12:48 am
political society in these countries. this is a very wrong idea. it takes can explain at least partially that the state building in this country was extremely ambiguous. on the one hand you know you have plenty of now build states and n iraq and afghanistan. at the same time, you are plenty of practices from the military, whatever, that are destroying the very idea of a state in this country. and there is for that is the situation where, of course, state building was mostly a failure. the second point we make is about sectarianism. the u.s. policy beyond the question of the locals, tends to put societies on sectarianism, the differences between
12:49 am
religious group and it's a self fluvialing process in rake, the country was not divided between shia, sunni, and so on. so, this is also an element of the perception of the society. the second problem is about the -- one of the most fascinating aspects of the u.s. policy in iraq and in afghanistan has been the fact that there was a lot of attention to the input and the output on the crisis, how many men you're sending to the country but not much about the outcomes. so, in fact, all americans strategy isn't a question about what do we do?
12:50 am
do we need more more men, more money, to be more in this crisis? but never what are we going to do with it? and the most perfect example of this is the surge in afghanistan. the surge in afghanistan is a moment where the amount of money spent in this country was obliged to create huge, totally dysfunctional processes. corruption, for example, is a logical consequence of sending too much money in a country that has no infrastructure to use it. it's absolutely money. there is no other way. corruption is the logical result of this. there is also -- this is part of the corruption process -- the fact that the state, when you have this amount of -- the state
12:51 am
cannot be neutral. the state actually is a stake for the political parties are the local groups or whatever. it means that you cannot build consensus among elites, for example, political -- this is not possible. what we have seen in both iraq and afghanistan, all process, actually, stopped the minute the u.s. went there to be sure that was some kind of respect for the legal opposition, and this is a key element. election in iraq went directly to a very sectarian government. election in afghanistan led too a total policy of the state. as fares i know -- i didn't check this morning -- still no government in afghanistan,, and the first -- [inaudible]
12:52 am
>> it was perfectly okay, a huge amount in the diplomatic community, and the more than six months later still no. so all these presses led -- processes met me to conclude that there is inherently the way the u.s. is using its -- the way to destroy the country to destroy the allies that are supposed to be built with this resources, and this is something we have to think about for probably for the future. >> thanks. a note to continue about what gilles was saying. what happened of the withdrawal of u.s. forces or the intervention? syria. quickly, after the withdrawal of the u.s. forces, as i will say, the institutions, led by the american and the -- the afghan regime and iraq regimes were not
12:53 am
about to rule the country. i will say first there was a huge gap between the leads, and the population. mostly the difference elections process, directed in this country with the support of international community without any legitimacy according to what would be a democratic process. and then the only way for the people to rule the country is by the -- the money, the resources put inside the police security forces in iraq and in afghanistan is totally amazing. you cannot find a solution. you cannot negotiate with the population if you only have security forces as the institution to deal with the population. then the local elites, mostly tribal elites, was made by american forces in iraq, was not
12:54 am
working so well after the u.s. withdrawl because of the lack of the money. and that puts those people who are choosing this -- those people who represent -- are choosing by american many elected during the elections that make them not able to rule the country and negotiate with the people and control territories where they have to deal with -- the second point about the failure of the different is the second tearannization the politic of u.s. in afghanistan and iraq was to deal with -- shia, mostly in iraq, to stabilize and to find a way to stabilize the situation and to decrease the poor on
12:55 am
the -- that's -- in 2011 when the u.s. withdraw from iraq, the group relating directly that were mostly destroyed. a lot of people left insurgents groups to join the institutions, find a job, try to get normal situation. but the second sec tareanizeation, after the withdrawal of u.s. forces, al-maliki the day after tried to arrest the most popular political elites. that starts a huge crisis. two or three years of demonstrating in the country, who led the -- the comeback of al qaeda. in afghanistan, we are noing something to the deal between the different network of one
12:56 am
side -- and a side trying to take more and more position on that very -- because of the civil war or maybe start inside of the afghan institution. and then in syria we will come back later on this point but the lack of support, especially after the chemical attack in the summer of 2014, pave the way so some radical groups to come would and can rule the territory as isis. the second point i want to develop is the withdrawal of u.s. forces without the failure of the afghan army on mostly iraqi army as we saw the last -- when mosul fled into the end of the iraqi insurgents and isis.
