Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  May 2, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT

12:00 am
broken promises in the past. i want to be the first politician to underpromise and overdeliver, not overpromise and underdeliver. and look, sometimes -- sometimes that means i'll get a hard time from people like jo because i'm not making the easy promise. but i'm not the guy who's going to make the easy promises. because all it does is it makes people think you're all going to break your promises. >> no, no no. i'm afraid we've come to the end of those 28 minutes. >> it flew by for me. maybe not for the audience. >> thank you very much, mr. miliband miliband. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> so the last of our three leaders now. from the liberal democrat party, the leader of the liberal democrats, would you welcome nick clegg.
12:01 am
[ applause ] and mr. clegg the first question comes from darren metcalfe, please. darren metcalfe. >> nick. >> hi, darren. >> how are you? your promise on student loans has destroyed your reputation. why would we ever believe anything else you say? [ applause ] >> nice easy way to start. look, firstly, i got it wrong. i said sorry. musically, no less. when you make a mistake in politics just as in life in politics just as in life sometimes you can't do exactly what you want. i was absolutely between a rock and a hard place five years ago on that particular policy. secondly, i hope you can at least give me credit for the many, many other things that i have actually put into practice, whether it's taking lots of people on low pay out of paying any income tax. the biggest expansion of
12:02 am
apprenticeships this country's ever seen. the biggest reform of our pension system in a generation. more money into schools to help with the education of disadvantaged children. more childcare. shared parental leave. healthy lunches for little kids at primary school. the list goes on. i accept for some people, and you may be one of them for whom that one thing you can't forgive, you can't forget -- >> why did you vote for it and not just abstain? because it was such a key thing. you had all your candidates going around to these things. why didn't you abstain when it came to the vote? rather than vote in favor. that's the thing that upset people. >> well, i mean, what happened as you may remember was the previous government, the labour government introduced fees and then increased them. when we came into government there, was no money left. david cameron's just been waving around the letter which provided to the liberal democrat chief secretary of the treasury at the time saying there was no money left. and both the larger parties as they i think would admit if you asked them about it wanted fees to go up very considerably. the report commissioned at the time into all this said there
12:03 am
should be no limit at all. in a sense what we did is get the fairest deal we could in those circumstances. and thankfully you've now got more young people at university than ever before. as i said earlier my experience is some people will say i can't forget that. i hope there are plenty of other fair-minded folk who will accept that nonetheless there are many many, many other good policies that i did put into practice. >> anybody want to come in on this? you, sir in the middle. yes, you in the center. >> policy of increasing tuition fees, essentially robbing from the rich you're taking money away from future generations to go to university because the economy's going bust by people not repaying their fees, not getting enough money to be able to make the threshold. and the policies are completely defunct. >> no, i don't agree with that. under the old system we inherited if you left university you had to stop repaying the moment you earned 15,000 pounds.
12:04 am
now you don't pay back if you earn 16 17, 18, 19 20:00 you only start paying back when you earn -- >> that's precisely my point. >> no. well, you're right -- some people say it's not generous enough. you're saying it's too generous. you're right to say that no one needs to pay up front. thousands of students under the old system who used to have to pay up front or ask their parents to do so. and crucially if you can't pay it off during your working life it gets paid off for you. so in a sense it's a much, much more fair system. it's not the system i would have liked. but it's a much, much more fair system than people alleged at the time it was introduced. >> the question was about trust. you, sir, in the blue pullover there with the tie. yes. second row from the back. >> hi mr. clark. the public suggests -- >> did you say prime minister clegg? mr. clegg. i thought you said prime minister clegg for a moment. >> the public says they can't forgive that one thing. in hindsight would you go into coalition in 2010 again? >> yes, absolutely. the more i look back the more i
12:05 am
think it's a brave decision for the liberal democrats. it's come at a political cost. but it's clear in my mind -- we could have been greece. our deficit was almost as big as greece's. our banking crisis was a whole lot worse. and i certainly wouldn't have wanted on my conscience higher interest rates higher unemployment higher youth unemployment, which i'm absolutely sure would have happened if we hadn't stepped up to the plate to create a stable government without which an economic recovery is not possible. and my great concern at the moment is that having got this far over five years, and >> 1,500 pounds off 8 million of the most vulnerable families. we can only assume that they're looking at the kind of plans which they floated some years ago. >> did you know about it when it happened? >> yes but if they're -- >> we didn't know. it only came out today. that's what she means. something you discovered and worked on in coalition which has been kept secret until today. it's a way of attacking the tory
12:06 am
party. >> last summer george osborne made a speech at the conservative party conference and he said that the conservative party in a radical departure from the sensible way which we've adopted over the last five years to balance the books, are not going to ask the very wealthy in society to pay a single extra penny in tax to balance the books and instead only the working-age poor are going to pick up the tab for the mistakes made by the bankers. i think that's unfair. they've said they want to take the equivalent of 1,500 pounds off the 8 million poorest families in this country. they won't tell you how they'll do that. 12 billion pounds is about exactly as much as we spend as a country on disability living allowance. are they going to scrap disability allowance? are they going to scrap it? it's about the same as we spend on employment support allowance. are they going to scrap that? i think the point that danny was making quite rightly is we've had five weeks of this election campaign. the conservators have a very
12:07 am
unfair plan to balance the books which departs from what we've done in coalition. and i think we are entitled to say what are you going to do? who are you going to hurt? who's going to bear the pain? >> the woman back there. >> i don't think voters want to hear reasons why not to vote for another party. we want reasons why to vote for your party. >> sure. [ applause ] that's fair. but i think also voters want to know what the choices are. and i think at the moment the fundamental choices are a conservative plan which i've just described which i think wants to ballot books, which we must do, but wants to do so unfairly, and a labour plan which still won't give you any time table or any detail or any plan about how to balance the books in the first place. i think one of the most important things, whoever is in government, in whatever combination -- and by the way, unlike ed miliband and david cameron i'm not pretending i'm going to be prime minister next thursday. i wish it were otherwise, but i doubt it's an impending prospect. i think they know they're not going to be prime minister.
