tv American Politics CSPAN December 27, 2009 9:30pm-11:00pm EST
and do until this day. my predecessors carry the vase across a highly polished floor. it's our job to do the caring. vote ing for this election is to be sure that we dontslip. >> i am admonished that they believe that we have no life and be content with a one-bedroom flat. and like the peers that believe that should travel on the one ground floor, and it's not petty and small minded and underestimates those made all the time so that their partners can contribute to public life. it's the kind of attitude that
will discourage many tv@ñcould contribute from doing so. >> i believe we are in grave danger of ignoring the impact on the public that we serve, if we think this report is only of internal interest and significance to this house. that way to my mind leads to the guilded bunker mentality that the lord referred. i am especially concerned that we do not continue to imagine that we ourselves could be the final arbitor. >> peers propose changes to their allowances. there was one other story of the debate in months, the situation in afghanistan. back in october on gordon brown would be prepared for more
troops if three conditions were met. if the forces were provided and the afghan army was stronger. gordon brown paid visits to troops in afghanistan and he signed for guards. gordon brown came to say he would defend 500 more troops bringing the effort to over 10,000. >> based on the terrorist effect, some claim that we defend the borders and some ask why we are in afghan borders at all. as long as the afghan/pakistan border areas is the location of choice for al qaeda and the
epic center for global terrorism, we must work at its source. and the threats of great britain are linked at those border areas, we are failing in our duty not to work with the allies where it starts. a more stable afghanistan will help ensure a safer britain. >> gordon brown talked about this and david cameron talked about afghan. >> we want our troops to come home as soon as possible and when the job is done. but does the prime minister agree with me, we don't want to say anything to show that we won't see this through. nor raise false hope among the families of the british forces that would later be dashed.
can he support that any suggestions on timetables will be provided by a situation on the ground. isn't the case that the british public want us to do what is right. it's finally mainstream to talk about the need for a big shift in our strategy in afghanistan. when i first questioned the effectiveness of our action there six months ago and called for this step change i was told -- i was told it was unpatriotic to do so. and the change since then is dramatic and welcomed. our approach of our mission in afghanistan has always been simple, we should do it properly or not at all. does the prime minister agree that success is not just about troop numbers, and focusing on troop numbers as he is today,
is putting the cart before the horse. there is no point sending a single compla soldier on their first strategy to succeed if the mission is not in place. >> they have repeatedly asked if the british troops have enough equipment, particularly helicopters. they came to ask for more money for equipment to afcomban stan. -- afghanistan. >> we will reduce and consolidate the harriet force. >> but the money saved would allow for spending elsewhere. >> and there will be 22 new helicopters with the first 10 arriving during 2012-2013. >> and a motion will be welcome. we have to accept that this
will be 2013 before we get them. it will be 12 years since we went to afghanistan at that point, and doesn't it show the stupidity of the government's decision to cut the helicopter budget. >> how many will arrive and when will they get there and how does it fit with president obama's timeline. would it not have helped if this decision was taken earlier. >> the wealth of the deployment of the troops in afghan is welcomed. many of us believe this should have been are ordered months ago. and as a consequence men have died needlessly. >> as i say to him, he stands as a member of the party that supported our operations and
yet does not offer and has not offered a single penny more for defense. and he has to square that with the kind of the comments he's just made. >> i asked norman smith of the run-up in elections and this party issue. >> one of the paradox of the issue that is harder in afghanistan and the more casualties of it leading in a bigger circle that we have to get out. my sense is that people are beginning to consolidate around the idea that we have to give it one more go. and whereas it was possible to see them with a position to get the troops out. and in part it's down to obama and the american push. we are bound to what the
americans do, it's almost inconceivable that we can pile out. with obama announcing his surge we have to follow that course and we have with sending 500 more troops. and it doesn't mean the day, and obama said july 11 that american troops may come out. but this is an issue of most parties seeing the view of giving it a go. >> but the scrutiny of parliament goes on and following the arrest of david green in 2008, a special committee was set up. mr. green's home and offices
were searched by police and he was interrogated for nine hours. mr. green was later released without charge. and the people on the committee were to find out how mr. green's common office was searched without a warrant. he gives his version of events. >> they arrested me when i came into the building, and they took me. i said we want to take you back to your home. and i took them back there. about 200 yards before we got there, he said here, and i said no, at the top of the hill. i directed them in and when i let them in, they looked at me and said, this is your home. and decided that sarcasm was probably the wrong response. i said it was my home and i let them in with a house key. >> [inaudible]. >> indeed and the policemen
that arrested me went outside on his mobile and about eight other police showed up. about eight, and it's clear that's why they arrested me at nine in the morning, they were at the wrong house. this was the anti-terrorist police, and they can't find a member of parliament at home. and every four years and i never have a problem finding my home when they need pictures. >> that's a dangerous weapon. >> yeah, i didn't use in that period but didn't feel able to do so. and that's why they arrested me at nine in the morning. >> the charge of the public health can lead to a life sentence. what is your view of that charge being proper in this
matter? >> indeed while i was interviewed by the police, i was told that i face life imprisonment. >> you take that serious? >> i thought it was ludicrous, the circumstances i thought might be laughable but not humorous at that point. >> a few days later it was by the speaker, michael martin, he admitted there was serious failings and admitted to allowing the police on the parliament premises without a warrant and without consulting him. >> before i decided there was no one, i thought that the search was authorized by a search warrant. this seemed to me to be so basic that i did not ask the sergeant when i was told of the
search warrant on 21st of november. >> on the second of december he held a meeting and found out that they knew about this for a week before the search. >> i asked the sergeant why she conducted in this manner. the [inaudible] had done business with the sergeant and to keep the matter from her immediate superiors. >> and he continues. >> i have been an mp and an area that can have difficults for years, and never has anyone come and spoke to me and said that my house was searched and there was no warrant. that's always been with a search a warrant. that was basic. and that's what i expected to happen, a warrant.