12:57 am
the problem as gilles was saying there was too much put in the different institutions, the different regime, but no cohesion inside the armia. you need military. we tried to create in iraq or afghanistan. so inside the iraqi army was very huge to be on the field with the iraqi army. it was amazing to see how much iraqi soldier were not able to deal because one guy is sitting -- the commander with the shia tradition, no one trust. this lack of -- can explain the fragmentation when isis attack and the army, even if they are -- in mosul was the main base in north of iraq, the armia was not able to confront a small
12:58 am
radical group as coming back to iraq. in afghanistan, the collapse of the army is clear. the loss of the ruler we have is the main front but after one, two years, the cities can be traced very quickly. the difference in afghanistan went from -- to thousand men against the afghan army. and there is no more road in afghanistan that you can take -- me most safe road you can take to move from one city to another city. extremely difficult in the situation for the new rugtime. the last point was syria. the chemical attack was for the childrens in syria. and the lack of response from the international community, the
12:59 am
failure of international community to find the solution, to put the regime in front of his civility, makes a huge gap between the insurgents, ssa, and the different international support they can find. right now, the game in syria is going through the -- like gulf countries, turkey, and iran, and occidental countries are less and less allies, as was saying gilles, to start to create some new face, institutions, the bashar regime. that is always a huge problem that we show in middle east. that we are not able to even in syria, where we have people fighting, where we have credible
1:00 am
institution inside territories to deal with, even with this allies we are not able to do anything to develop any strategy on the field, on that -- or specially of the u.s. administration, very work. thank you. so, now that the u.s. have pulled back and they have tried to avoid getting stuck in them, meaning afghanistan, iraq, and syria. once a member -- a year and a half ago when they were doing an op-ed in the "new york times" with brilliant title, "let them bleed to death. " he has proven that cynicism is not a proven intelligence here, and in a sense when we see today the u.s. army and the united
1:01 am
states forced to come back in afghanistan, iraq, and syria, we seeing that the main problem that have been plaguing the action of the u.s. -- united states in the past showed consideration, internal consideration, up to here, and in iraq and syria you have a bombing campaign with a clear will to have no troops on the ground and looking for allies when none exist, and in afghanistan, though we do not speak about it anymore, drone attack have become very important. daily in cue are in, and daily in helmand, and a lot of place in afghanistan the military just hold because there is american air campaign going around. there's many signals of pressure on the united states to come back. think of the simple fact that the report on the afghan army has been classified. that already something very
1:02 am
telling. why coming back the three conflict in which the obama administration has been promising it would avoid, would withdraw from. it's very washingtonon. not related to what happened in the region. you can see it in the way they make decision play a whole role in decision to intervene. much more than structure factors. think of the role that the taking of hostages by the islamic state, which is a tragic moment but certainly not a strategic issue. how much terrorism play bigger role in discussion than the structure in the middle east, despite the fact the middle east is going going throw the biggest crisis since the end of the otto man empire, and the westerners are selective with minorities.