12:08 am
they're not coming clean with you. that they're going to have to make compromises as well. all i'm saying is in the decisions about how we govern ourselves after next thursday when you cast your vote one of the most important questions is how do you finish the job of wiping the slate clean so that our kids and our grandkids don't continue to pay the price for our generations' debts but you do so fairly. and that's why i think the center-ground position from the liberal democrats makes more sense than excessive cuts or excessive borrowing. >> somebody's got to be prime minister. who are you going to make prime minister? hang on. if you were in a position to decide. >> here's the most unsurprising assertion of the evening. either david cameron or ed miliband are going to be prime minister. >> it may be no prime minister. it may be so badly mashed about by the election nobody can form a majority. >> everybody's got to behave in a grownup responsible way even if they don't --
12:09 am
>> we heard ed miliband here say he wouldn't depend on the scottish national party. >> should i try to answer the question? >> yes. >> david cam sxron ed miliband are going to walk into number 10 as prime minister. i don't think that's much in doubt. you have to decide which of those two. the real question is who's going to go in alongside them? alex hammond? is it going to be nigel farraj? or is it going to be me and the liberal democrats? my great fear as i said earlier is if you have david cameron to the tune of nigel farraj or the swivel-eyed brigade on the right wing of the conservative party or you have ed miliband basically the beck and call of alex hammond you lurch off to the right and the left which is not what we need as a country. >> you sir. [ applause ] then i'll come to you. >> that's all well and good. but you've just told us that in 2010 you had to make a very difficult decision on tuition fees. how do we know that you won't have to make a very difficult decision again around the things you're promising us tonight? >> and that's a totally fair challenge. and that's why i've been much
12:10 am
clearer and crisper, i hope maybe you didn't hear it about the red lines without which the liberal democrats simply won't go into any coalition government. for instance, education spending, you just heard ed miliband say that the labour party wants into crease education spending to keep up with prices. what he didn't tell you is that there were going to be 460,000 new youngsters going into education system. so you need to increase spending to help them as well. the conservatives want to do the referring, keep up with increased pupil number but not with prices. both amount to a cut, a multibillion-pound cut to the money that goes into our nurseries, our schools and our colleges. i cannot be more clean than you -- with you. the liberal democrats will not go into any coalition, any government. we won't sign a coalition agreement unless -- if either of those parties insist on those cuts to our education system because i think that really is short-changing the little children of today, who should be given just as much -- >> you mean you want more than just a standstill because you've said there are, what is it
12:11 am
400,000 people coming into education. you want a big expansion of the education budget. >> i think the increase of the budget needs to keep pace not only with prices but also with the increase of the numbers. >> do you have any idea what the cost of that would be? >> it would be another 5 billion pounds by the final year of the next parliament. >> and you can find that? >> yes. >> you think. you, sir. >> i just wondered if you've got plans for a new job after next week when you become unemployed and it becomes irrelevant. >> charming. no i don't. >> all right. david jackson. question from david jackson, please. >> nick. how do you feel about the huge increase of people driven to use food banks many of them in work poverty or falling foul of benefit sanctions? >> well, i think like everybody here i don't -- it's very -- it's very distressing to see an increasing number of people move into food banks. and that's why every day that i've been in government over the
12:12 am
last five years as we had to clean up this unholy mess we inherited, this massive black hole in our public finances, a broken banking system the biggest heart attack in our economy in a generation i've always tried to take decisions where we spread the burden as fairly as possible. so for instance i have resisted time and time again much, much deeper cuts to benefits to the help given to the most vulnerable, those who fall on hard times as advocated by conservatives in government. when people get back into work particularly those on low pay, i'd be very anxious to make sure they keep more of the money they earn. when i came into government, everybody here, all of us would start paying income tax the moment you earned 6,400 pounds. on the front page of your well-thumbed copy of the 2010 liberal democrat manifesto you would have seen an absolute leading commitment which we did stick to which was that we would raise the point at which you pay income tax. sow pay no income tax on the first 10,600 pounds you earn. that has actually meant 3
12:13 am
million people over 3 million people on low pay pay no income tax for the first time ever. the final thing i would say is about the benefit sanctions which you mentioned. i do -- i have become persuaded listening to the trestle trust and others who provided evidence about the reasons people are using food banks. i have become persuaded that we need in effect a kind of yellow card system that some of the sanctions that applied to people who don't meet the conditions of their benefits shouldn't be imposed quite as harshly and automatically as they are. and that is a change i would want to introduce in the next parliament. [ applause ] >> good evening, nick. i do think you're an honorable man, but what you're forgetting is that all these sanctions are in place because you put cameron into number 10. you didn't have a majority. so there would be no work program, nowhere near as many benefit sanctions and you could have made a different choice, and that's why people don't trust you. people like me that voted for you in the election did not vote liberal democrat to put cameron in number 10.
12:14 am
>> hang on. just explain what did you expect? what did you want? >> i'm sorry. >> what did you want? >> my preference would have been for him to have continued negotiations with labour, which i think a lot of liberal democrat natural voters would vote for labour that protested. >> qi just make -- there's just the little matter of democracy. >> you could have chosen. >> no. >> you did choose. >> no. >> accept responsibility. you did choose. that was your choice. >> that's not actually the case. after the last election no one won a majority. whether you and i like it or not, the liberal democrats did not win. i'm not prime minister. i lead a party of 8% of mps in the house of commons. and it was the conservatives that won the most votes and seats. >> you're slagging each other off. david cameron said you were a great team and now you're slagging each other off. >> and he keeps talking about darkened rooms, ed miliband. if either of them thinks they're going to win a majority they need to go lie down in that
12:15 am
darkened room. the point -- [ applause ] the point i'd like to make to you and to everybody is this, is that you are the boss. right? we are your servants. you give us through the way you vote next thursday our marching instructions. and last time the marching instructions were very, very clear. the only way we could create a stable government at a time of economic firestorm which could engulf this country, we could have been the next domino to fall after greece and portugal and spain was the conservatives -- >> it's nothing like greece, our economy. and you know it. our economy is nothing like greece. comparing this country to the economy of greece. you're not that stupid. >> no, i don't. with the greatest respect, please don't be complacent about the state of the british economy. our banking crisis was considerably worse than greece's. our deficit was just as bad -- >> what about our assets? >> if you want to see what happens where people don't step up to the plate, however
12:16 am
controversial it is, to provide stable government, look at the 50% youth unemployment in many other european countries where governments haven't got to grips with the economic crisis. i will never apologize never apologize. whatever the short-term political effects. on the liberal democrats. for having stepped up to the plate in a very plucky and brave way to put the country before party. [ applause ] >> all right. >> i don't know whether the color of your pullover is -- >> yellow. >> it does say something does it? >> no. >> your question. >> good evening, mr. clegg. you mentioned about democracy. do i assume from that that when the phone rings on friday morning, next friday morning, that the first person you will speak to will be the person who has most seats? >> yeah. i think the party that gets the biggest mandate from you, in other words, the party with the most votes and the most seats, even if they haven't got a slam
12:17 am
dunk result, has in a democracy the result -- the right forgive me, to make -- if you like the first move to reach out to other parties to assemble a government if they so choose. it may not work out. other parties may not reciprocate. and then other arrangements might need to be arrived at. but i think in a democracy it just seems to me a pretty old-fashioned principle that the party that's got its nose ahead of the other parties because of the way you vote even if they haven't got an outright majority, has got the mandate to try and put together a government. >> all right. before we go into another question, does anybody else want to speak about food banks? specifically. which was the question we had. taken point. no? all right. let's go on to a question from grace davis please. grace davis. >> is free movement within the uk creating a problem -- in the eu creating a problem in the uk? >> free movement in the eu, is it creating a problem in the uk? i think it did create a problem when free movement became kind of the same as the freedom to claim. i don't think the freedom to
12:18 am
move is the same as the freedom to claim. so even though i am pro european, not because i think it's perfect but i think it makes sense for an open economy to be part of the world's largest marketplace even though i am pro european, i decided as deputy prime minister in this coalition government to break that link so that people couldn't arrive here from elsewhere in the european union and claim benefits, no questions asked, on the first day they arrive. by the way, i would also point out it is a two-way street. there are roughly about as many brits living and working elsewhere in the european union than there are europeans working in our country. we've got to remember it's also a freedom which many of us, british people also benefit from in europe. >> where do you stand on the question of a referendum? because we had david cameron saying there was no way he'd do any kind of deal which didn't allow a referendum on europe after the negotiation -- >> so david cameron and i together actually in coalition government legislated for the circumstances in which a
12:19 am
referendum will take place. >> you're happy with that? >> i am happy with that. he appears to have changed his mind. i agree. it's perfectly sensible to say to you in law that in future if your palace -- if the sovereignty of our nation is in any way shared or pooled with the european union at that point it should be your choice whether we carry on in the european union or not. it shouldn't be the choice of the parliament or the government of the day. we shouldn't be able to give your powers away behind your back. that is what we legislated for in 2011. and there are stirring speeches by william hague and david cameron in the house of commons saying this is the right approach. within months the ink was barely dry on the legislation. the conservatives have now changed their mind again and again and again. but i remain of the view, as i always have done, that we should have a referendum on whether we should stay in or leave the european union when new powers are given up to the european union. and i will, by the way -- again shock, horror. always argue that we must remain part of the european union.