>> the next witness, ed bateman , who was head of security of parliament denied giving consent to the boss, speaker, michael martin. >> don't you think you should have had a police officer and informed her clearly that she did not have to consent. this is the basis of the difficulty here. >> i think she probably thought i was patronizing her. and after all conversations we had, and we would have a conversation and explain why the consent. and have a conversation explaining and this is a problem, if you don't consent, we can get a warrant. i think she would -- and if i said, do you understand what
the word consent means. >> excuse me, it's not a question of her understanding what the word consent meant. it was a question of her understanding she didn't have to give consent and you would apply for a warrant. it's not to do with patronizing her but informing her of the fact, which clearly you didn't do for whatever reason. >> my understanding that she knew she didn't have to consent. the conversation we had lead me to believe that. >> lead you to believe it, but you did not at any stage tell her. >> no. >> so it could be been based on a misunderstanding of her part, because she didn't have the conversation, that was not clarified. >> everything that was said to me in that conversation over seven days lead me to believe.
>> you did not explicitly have that conversation, did you? >> at no time did i say she didn't have to consent. >> and then it was the turn of the sergeants of arms to appear. joe paye lead to an error and that the police did not tell her they could insist on a warrant. >> how could the speaker of the house of commons left in such a situation that he was left that he believed there was a warrant of the search of the offices. and there wasn't. and how did the speaker and who the buck stops elected with the house be left in such a situation? >> i think i say under the assumption when you say search,
we assume there was a warrant. >> don't you think it was a part of your responsibility to be sure that the speaker did know there wasn't a warrant. to be sure that he knew that and have that information. don't you think that he should have known that and understand the situation that there wasn't a warrant. >> i think in hindsight yes, i wish i had said it. and i didn't say it because the reason i said that i believed that i had the authority. >> i understand. yes, i should have made it clearer. >> and she wanted to know why the police didn't tell her she could have insisted upon a warrant. >> you rejected and would manipulated be a proper situation? >> no, i think i was pressured,
i think that's the word, that i was pressured. >> you were meant to go in a particular direction? >> yes, i was pointed in a particular direction. >> so you feel you were pressured to go in a particular direction, to the metropolitan police. >> yes, sir. >> were you conscious of that at the time? >> at the point of the meeting to take advice of the clock, i was under pressure. i didn't feel at a particular direction becsuse they had convinced me of this search to be lawful without a warrant. >> so they did not tell you your choices. >> that's true. >> am i correct in your understanding now that they failed to provide you with the necessary information to allow you to make a choice? >> yes, i wasn't given the correct guidance under the pace
code. >> if that isn't manipulation, what is? >> um, i think i would rather not comment about manipulation. but i understand what you are getting at. >> we note your answer. >> joe paye, and that committee will publish their report in the new year. november opened the state opening of parliament, the official ceremony where the queen opens parliament and reads the new bills. this year was unusual as the session will be cut short by the general election. >> this is the mass ranks of peers in their robes, some familiar faces and lord margaret thatcher and the two archbishops of canterbury and
york. appearing in the official stagecoach. as all the peers stood, the queen and duke took their seats on the throne. >> you may be seated. >> this year saw a new black robe, the queen's messenger, he made his customary walk to the commons and the door was slammed in his face. which means he has to bang on the door. he spoke his usual words. >> the queen has to attend her majesty immediately in the house of peers. >> and the mp's made their way from the commons to the lords, they appear to be talking to
each issue. -- each other. the speech was handed to her majesty. >> my lord and dears of the house of commons. my governorance of a rising priority is to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses. as the british economy recovers from the economic downturn. through employment and training programs, restructuring the financial structure and strengthening the infrastructure and providing responsible investment. >> opening the debate on the speech, david cameron said there were some good things in the program. and he edged gordon brown to tackle the issues. >> what is the point of this government?