1:03 am
let me take two example. the choice when the campaign started in syria is revealing. there is a rational, the organization was suspected of planning terrorist attack in europe, but by doing so, america has alienated one of its essential ally in middle east, the flee syrian army, an ally a that was strong military and needed to avoid more than anything else the fighting in the fear that the u.s. would start building up an army against the islamic state. the situation is simple. taking over a big part of the territory can use the ssa fighting already the islamic state and regime at the same time. the choice to intervene on the
1:04 am
yazidi front in iraq, understandable, very important to do, but why do we decide that the yazidi, when they're into important, sunni can iraqis, are not. or when you get big problem around shia and also -- it's not the same problem. we being very selective. the choice for the air force is telling. when you decide to mom the helmund and cue far without strategy you are alienating the population, it's also the islamic state temperatures when the air force bombs, and targeting within the city, military targets, whichles fact the population, critical infrastructure, like electricity, again, the fact of the population, you can explain
1:05 am
or you can make people understand those two countries that there is an aerial campaign that will at some point give them free tom from the islamic state but when you have campaign that is. >> ly and explicitly saying this is only made with no plan beyond to go beyond taking territory, pretty sure the people in the villages not happy to live under the islamic state but to have electricity stop and bombs falling every day. this strategy is opening the space for nonstate actors of various types, and there is a big risk of -- this is not a coincidence in afghanistan, win of the core element of the strategy of washington to withdraw fromas has been to support milosevic lit yas around -- militias in the country, increase the risk of
1:06 am
fragmentation, more and more locals which are taking positions in the construed countryside and it's one over the factors that support the taliban. did not middle long range shift towards human order you need to support another actor. and in syria, the united states is doing what is expected never to do, support the pkk, which is a group on the terrorist list, or end up being forced to support the bad militaries in iraq, the kdp and to pkk the risk of the two moms asking for more autonomy and big tensions with turkey. what's the implication of such a strategy? the implication is several fold. you have a dynamic organization of the iraqi state, which is becoming more and more important. despite the genuine attempt to train, for example, sunni, iraqi
1:07 am
army units, in anbar province, which the iraqi state does not want to really use, you end up having an iraqi state which is more and more closing itself on one of the sectors. and syria you have no -- free syrian army not supported. the civil institution which were working really well in 2012 and 2013, and do it without money, are -- have been largely undermined by the situation and you -- we are -- strategically, a victory over the islamic state builds a dilemma. everyone the islamic state won a territory it slows for population. now, we see it in iraq, every time the islamic state loses a territory, sunni iraqis -- we enter a dynamic where the victory of the islamie state is bat, the defeat of the islamic
1:08 am
state can have dire consequences and when you have two bad possibles it means that's really a problem in afghanistan, the strategy and the fact that the election ended up in a deal where the tension went up from the -- to inside of the state institution, did effectively manage to slow down the taliban advance, but the risk of this is a pandora box. today afghanistan is one of the very few country in civil war which have a shia minority and the fighting is not sectarian. in the 1990s you had deals more or less so you don't have a country like in pakistan, like in syria or iraq, which is sectarian. opening an ethnic box and
1:09 am
playing ethnic strategy. to conclude, what we trying to explain, what we been trying to do, looking at the fact of the american policy on the ground, is that went from high investment to withdrawal and coming back, and in the wave is -- of those waves, we argue that evidence which seems to be not that evident that structure factors are important in the way america should build it foreign policy. the use of resources has to follow u.s. internal logic. the withdrawal has been on the agenda following u.s. internal logic and the coming back today follows largely the u.s. domestic agenda. with afghanistan, iraq, and syria, there is a will to take the lessons of two wars and decision not to engage in
1:10 am
supporting insurgency. i think all very important, and if you think of the situation we have today in those three countries if you allow know conclude on that, there's a couple of things that we think could be interesting to think of. one is that in afghanistan, if in any case there was will to advance a political agenda, a stabilization will only make sense itself has with it a negotiation agenda. the whole narrative of thousand beings fragmented, being several movements, does not hold anymore. and in such a context, if there's a will to find a settlement, it will have to go through a negotiate with that movement. in the iraq and syria is the a necessity to be ready for the
1:11 am
fall of the islamic state. they would end up -- because it doesn't have the resources to replace every weapon that his losing because -- disif a quickly, at least in such a case there's a need to have a scenario to are what will happen in sunni areas in iraq and syria, and here the premises are very different in iraq there's a need to engage with sunni elite and be prepared for more and more slaughter, as mach as the iraqi army and the shia mill -- militia advance, and syria the fall of the islamic state at some point this actor, which has been major in transforming the war into regional war, if want to calm down that issue we need to engage again with the revolution elites, the people that were the free syrian army, to give them the football rebuild alternative situation.