12:20 am
i think as we quit we've book poorer. unemployment goes up and investment goes down. [ applause ] >> the logic of what you say in view of what david cameron said earlier on this program is you can't go into coalition with him because you will only allow a referendum if powers are given to the european union. he wants to repatriate some hours and then have a referendum. >> you should have taken the opportunity when david cameron was here to ask him about the conservative position. >> you should explain it. you heard him. you were listening in the back room. >> conservatives say they want to renegotiate but -- >> sometimes they say 2016. sometimes they say they're going to leave the european union if they don't get what they want. sometimes they say they'll stay. i don't know what they're going to think on your next tuesday let alone on may the 8th. i think there should be a
12:21 am
referendum. i say this is a pro european whether they stay in or go out, when new powers are given up by us as a country to the european -- >> only when new powers are given up. i think you've spoken already. then i'll come to you. yes, sir. >> we've got eight countries. we've got eight countries that are about to possibly leave the european union and we've got stilt eurozone crisis lying underneath. >> eight countries about to leave. >> yeah. we've got spain. we've got cyprus. they're in danger of leaving. there's a chance that they will leave soon. we've got the eurozone debt crisis still underneath the surface and we've got 30% government bonds european government bonds trading at negative interest rates. and germany, the heart of the eu, 70% of its government bonds are trading at negative interest rates. i want to know how bad does it have to get before you would think perhaps now we should leave? >> i don't by the way, think eight countries will leave. >> possibility. >> well, everything's a
12:22 am
possibility. but i don't -- i absolutely don't think it's going to happen. i'll tell you why. because in a globalized world where we have big borderless threats like climate change, you know, human traffickers and crime which crossed borders, we have these massive corporations that sort of go from one continent to the other, you've got capital flows going from one -- a corner of the planet to the next it makes sense. i think we become stronger when we do things together. i just think we can fight crime we can fight climate change we can regulate big global corporations better when we do it together. by the way, it's a very similar argument to why i so passionately believe in the country, the united kingdom, that i love so much and i don't want to see it pulled apart. because i think we are just quite simply stronger when we do things together rather than when we fall apart. >> but it still isn't an answer to my question, which is how bad would it have to get? for example, if greece was to leave the european union and then if france which looks set to possibly --
12:23 am
>> i'm sorry. can i interrupt? >> france could possibly vote in the euro-skeptic national front in. and if they do they would full out. >> okay. the description -- >> how bad does it have to get? >> is there other circumstances in which you would say britain should -- >> since i think those circumstances aren't remotely going to happen i cannot envisage circumstances where i think it's sensible for the united kingdom to leave. what is the world's largest borderless marketplace? 500 million shoppers who buy our manufactured products, our services, our goods. do you really think japanese car manufacturers, big investment banks, big legal firms big you know aerospace firms would invest in our country if we were bobbing along somewhere in the mid-atlantic, friendless unable to sell into our own european neighbor? of course not. jobs are at stake. >> we've heard your point. sorry not to keep with you but i want to go to the man up there. >> if you believe in true democracy like you've mentioned a few times you'd give the british people a say on the european union.
12:24 am
[ applause ] >> i've explained the reasons, not only -- when a referendum will take place, but more than that i'm the first deputy prime minister, we're the first government to ever put that into law all right? >> let's go on to another question. brenda hammonds, please. we haven't got much time left. brenda hammonds. >> with rising tension in russia and the middle east, will you support the need for the trident nuclear deterrent? >> where do you stand on the trident nuclear deterrent? >> so i think we should keep the nuclear deterrent in this unsafe world. but i don't think we need to keep it on the same basis on which it was originally designed to flatten moscow at the press of a button. and this comes down to basically whether the trident nuclear system has four nuclear submarines or three nuclear submarines and whether you need a nuclear submarine absolutely 24 hours a day, 365 days of the whole year going around the world. i personally think we can step down the nuclear ladder while
12:25 am
keeping ourselves safe. and that i think is a sensible balanced way to keep ourselves safe but not spend huge amounts of money on a cold war replacement to the nuclear trident system which just doesn't fit the post-cold war world we live there. the kind of threats we face aren't like the cold war. they're stateless groups extremist groups, terrorist groups. the civil war we're seeing raging in syria and elsewhere. those are the big threats. they're not solved by having four nuclear submarines rather than three. >> you, sir at the back. you've spoken already but have another go. >> you're talking about keeping the country safe. when was this country last time attacked by another country? >> well, we are under threat from people who don't want to attack in the conventional sense but want to attack us maim fellow citizens -- >> it's because we're meddling in their countries. >> well i don't actually think there's any excuse that any rational or reasonable person could give to those people who want to kill innocent british citizens through terrorist acts
12:26 am
in our cities. [ applause ] whilst as a good old-fashioned liberal i'm the first person to defend our civil liberties and our freedoms i will -- i think there's no inconsistency between defending our freedoms and keeping ourselves safe. we don't make ourselves any less free by making ourselves any less safe. >> one last thing if i could ask you this. you've said you want the liberal democrats to be the heart for the conservatives the brains for labour. if neither of those works and you can't form a coalition would you remain leader of the liberal democrats or would you see your job as over? >> look, i want to carry on. i'm 48 years old. i've got bags of energy. i believe in what the liberal democrats stand for which is to strike the right balance between creating a strong economy but doing so fairly. i don't think that's represented on either the right or the left of british politics. but look -- >> i have to stop you there. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> a nice brief answer.