what else does he have to do? this is the shortest queen's speech in time, they have run out of ideas and time as well. >> gordon brown claims that the queen's speech was motivated by party influence. >> the social care bill that will ease anxieties and give rise to the senior bills. the first bill to abolish child poverty. and for the energy bill and for the ability to catch up for tuition, and making parents responsible for the bill. and a draft bill to legislate for the development target, action on bank bonuses and regulation so that agency directors.
>> they talked that this wouldn't solve the problems. >> this is a fantasy queen speech, from the parliament of the people. a queen's speech that won't give the people the help on housing, on bank lending and on adjunct that they need. a queen's speech that won't fix our rotten politics. >> finally for now a parliamentally first, at the end of october, the doors were thrown open for young people to come and hold debates. the speaker welcomed 300 members, several mp's came to listen to them speak, and the leader spoke. the subjects on the agenda, youth crime, lowering the voting age and university fees. >> i cannot afford to go to a
university, but the government will give me a loan. i will go and get my degree, and then i will be in debt and then work and hopefully and pay off that debt. tuition fees should not be abolished. it's unrealistic and unstainable and not in the interest of all young people. >> of people to go to the universities and pay for their taxes, why should people that get up at 6 o'clock in the morning and like my father that didn't go to a university pay for my education. i got my education and i should incur the debt. >> forget about the debt when you go to a university. this country is in 800 billion pounds of debt to begin with. that's the biggest scandal in
this generation. we cannot afford it. university education was setback, they are asking for more. the president of university uk said that higher education requires further of teaching and learning in particular. universities need more money, mr. sheeshg. -- speaker. and members who support this motion will deprive them of that. >> when you go and get an education you will get more people more jobs. think that the education is the only way to do this. >> young people, the few young people watching this debate today will see how out of touch and unrealistic that scrapping university fees is. it's not equivocal for students to make a contribution. they stand to gain financially from a degree.
education is an investment, and it's irrational for students to borrow at this stage of their life cycle. we should encourage students to be more selective in their courses and discourage students to take mickey mouse degrees. few young people can lead to this sort of stupidity. >> what is the point of busting your hump really over so many years to get grades and doing midnight black coffee sessions and miscourse work. by the time it comes to it, you cannot afford to go to the university. if you are just above the threshold and your parents can't afford to send you. why have you done all that hard work for someone to say, i am
sorry that you can't do it. it's that person's dream and way out to go to the university, and who's position to crush that dream. i propose a lower university fee and attend university on that rate and pay the tax. pay a slightly higher tax on a sliding scale. this would allow people that would otherwise not be able to attend university. and the people who didn't attend would not need to pay the tax. >> if someone described the fees to me, and unpractical is how other described it. i am not looking forward to the shadow of debt i will be left with. and mr. speaker, she describes this as the curse of her generation and she will be shackled to debt.
we campaigned against university fees. and here is one example, these postcards that we sent to mp's, these were sent from young people all over england. and now is the time to be heard and it's time to hear answers. >> members of the u.k. youth parliament showing how it's done. that's mpñit for now, and we wi see when parliament returns on the fifth. and until then, good-bye. >> on "washington journal" monday, greg stohr reporter for bloomberg news looks ahead on the high court cases on the docket next year. and a look at how president
obama is handling policy with dean baker and peter morici and as always today's news and your phone calls starting at 7 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> now available c-span's book, a -- abraham lincoln, a great read for any history buff, it's a unique take on lincoln, from lincoln's early years to his life in the white house and his relevance today. abraham lincoln in hard cover at your favorite book seller, and available on audio. see more at c-span.org. >> now a discussion of policy. . slavin
the national securityç assista managing and writer for the washington times and jonathan broder defense fortune policyç writer. let's beginç with some of the news of the morning. associated press reporting another crackdown of iranian security forces opening fire killing at least three in tehran. barbara slavin, your reaction? >> not surprised at all. what we have seen since june 15 is that the iranian people are using every official holiday to using every official holiday to go out and protest the results of the elections which they believe were stolen from them but their general dissatisfaction withç 30 yearsç misrule under the islamic republican and today was supposed to be aç climax. iç assume there are massive
demonstrations throughoutç tehn and they are meeting a stiff response from the government. guest: yes, i agree with barbara. i think that efficient since the election there's been great unrest and political uncertainty in iran. and this is far from over. host: steve hayes this morning in the weekly standard 2010 regime change in iran, he points to president obama's inaugural address and writes in the weekly turnaround as a candidate barack obama pledged to meet with the leaders of worrogue states with conditions. he said we had been too domineering under george çbush. we spent too much time lecturing and too little time listening. the obama administration would use smart power to change all of that. iran would be the first and most urgent test. the new president started earlyç barbara slaven? >> i think obama has had a role
in this. perhaps not the one he would have expected. because he has not been brook n belligerent the same way george bush and others wereç i think has removed america from the equation and what we see now is the iranians are pretty much taking the situation into their own hands. the government is trying to blame the protests on outsiders but nobody believes it because it is not true. this is all home grown. so, although it is not what obama expected, he expected a process of engagement in the government. i think we are seeing -- i don't know if regime change in 2010 is likely but we are seeing, i think, the beginning of the third iranian revolution. the first theyç wanted a republican. then in 1978 and 1979 when they got rid of the shah.