1:12 am
thank you. >> thank you very much. we have covered a lot of ground. probably open a few controversy and i'm being nice here. so, before we turn to the audience, let fred react to this intervention and give us his sense of what was said. >> sure. well, thank you again for inviting me, and it's a delight to host our colleagues from across the atlantic. i'm sensing a lot of common threads throughout these three presentations, and when i reflect on them i'm struck by the title of a very well known book on america's foreign policy in the middle east by lawrence freedman, called, choice of enemies. and what i'm struck by is the fact that u.s. policy in all of these cases is really a series of tradeoffs. we're dealing with compromised allies, dealing with imperfect partners. we're searching for new allies. in many cases those allies are
1:13 am
drawing us into very localized power struggles we don't fully understand, and here i want to reference the misreading of the map that gilles mentioned where we tend to see things in terms s of a patchwork of tribed and sects and we get drawn into localized power struggles. i want to caveat presentations with an appreciation for the hims of u.s. policy. the u.s. was not responsible for the sectarianization of iraq or the rise of militia politics or tribes in iraq, for instance. i think you can really pinpoint a lot of that to the policies of the sadam regime in the latter years of his regime he began retriballizing the iraqi society, he ban hollowing out the military, devolving power to militias. the same thing in a country i work on, libya. a lot of talk about the nato intervention and what it did but many of those the aftereffects were done -- the genesis was really under moammar gadhafi.
1:14 am
so we're confronted with fractured states, iraq, syria, libya, the hollowing out of security structures. we don't have sufficient partners weapon don't know how to operate in those environments to says natural we trying to deal with nonstate actors, tribes,th anything mill lit ya, and the question is what does the future contured of thieves states going look lining? i think it can best be described as a hybrid security environment where you have very hollow, corrupt, notional state institutions working alongside paramilitaries, tribes, sectarian mill lit ya and this is the future. how does the u.s. as a state power that is used to dealing with ministries of defense, ministries of interior, how does it insert itself into those very fractured states? i completely agree with much of what was said here about the
1:15 am
absolute corruption of many of our allies and the fact that we're working for centralized regimes that are fueling the very extremism that they purport to be fighting. and this is a problem that is not going to go airplane. we often hear in u.s. circles the talk of regionalizing our contract are counterterrorism cooperation. ...
1:16 am
a. >> to look at the role of prisons. i really think that much of this is about the world and the incarceration of jihad is. we know of those in iraq. we can go back to the jordanian prison system. when the u.s. engages with its allies, how much oversight and leverage does it really have over these incubators of jihad is a and radicalization. and so i think that we are in a very difficult bind on a number of countries. i completely agree with what was said about airpower. the question is what would be a better strategy. when i hear u.s. officials justify the national guard program in iraq, and you're are absolutely right to warn about
1:17 am
the dangers of that program increasing fragmentation and a lesser role, what is the opportunity? they are framing it in terms of a defense force, they are aware of the fact that this seems to be tethered to the central government. and i would argue that it's not something that the iraqi government does not want. it's a proposal to keep it going forward. trying to work out the command and control issues. and so again in terms of the theme of this panel and policy failure and the inevitable, let's go back to january of 2014 when we start to hear the first about isis and the movement towards iraq. what would you tell him to do at that point different way, as the president, president obama. at that point i want to press you a little bit more and
1:18 am
perhaps talk about the lack of support paves the way for radical actors. and again it goes back to this notion of allies. and we know from history that the allies are often imperfect. and it imparts too much credibility, the combat capability. so just explain that more in terms of the timeframe and what i understand for training and arms that would be required to really make this into a fighting force. and i welcome your thoughts on that. >> thank you very much. we have a big debate. >> thank you for the information.