12:27 am
thank you. [ applause ] sorry to -- sorry to cut mr. clegg short, but we do have to stop because we have exactly 90 minutes for this program. that ends, incidentally of course as you would guess, this edition of question time. we're going to be back not next thursday when we have the election results but on friday evening at 9:00 when we'll be looking back at the election and seeing what's happened. the first chance to talk about it. so from here my thanks of course to our party leaders and particularly to all of you who came to take part in this in leeds. good night. [ applause ] military and a talk with
12:28 am
12:29 am
britain's head political parties ahead of the elections. now a discussion about global risks with senator lindsay grahm, tony blare, and japanese leader discuss isis russia's conflict, and climate change at the global conference in beverly hills, california. this is just over an hour. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for coming and joining what is going to be a really
12:30 am
interesting panel on global risk of which there is unfortunately a surplus in the world today. we will cover as much as we can in the hour we have. starting on my end is former commander of nato with a 2004 candidate for president and now chairman of the investment bank. next on my left is senator lindsay grahm. republican from south carolina. member of the argument services committee along others. and senator gram last i checked you said there was a 91% chance you would seek the republican nomination for president. >> 92%. >> we will see if that number goes up during the panel. tony blare, former prime minister of great britain and to
12:31 am
his right is state minister for foreign affairs for japan, a member of japan's parliament representing the liberal democratic party. thank you for joining us. mr. blare looking at the middle east and north africa we have three failed states by my count in syria, yemen and libya, all of them in a state of civil war and in every case we see rad radicalism and isis and al-qaeda all in a worse shape than a decade ago. what can the structure do to pru pruvent
12:32 am
pruvent -- prevent this. it is going through a main event for a long period of time. let's take a step back. what is happening in africa across the middle east is a toxic mix of bad tallpolitics and religion created a situation as dictatorships are being cast off there is not the capacity of states to governor themselves and reach an agreement for government in their countries. as result of that the board wishes the people of these countries, which is probably by the way and this is getting squashed under the pressure of
12:33 am
extremism born from religion and combining with the fact there is a situation of instability, in sufficient capacity with the institutions to govern. there are three things relevant to consider. the first is this. each one requires in a sense a decision about where we go. the first is this. when we face groups like isis boca harem, none of these groups are capable of being negotiated with. you have to defeat them. so we have to have the ability and capacity from the military stand point and utilizeing what we have learned to go and defeat them. and a whole series of questions
12:34 am
arise from that and we have to be prepared to answer and have the will and commitment to fight them. that will be done in alliance with others and sometimes on our own. the second thing is this. my view is is that problem is not simply countering violence extremism. it is countering extremism. it is born from ideas and you can see the ideas represented by the burrocracy in the shiite side and on the opposite of the sunni side and those ideas have to be counted. and what my foundation is target these issues. we have to understand around the world, not just in the middle east and north africa but in
12:35 am
asia, in central asia, in the far east even in our own societies within europe there is an ideaology of extremism that is being taught to millions of young people day in and day out. my point is very simple. if we want to deal with this extremism issue we have to tackle the immediate but you have to tackle the root cause which is the education of a war thought given to millions of young people and what is absolutely crazy about the world today is we spend billions of dollars on security relationships when inside the education systems of some of these countries we are incubating the very problem. we need a global com pact on education that all countries agree to and accept this as part of their global responsibility as a nation to promote religious tolerance within your education
12:36 am
system and root out religious prejudice. the world belong do is the people able to treverse the barriers of culture and face a nation. and that campaign for the open minded view of the world is what we need to have in the policy long term. the third element is what the west does. they adhere to one piece of good news. in each country, there are people that want to same things we do. as i said earlier, i think the majority is there. i would like to see us in the west, and we should learn the lessons of the last 10-15 years but we need to recognize the struggle in our own interest connected and we need open minded people to succeed. they will not succeed unless we are prepared to commit to stand alongside them. thank you. [applause] >> keeping the theme of dealing
12:37 am
with radicalism. i want to turn to the state minister. you have the experience of negotiating or trying to negotiate, i think you learned in a difficult way what mr. blair said and that is these are people you cannot negotiate with. you were negotiating with isis in jordan representing the japanese government during the crisis in january when isis held two japanese hostages and wonderful both were executed. can you tell us state minister what did you learn about the new form of terrorism and tell us briefly who were you communicating with and what was that like. >> first of all, i would like to thank you for making this institute and thank you very much for inviting me here.
12:38 am
and my friend who is a froprofessor who introduced me. i learned english myself from hollywood movies i want to tell you. so my english is not so good. so i excuse and i say i am sorry first. okay. >> no need to apologize. >> i do my best. >> thank you. >> first of all, 2001 we had very big issue with terrorism called 9/11 and osama bin laden did horrible things and after that type of terrorism what is the difference compared to isis?
12:39 am
it is terrorist meet high technology. and this time isis using an internet communication as a tool. for example one of the hostages was a journalist and they killed a journalist, why? because now it is different compared to 70 years ago type of war. we have the war against u.s.-japan and great britain of course. if i make sounds of the war it sounds like this [ [noises] >> but now one click can destroy everything. [clicking noise] >> the speed no limit, no
12:40 am
border, and so terrorist even one terrorist can fight against a nation. 70 years ago, it was nation verses nation. this is a big difference between the warfare type compared to the old one. and so japan negotiates with isis this time. it was very difficult because i have no cop. nothing. the countries gather and decided to never take randsome for the victim. we never negotiating with terrorist directly. it is difficult to negotiate with no rules people.
12:41 am
if you are privileged i am a good guy. i have the role and you have no role you can take king and queen immediately. so this is the game against the terrorist right now. i really thank the king of the government of jordan and the jordanian government and the king really cooperate us strongly including intelligence with a group they have formed. in the middle east israeli, mozart and the other occasions that the most corporating agency at the time was the cid. one thing i can tell you is if the jordan king said yes, other
12:42 am
people said yes to me. it is negotiating between the king and i was the most important meeting at the time. and through the government of jordan we can talk like a brother country. and so we stand each other. and i really express my con dolence dolencedole doledolence to the pilot. >> unfortunately it seems the lesson was proven you cannot negotiate with the terrorist in the end. >> they are only killers. they are not human beings. >> because we have so much to cover in a short time i want to change gears. thank you, state minister. senator lindsay grahm, the united states senate will considering legislation regarding the president's negotiations with iran over the
12:43 am
nuclear program. i know you have strong feelings about this. tell us what you expect the senate to do. the subject here is global risk. the president says if we don't do a deal with iran and there is no deal and negotiations break down that could lead us to war. but the deal itself is risky. talk about that. >> the first thing to our japanese friend i understand you better the prime minister. [laughing] >> thank you. is it just me or does he talk funny? >> so what were we talking about? iran. number one the senate will overwhelmingly approve the corker legislation this week that says for the president to lift congressional sanctions we created he is going to have to
12:44 am
come to congress to get permission and that will get a lot of bipartisan support. as to a deal verses no deal. the president says if we don't get a deal it is the best chance of avoiding war. the consequences of a bad deal worry me more. if you like a bad deal and a bad deal is if the sunni arabs felt like they needed nuclear ability to counter the persians army. if we give the iranians too much capacity, and how many people believe they have been trying to build a nuclear weapons program not a nuclear power plant? those that didn't raise your hand you should not be allowed to drive in california. [laughter] >> so you have to know who you are dealing with. these guys lie and cheat and want a nuclear weapon to
12:45 am
maintain their regime because they believe no one will bother them in the future. but the arabs, unlike friends in japan and south korea will not tolerate, they don't feel like they need to go down the road. what is a good deal? a good deal is one to end the nuclear ambition of the iranians so they can have a small enrichment program, and have a nuclear power program that can not be used to make a nuclear weapon. that will be too much capacity in the hands of the iranians so the arabs feel loch they need to match it. at the end of the day i think a good day is understood my israel and the arabs, and if they say this is too much capacity then it will be hard to get it
12:46 am
through the senate. and so i would love a good deal. and i will outline very quickly what i think a good deal will look like. any time anywhere inspections including military facilities. if you do lift the inspection regime 10-15 years from now there is a certification the regime at the time and place is no longer a state-sponsor of terrorism. i don't think that is an unreasonable request. and they don't get a dime under sanctions relief until they comply with the inspection regime. i am worried they will not take the money to build hospitals and schools but put it in their war machines. congress will insist on reviewing the deal. a bad deal leads to a nuclear arm race in the middle east and i hope that is not the kind of
12:47 am
deal we get. >> thank you. gentlemen clark i wonder if you want to pick up on that and elaborate on the question of what a deal could mean for iran's role in the region. one school of thought you hear from the administration is a deal would put wind in the sails of the reformers, moderate the regime and open it up. another school of thought is the confusion of money and economic activity will go to iranian activities in the region go to hezbollah, allow iran to take sides in the civil war in the region. how do you see it playing out? >> i have to be careful how i answer because i am afraid graham will steal my license. iran and turkey with facing off
12:48 am
in a competition to see who can control the middle east. there is a longing for the glories for the real caliphate, the ottoman empire and dominance of the whole region. as iran is more powerful into syria, and now into yemen, they see the beckoning of empire. so you have to look at the nuclear agreement as one step in this. so i think senator graham is very right to be concerned about starting a nuclear arm race in the region. but i think regardless of how the agreement comes out you will have the turkish competition. these nations are sly and clever and don't like the american definition of war. in america, we think it is war or peace. we are going to shake hands or
12:49 am
drop a nuclear weapon and send in the marines in the 101st. in reality this is armed struggle for regional dominance. it is playing out through the terrorist organizations. isis for example, when the united states says we will destroy isis i don't think that is going to happen because isis is supported by countries in the region to wage war against other countries in the region. it is simply using terrorist and recruiting extremist. but it is an agent of government. now it is an agent in the same way frankenstein was created by human beings. so it has its own will and intent. in that context, we have to figure out now in this window of time tweensbetween the agreement to agree and seeing the details, we have to hope that secretary kerry and president obama take
12:50 am
hea heed of the concerns being raised about this agreement. it is not too late to stand up and demand the kind of details that would help us restrain the nuclear arms race. it may not be too late to try to do something more in terms of bringing iran back in. but and this is my theme on this panel i would just tell you. i think we are greatly underestimated go's strategic risk. the idea that this is going to -- an agreement is going to open up iran and investment will pour in and these countries are going to get along well well yeah, investment will pour in and iran will use its wealth as it sees fit. it will support syria it will develop deeper ties with vladimer putin in russia it will further squeeze the saudi
12:51 am
arabian regimes in yemen and oman. we are looking at decades of armed struggle using the symbols of religion going after the politics of identity using the misshapen ambition of misled young people who believe they can find justice by killing young people. all of that is in play. this nuclear agreement is just a small part. we have to be wise enough to use the agreement to not only deal with the nuclear issue but try to address and shape the larger issues. this is not a region you can handle by u.s. forces. we put forces in and in my view it is the biggest error every made by the united states of america. saddam hussein said if we attacked he would open up the gates of hell.
12:52 am
well since he told us 15 years earlier we would have the mother of all battles lasting four days we didn't believe him when he said the gates of well but when you look at the consequences of the opening of iran the clash going on and rise of civil war you realize these are issues that are much deeper much stronger and more powerful than we can resolve with a hundred thousand men. >> mr. blair, i know you spend a lot of time trying to get what is left of the middle east peace process back on track. there was a time if we were sitting 10-15 years ago when we talked about the roots of these problems we would come back to the idea of solution between the israelis and palestinians. now there is so much more happening, perhaps that alone would be a small step.
12:53 am
but my question to you is does this remain fundamental to stability in the region? isn't the peace process dead at this point? it seems that way often from the united states. >> it remains fundamentally important. in my view i am out there in the middle east twice a month now, so i am looking and studying it the whole time. it is important for reasons relevant to the broader conversation. the one thing, i agree it is going to be a long generational schedule this process of change, but i do think we are looking at the middle east wrestling with the demons that it was always going to have to wrestle with at some point, and the one thing i personally think is the right way of looking at the middle east today is yes you can look at it as a power
12:54 am
struggle between interest. i think it is also important to look at it as a struggle between different sets of values. the truth is if you take a country like egypt, where the muslim brotherhood came to power, and then like it or don't like it but 20 million people came out in the street and put them out. and now the new president is having to try to plan a way forward for the future. the truth is the only recourse for a country like egypt is to reform its economy, reform its education system to open up to the world and encourage a good relationship with all of its neighbors, including israel. what has to happen in the if there is a sunni future is people are knowinggoing to have to take
12:55 am
an open minded view of the world or not. enter that into that as it were a cull drun. it is important for another reason which is at the heart of the israeli-palestinian issue in my view is not a debate about where you put the borders and how you make the territory and divide them up and deal with the issue of jerusalem. it is also a fundamental issue of culture acceptance. in this tiny strip of land are two people prepared to live side by side in peace recognizing they come from different cultures and faith. that is why it is fundamentally important for me. i don't think it is dead. i think in the end there is one solution, which is two states for two peoples, but i think the key to resolving the palestinian
12:56 am
issues today lies in the region. and the one thing i would say that is fascinating and i put this thought out there in my experience of the last month particularly. you will have to same conversation in jerusalem and the same conversation in most of the arab capitals and what is the worry that all of those governments have? the worry is extremism. the worry is the people who once by instability and terrorism to prevent that cultural acceptance. many have to go through the process of reform. that is true. but i besage you for the first time i am finding in the middle east is is there people within the middle eastern countries, within islam who are prepared to standup and say we have to go in a different direction for the future.
12:57 am
and that is the one thing that gives me hope. if you could result the israeli-palestinian issue, think about the huge boost you would give to cultural acceptance and the blow to extremism. >> senator graham do you think the peace process is dead? if you for president how would you talk about it? the conservative view is the obama administration pressured israel more than what is appropriate to reach a deal. did you agree with that assess assessment? do you think the peace process is a top priority? or is the larger conflict that has arisen taken more priority? >> for the prime minister and john kerry worked hard to get the sides in a good spot to move forward. you have a decided community with hamas under control and the west bank economy doing better
12:58 am
and the security force is more reliable. and i don't know how you put the palestinian back together but that would be good. you have a group of palestinians you could live in peace with a group that want to drive into the sea and that is tough for israel. if you have a clever president, 5-7 -- [laughter] >> there is a historic moment shaping up in the middle east where the arabs and israelis are aligned unlike any time i have seen. they have two common threats. isil will cut their throat before they cut ours. the leaders in the middle east are in harms way from radical islamic groups. anything named al over the you need to watch for. the king of jordan the king of saudi arabia all of the gulf
12:59 am
arab states isis hates them as much as they hate you. and they are realizing this general clark, that they have been feeding the beast. the idea of a shiite-persian march scares them. so you have radical islamist one shiite and one persian, with the ability to take down the region. ...