1:19 am
we thank you for the question. in december, january, we were trained to do this in washington. [inaudible] and what was the argument was that we were actually seeing this in syria and there was strong situations. and at the same time we wrote about this with the
1:20 am
presentations and this was coming from the response. and we were very clear that this can be too dangerous and at the same time we were very clear that it wasn't very efficient. and we swear there was a key point and that was all about the strategy of bashar al-assad. it was a clear strategy in the area and then to be able to marginalize miss. so at the same time there were more radical groups led by people coming from bashar
1:21 am
al-assad [inaudible] and so the key thing is actually the point here, we have a no-fly zone and to give enough and it was a key decision. now you have more than one doing much more than that. [inaudible] in this part of syria. and so it would've been extremely difficult with that same population. much more difficult for them to do something. and so it could've been very much more the same. in a again, there was a
1:22 am
resurgence and it was very clear that we are not reporting the insurgents. and i remember that there was a huge clash and all united against this with some states. [inaudible] and this includes some of their positions in syria. and in some cases they did a very good job. but it's going to give you some kind of [inaudible] and so they came back from this side in 2014.
1:23 am
so the united states says okay, it's not very good but it's the same thing that we can talk about what these people in the north would put them with bashar al-assad. and so i think that the game in iraq is much more complicated. and so we are in a situation and some of this is the same. [inaudible] and you learn to pay for things correctly. so i can say that there's no good solution in this way and it
1:24 am
can be considered at times impossible. >> okay. maybe we need to come back to this. and you talk about how the u.s. doesn't have to deal with this position. and it's true that this was built in a rock with lots of different groups. and that is why they don't have the ability to do anything special. but when the u.s. army created this and there were groups fighting, that is what people had talked about doing.
1:25 am
[inaudible] but then we all know about this. i have a lot of this [inaudible] and they said to me why and how and that was part of it. so as you say we talked about this affecting iraq and many times you have a lot of militia against sunni insurgents. and there are those that try to stop what they have seen and
1:26 am
this time it was exactly where is this was working against isis [inaudible] in syria. so this quickly could turn into an issue to push anwar al-alwaki into this as far as fighting goes in iraq. >> okay. let's turn to the audience. as usual, please introduce yourself and indicate who you are. and then please ask your question [inaudible]
1:27 am
>> hello, i am with the american league and i thank you for the opportunity to have such an enlightening discussion. when the u.s. wanted to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction and then they said we want to have democracy in the country, it took them so many years with many of the policies being part of the intentions and there was a protection chain to the perception of reality. and look at what happened. and so in this case we have asked others about this.
1:28 am
and he said that they are coming any day. and i'm telling you the story because we help them to understand. my question is do you think that the u.s. needs to review the policy for the middle east in particular? and if they do need to review their policy and revamp their cause we, what recommendation would establish people give them? think you. >> thank you. thank you for reporting on that. [inaudible conversations]
1:29 am
[laughter] >> i think the answers the question whether the movements are a policy failure, we would have to consider what the policymakers consider success in those countries and i think that it's obvious that success would've been to establish compliant regimes. and that is sort of a dream considering modern history unresisting be imperialists. so could it be that we really don't have the proxy armies that we are seeing in the middle east today. and it's really weakened today.
1:30 am
i don't really care if that becomes a failed state. gore right before the second world war after germany invaded russia and before we had gone in, harry truman suggested that when the germans were winning, they kill as many men as possible. right now the muslims are doing a good job of killing the muslims, which could be distracting them from bothering us. am i right? well, that may be -- >> there is a diversion at the outset. anyway, who would like to start? >> we have one more question. >> please go ahead. >> okay, [inaudible]

35 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on