1:00 am
that one day could translate to restarting the peace process anew. el-sisi is an interesting cat. the member member mubarak model won't work. thosehon >> >> i will not ask your kids to live in a dictatorship. tousing setter going space is the heart and the flight
1:01 am
of islam i'll take the side of those that will not kill us. there is a fight how you govern the mideast and taking the sides living in the country and in the middle is the vacuum created so how do start the peace process? we will be with you in syria but to integrate to have the main belforts to supplement and to sit down with israelis. every mistake had the
1:02 am
consequence but there is a historic opportunity here to create alliances that could be transformational to save knocking off no more arab support for perot but to data in a concluding thoughts what more can we be doing? upheld -- the important
1:03 am
thing how do say? i forget my english. [laughter] >> a strong alliance does japan have a role to play? and i see one day on the news in the sky a from iran in the day copied it.
1:04 am
hot but i have a neighbor called north korea. and also pakistan. if that has said technology and i lived in the city but now with the prime minister from washington d.c. >> hold that thought. we will come to asia in a minute.
1:05 am
>> one of the hardest foreign policy questions is how to think about article five the sold the office -- a self defense provision of the nato alliance with vladimir putin and ukraine. with the foreign policy a visors who i thought did not have an interest in i could summarize but it does so in in the baltic countries that vladimir putin stirs up those questions. maybe not the full-fledged invasion but it is pretty clear. sova to stage what is tantamount does that dragon
1:06 am
in the united states? is their military conflict between russian forces in the next several years? >> if there is an attack on one nation it is a member of nato. i was very happy that we did that and it was done in a big smoke -- a big super without any debate in the united states. they wanted they have seen the movie before. they know russia will come back. it is already there and undercutting the will to exist. there will be a demonstration of a statue was taken down in lafayette. they don't like that in the russian citizens protest in
1:07 am
this. then the city the decision was made in the administration building. so take that over. but they are of little green stick men. and when you go to you picked them because ordinary police don't do well. say you have to have not a bench of calvary i am all in favor of that. and to be backed up of the military police and goes through nato exercises with
1:08 am
those triggers that let the political leaders quickly come to terms with the legal issues to bring this forward for. if it isn't done there will be lots of conflict -- confusion can we do something? i hear this from my european friends. and the league of nations ethiopia was asking for assistance. people could not make up their mind. and then trying to hold the ukraine together with 9,000 russian troops 20 - - 21st century warfare with
1:09 am
tanks will have comparable equipment for an entire armored equipment we need a real wake-up call to get this back to 21st century warfare. i hear that we have to give a flat tire putin a way out he just got trapped by the people behind him. and he will be overthrown. no. he is just fyke 1936 he occupied the land if the united states followed the dictates of the versailles treaty he never would have gotten away with it in world war ii could have been diverted. putin has crossed the greatest red line in post-world war two international diplomacy.
1:10 am
he has invaded another country and seized its territory by force. even the ukraine is not a member of nato. now where we are because we're not understanding geostrategic risk. right now into lever called and the president of france angela merkle they're setting against the defense a raid to be deployed in eastern ukraine. their training an organizing the separatist units and building the capacity for a third wave of russian attacks. crimea is not sustainable
1:11 am
without a land bridge. so we have major forces. this is so urgent for nato to come to terms with this. >> but i want to rescue about a policy should we send a lethal arms to the ukrainians? new coed college defensive to send missiles but i have had the obama administration tell me that's it would raise the cost for business for putin then you have more soldiers coming across the border but to think there will escalate or the conflict will get worse in the germans as you well know
1:12 am
>> there is bipartisan support overwhelmingly with the furs memorandum protocol even though they're not a member of nato if you do not give up your weapons we will guarantee your sovereignty but they have been trampled on. the consequence of letting someone do this history tells you eventually you put in motion dangerous moments for that benefit equation but get to the heart of the matters without the of leadership of love our friends in britain we have got to leave. so here is the one thing you need to understand. to be effective against
1:13 am
putin china, isis we have to cut the capability have the capacity and the will. by 2021 the smallest funding since 1940 the smallest and maybe we will get the intelligence community the fbi and cia of using people as we speak. of those nations suspended over 2% is down in our best friends in the world to see how capable why in the hell should putin take anybody seriously? so don't forgive the 540 billion plaided back into non-defense programs like n i h that help us solve it and then go to new
1:14 am
simpson-bowles to keep america gray to a strong america means you have to have a sound economy. then we what about social security and medicare. our best-- are behind us if you cannot do what simpson-bowles calls for you would have the capability to take care of this country. here is my vice rebuild your military give republicans and democrats acting like adults and put the country on sound economic footing let the world know that america is back and tell our friends they can count on bonds starting with ukraine. [applause] >> i agree 99.9%. [laughter]
1:15 am
but what has happened to ukraine is since the end of the second world war in europe i think whole series demonstrates our will and commitment in the fact we have alliances we would hear to but to make 1.is a responsibility to deal with this issue. the fact is the one thing that troubles me is one america and europe are not standing together for those values that they believe in. and you feel this way.
1:16 am
we'll know the strategy of putin. it isn't very complicated. desire of what he said that is what he said what he believes. now what is necessary that europe's job is to stand alongside america. and if we do not do that now it will get a lot worse in the time to come. and we will endanger the world order we have put in place painfully over many decades to be strong and determined and to recognize.
1:17 am
>> what would the world be like if putin had no gas? were we did not need his guest? or if fossil fuels' were less influential than they are today? with an energy policy that we find more here at home but our economy kid redo more for our foreign policy than anything almost. the reason the germans and the french have been indifferent and naive because they have to get their gas supplies and putin has a pair of twos and we have the full house.
1:18 am
if we get an energy economy started in this country that would be less rewarding from the dictators and the killers. >> the measures we take over the next few years over energy supply. >> i really think you're on the right track we have all the resources that we need and to export to leave for were to take over these energy markets right now. we also have the technology to move away and the desperately need a national energy strategy. it is really about the
1:19 am
future of the united states of america. when president eisenhower created the national defence contractor betty quotes him to say beware of the military industrial complex but that was the technology we needed during the cold war. we need death military industrial energy complex to make a safe and the 21st century. the greatest commodity is wheel to build civilization and destabilize civilization more than any other single factor. if we could get our democrats and republicans to work together to put together a sensible policy to let us exploit hydrocarbons now, $5,460 oil we would still make money. do it. then put in the benchmarks
1:20 am
for the 20 year period to move away from hydrocarbons it would make the 21st century a whole lot safer for everyone. >> we will come back to climate change but let's talk about asia where there is no violence toward extremism but there is a lot of risk may be there is the most potential for mayhem but it has not been realized and your prime minister will address the congress on wednesday we're at the 70th anniversary. clearly would is so large in the japan tokyo relationship is china and uncertainty about their ambitions and territorial claims and disputes over territories
1:21 am
that raised tensions a couple of years ago. what is your assessment of china's intentions right now? what is the threat you think it poses to stability and security in the region? >> he meets with the chinese president and it is like a very peaceful meeting. >> a couple years ago comparatively the relationship is better. so we also focus on the military budget.
1:22 am
so with that budget of 30 times and maybe you already know but then they try to save face period they also destroyed. they already made that technology. and then we rely on those using the satellites. but then we cannot launch a missile or move the soldiers. then that is happening. >> so be prepared for a space for? >> i think so.
1:23 am
maybe we can launch the big satellite or the small one by using aviation and even china, even the nation using technology to attack not just dices but in that sense we have to reset in our mind the impact of war. i attended a meeting of the conference in there is a new type of cold war in the '80s
1:24 am
we had a cold war with the soviet union and the united states. but now there is another cold war with cyberspace with the internet and its sister marketing economy. but china and russia they come through more precisely at the citizen level. >> so they are clamping down with their own society. and according to u.s.
1:25 am
government with those attacks against the sony corporation very briefly because we are running out of time what is your assessment of north korea's intentions? some think they he is throwing tantrums for attention in other days is seems you to start a cataclysmic conflict. we do have issues with north korea. and to talk about that crimean peninsula.
1:26 am
so with those six party talks how to make real peace with the crimean peninsula. >> you think real peace is possible? >> i hope so. we have to ask would you like to open your door? the democratic side or the chinese communist side? which way? because we don't know what he is thinking. and through the media. >> of his intention. >> forgive me for interrupting. mr. blair you said there is no longer any serious doubt
1:27 am
global warming is a serious problem. are there any serious solutions' actions taken are we doing enough? >> the solution simply is development of technology that allows us to consume sustainable is good there is no way as they come from africa or india or china to have the same standard of living has thus. but they devise solutions but my view simply is with those paris negotiations that take place later this scheerer is then we get the best possible deal for
1:28 am
countries to voluntarily put that together for business and industry to develop science and technology. but this issue is a long-term issue for the world. >> gets a quick question. do you agree with the assessments that global warming is a serious problem? >> our friends in britain are backing off the cap-n-trade system. i believe greenhouse gases is real but having said that as a republican to come up with the environmental policy that we could find as many fossil fuels within our reach from friendly sources
1:29 am
that are pro-business to move the economy from fossil fuels to more cleaner sources in there is a place for coal and of place for gas. we need to be better stewards of god's planet that is pro business then to have people buy into the fact that they cause harm to the planet if your gray about the environment county me in to create jobs in the process. >> general we talked about the systematic financial rescue wish we had five minutes but we're out of time but talk about a book
1:30 am
that you wrote that discusses this so could you give the elevator version? >> we really have not addressed the systemic issues there trillions of dollars of derivatives out there and if you ask the inside thinking crowd when will be really raise interest rates? the answer is never it is only a matter of time before someone says this death is not sustainable and will spread through wildfire with the financial community in we will be in trouble again. we have to take our financial resources to invest in real projects energy, a petrochemical, highway and aviation and high-speed rail that create jobs. derivative training -- trading is through banking
1:31 am
but it is not creating jobs or wealth were hoping the economy. we will have to use the financial system to drive the economy not the opposite what has happened is it is too much of the opposite right now it takes from the real economy. please read my book. >> thank you for coming. we have to wrap up. we're very over time. >> between japan and israel i went yesterday but they cannot say anything right now.
1:32 am
so i will send a promise of how wonderful it is to gradually change the world. >> death is a great note to end on. >> thank you for coming. cop clap --. [applause] ♪
1:33 am
and their influence:the presidency from washington
1:34 am
to michelle obama of. on american history tv on c-span 3. and now the book is available. first lady's. providing live the stories on these fascinating women to create an inspiring read. is available as the hardcover or a the e-book at your favorite seller. this is the last case they're considering this term. ted death row in what -- inmates are challenging the execution that has lethal injection of three drugs. it is just over one hour. >>.
1:35 am
>> may it please the court oklahoma chooses to execute with the three drug formula that includes a paralytic that caused intense pain and suffering. the second in the third hour constitutionally only if they could not feel pain or be aware of the suffocation the district court erred when it found the first drug is constitutionally tolerable. >> why is that a matter of law? as i see it in the district court it found it did eliminate the pain they were asking us to find the
1:36 am
district court was clearly erroneous? >> justice, there is a question of law and a question of fact. the question of lot includes the fact the district court found the three drug formula was tolerable if the first is there is a medical consensus that this drug cannot be used. >> is the question of fact but the law is the district court ignored at to facts that does not make it a question of what it is still a question of fact. >> i can justice scalia. also involves the district court found that this drug creates at greater risk of harm but it could not quantify so it creates a of
1:37 am
a greater risk of harm that it could not quantify and also that it is not used for the purpose it was intended. >> the of way that i thought about this in your brief that if i disagree and think i have to give deference to the district court factual findings of this drug called medazalan but how that works that is constitutionally intolerable is that how you divide that? >> yes justice. >> now go to real question.
1:38 am
that'd judge ignores evidence is not necessarily have discretion or error. so what are those clear errors in terms of the reasoning the district court would reduce? >> in this case look at what this case is about to it is known information and undisputed facts between - - before the court. teeeight nine is a different class of barbiturates it is not a paid reliefer this was recognized at 76. it is known that there is a certain point giving more will not matter it was recognized at 78. >> will the district court
1:39 am
attorneys said they could not tell precisely when that would kick in. >> that is the theory is the ceiling? >> what the district court found whenever that ceiling effect is only as a spinal block and 500 milligrams will create a phenomenon that is not anesthesia but paralyzes the brain with the awareness of pain. with that finding with a dozen disputed facts. >> is it undisputed facts it but you had the burden to show they were erroneous so they're not undisputed. >> i am sorry if i misspoke but what we have to look at why it is clear the erroneous what they were
1:40 am
before to reach that conclusion. >> day you have to go back that far? if they propose their doctrine is right? they don't death then did gore say it is true. as i read in there brief that it does not work the way the doctor said it would and it does not paralyze the brain. >> that is correct. >> is clear. now we have an addition the expert was clearly wrong. so what else? there was nothing else to base the conclusion. >> correct the district court reached this decision based on no scientific evidence with evidence to the contrary this cannot
1:41 am
pharmacologically do with the state expert said it could. that is combined as in joint appendix 47 it is partially an expression of fact than law. >> i read the part of the opinion and i could not figure it out. is it the court said we don't know what the ceiling you fact is generally? it is only how it operates at the spinal cord level but not in the brain and this takes howard operates at the brain. is that right? >> that is what the district court found based on
1:42 am
testimony that is not supported by any medical information and is inconsistent with their own testimony to explain the way the drug works is throughout the central nervous system. >> so we do have to worry about the ceiling effect there is this dichotomy. it is crucial what kind of ceiling effect this is a drug has in contradiction to what the court said that we don't have to worry. >> yes justice. >> you have indeed been to introduce? >> we have testimony from our experts indicated to that it was not calculated but that does not matter
1:43 am
because we know that the drug has a ceiling effect. >> what if it is 1,000 milligrams? >> there is no evidence to support that. >> is there any evidence to show below 500? >> it does not matter. >> of course, it does. >> that he was given in 750 milligrams. correct? and he was in pain right thing in pain 25 minutes? >> i'm sorry to hours. there has been some defense it was not immediately delivered but still it was 750 that went into his system to cause that kind of
1:44 am
pain. >> yes. our expert testified that his execution demonstrates the ceiling effect giving more to a stop put them into that, like state. >> how many have been used using medazalan. >> 15. >> you were talking about one. >> we're talking several executions but in this case in oklahoma that happen in one year. demonstrates why medazalan is not a proper drug to put a prisoner in a deep, and unconscious. >> if they have a different one in mind? were there issues involving the veins with the ability
1:45 am
to go intravenous? >> there were problems with that catheter but he received enough medazalan he was unconscious in the physician executioner found he was unconscious then he regained consciousness and that is the key issue. >> so you say it is okay he didn't receive the proper dosage as long as he was unconscious? with in fact, it was not properly conducted howard you blame it on the drug? period'' we know about this is drug justice scalia it doesn't maintain that, like status to keep them from feeling those painful effects. >> i thought that what we knew was something different
1:46 am
in other words, there's a huge range of uncertainty about what happens when somebody is given this drug be were suggesting more than that but we know what happens that it can maintain deep of unconsciousness. >> justice cater in rigo because of the of properties the weighted introduced it is not used for the sole purpose to prevent somebody from feeling pain during a painful procedure. >> i thought it was used for that purpose just because it is capable of that as opposed to we know it is capable to be used for the purposes. >> i see the difference but it is important to emphasize
1:47 am
a proper dose is the concern they will not be properly sedated. >> where they're not using a the isidium pentothal? >> you can ask my friend but the finding is it was unavailable at that time. >> let's be honest what is going on executions to be carried out painlessly there are jurisdictions that allow assisted suicide i assume those are carried out with little pain oklahoma and other states could carry out executions painlessly. the court has held the death penalty is constitutional it is controversial as a policy matter in those are free to
1:48 am
persuade the of legislatures to abolish the death penalty some have been successful and they can ask the court to do that but until that occurs is inappropriate for the judiciary to take a guerrilla war against the death penalty which makes it impossible for the state to obtain drugs that could be used to carry out capital punishment with little if any pain? so the states are reduced to using drugs like this one which give rise to disputes about whether in fact, every possibility of paying is eliminated. so what is your response to that? >> justice alito, to decide embedded of execution the way the state will carry it out is constitutional whether we will tolerate
1:49 am
that to allow the states to carry that out. >> i would be more inclined if there was some doubt about this drug and there was a perfectly safe other drug but the states have gone through '02 different drugs and they are rendered and available. to put pressure on those companies that manufacture them so the states cannot obtain those to other drugs now you want to come before the court to say it is not 100 percent sure. the reason is the abolitionist have rendered impossible to get that win a depressant sure so is that relevant to the decision that is before us?
1:50 am
>> federal think it is relevant as to why it is available because the court needs to look at if the drug the state is intending to use what they cause as what they say to put the prisoner in a place where he will not feel pain. >> is any state using lethal injection with the questionable drug? is there another combination it does not involve this question? >> yes justice ginsberg had been 11 executions just this year. >> but that doesn't answer the question but what bearing if any if there is a
1:51 am
message that is not available because opposition to the death penalty? what relevance does at have? >> justice kennedy the fact the state chooses is certain the fed should not have a bearing. i would like an answer to the question you have been interrupted several times. is a relevant? >> no. >> there are other ways to kill people does there have to be a drug protocol correct. >> i know you will argue there are other ways but potentially people do that with every protocol but the little bit of research i
1:52 am
have done shows the reason they don't use them is because it offends them to look at them. you could use gas people do not even know they're going to sleep to die. they know what he is the protocol because of world war ii. but there are alternatives. oklahoma found them it uses the firing squad now. i dunno the absence of a drug the purchase it has with alternatives exist. >> i would agree justice sotomayor. of justice ginsburg we don't know how the state chose to
1:53 am
carry out by firing squad if that is considered unconstitutional pain and suffering. >> is there reason the state's move progressively with the firing squad or electric chair or gas chamber you are not suggesting those other methods are preferable? >> i am not suggesting that chief justice but the reason why they move to more humane methods as we learn more about science then we move forward. >> you have no suggestion as the acceptable alternative right now? the case comes to was in a posture it is recognized the client is guilty of a capital offense, eligible for the death penalty but
1:54 am
yet you put this in a position he cannot be executed even though it satisfies all of those requirements and you have no suggestion is of alternative >> i would disagree with the characterization he cannot be executed. oklahoma passed a new statute that they are continuously looking for message's that provides if the alito injection protocol is found unconstitutional if the drugs are not available they can go to other methods of nitrogen gas. >> three suggesting that is okay with you? >> i don't know anything about that protocol. >> so is that gas chamber preferable you don't have of
1:55 am
thought. >> abstract i can say if it is preferable the legislature said it is paid this but they have not come out with any information. >> your client was already in jail with a life sentence for murder while in jail on a life sentence he stabbed and killed a prisoner that is a crime for which oklahoma will execute. so there is the of a larger question for whatever sets of reasons that if there is no method to execute a person that does not cause unacceptable pain it might show that the death penalty is not consistent with the eighth amendment.
1:56 am
is that so or not? brickbat could be true justice breyer for you could make one or two arguments that the death penalty is unconstitutional because there is no method that has been used that can be devised without inflicting some pain. but i don't understand you making that argument. >> solar to reverse the ground that is erroneous one is the last time? >> just a few years ago we explained where there clearly are erroneous finding this this is
1:57 am
obviously and exceptionally erroneous looking at the findings based on no scientific evidence, no studies and all evidence shows it does not work in the way the state. >> but that is a lethal dose? data itself is capable to cause death? >> i don't know justice alito that is the expert who testified for the state talked about a potential toxic dose but there isn't one that says yes it will cause death. >> is there a therapeutic dose is endeavoring administered in that quantity for that reason? >> no. >> if it is a lethal dose does that mean it is not to pay in full? to reckon it could be the sole and painful. >> but the lethal dose is
1:58 am
and how to do was steady if a renders the person? >> you don't need to do with steady because we already know from science and the pharmacology of the drug how it works that is what the district court got wrong. >> the narrow question of a bite to hear the argument to be held in this context if a person is not rendered unconscious with teetoo drugs it is the risk of paying and suffocation and the court of appeals says the district court found
1:59 am
that this drug the you're talking about medazalan will result in central nervous depression rendering them unconscious during the rest of the procedure with a sufficient level to resist of major stimuli of the leader to drugs. but you had an expert testified that is not the case. that expert said that it would not reliably put the person in a coma. >> that is correct. >> then the other side produced an expert that said that contrary. see you have to say that conclusion, that 500 milligrams will make a
2:00 am
virtual certainty he is at a sufficient level of unconsciousness to resist that stimulate -- the stimuli. i want to know what underlies that that is sufficient that you say it is clearly wrong but the riverside can answer that question. . .

115 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on