the third was the beginning in 2009. >> charles krauthammer calls the president's response and spokes people as being feckless. that we are not aggressive not with iran. it is time to get tougher. guest: that easy to say. but a lot of america's, theç united states' leverageç has bn taken away the last eight years of the efforts of the last administration. when president obama said that he was going to try to use more diplomacy than sort of dictating to countries, there was an assumption that a lot of the world would just fall in line in response to the kinder, gentler approach. as problem noted, the leadership in terror right hand right now -- it tehran right now is frantically trying to blame
america for its problems which nobody is buying. but, in fact, the united states is really not being listened to that much. obama sent the supreme leader over there several letters trying to outstretch his hand. it didn't work. so, the approach that obama is taking, while it maybe sounds politically popular in the united states, hasn't really worked over there. but i wouldn't say it is because the policy is feckless but because ofç internal condition in iran. host: this is the reporting of eric schmidt from "new york times." elite u.s. force expands the hunt in afghanistan. the essence of the story is that the increased counterterrorism operations the last three or four months reflect a growth in every part of the afghanistan campaign including conventional forces securing bop legislation and others retaining and partnering with the afghanistan
forc forces. also reporting from "new york times" american commanders in afghanistan relying on the commando units to carry out some of the most complicated operations against militant leaders and the mission although never publicly a.c.c. tphob-- ny acknowledging the efforts. what is going on? guest: there are different levels. there is the summer of 30,000 combat troops. there is the civilian surge. and there is the aid to pakistan. now,ç this expansion of the commando element is partç of t military side. what the commandos are doing, in conjunction with predator drone attacks on the board, is trying to target al qaeda and taliban leaders inside of pakistan. theseñr are cross-border raids into pakistan territory.
these are very sensitive affairs because theç pakistanies don't want it known the united states is operating inside their territory. the united states is very unpopular inside pakistan and anyç knowledge of (1ó(u among pakistani people would backfire on the pakistani government. and within pakistan you have people within the military and security services particularly the intelligence service, who don't like these american raids inside. they say they do more harm than good. the united states has said to the pakistanis if we can't do it, you ought to do and they say we are trying as best we can. the united states says it is not good enough and we will have to do it ourselves and we will have to see whether the raids will, first, hit the targets they want to hit and, number two, whether they will cause a backlash. >> barbara, another component of this as jonathan broder wrote is
the $1.5 billion in economic aid to pakistan. >> it is very important. unfortunately the situation we are talking about iran being confused. the situation in pakistan is pretty confused. it is not clear whether their civilian government under zardari will survive and the u.s. is so unpopular thereç ev when they propose givingç economic aidover five yearsç t initial response was negative. that it was a plot. that it wouldn't help the pakistani people. that they were selling out their birth right. this is a very hard country to help. and, of course, we have had a long and difficult history with pakistan at times when we were allies and times when the united states abandoned the country bus of their nuclear program. the u.s. has been associated with multiple military dictat s dictators. so, is pakistan an ally or foe?
>> in this photograph heightened security and increased tensions as travelers move around the country and coming into the u.s. the headline in the "new york times" is that the suspect in the terror attempt claims ties to al qaeda although there are questions as to how close they were. guest: well, claims of ties to al qaeda. you can simply be a disciple of al qaeda and say i'm doing it on behalf of al qaeda. al qaeda is now sort of a brand, and anybody who decides to do something can do it in the name of al qaeda as if it were some sort of franchise. so, we don't know yet -- or i don't know yet -- whether there guy was directed by al qaeda, whether he was paid by al qaeda, whether he was taking secret
phepbls from al qaeda -- messages from al qaeda or whether he was acting alone in the name of al qaeda. it too early to tell that. but i think one thing we can conclude from this is that al qaeda is now a force out there in the muslim world and it is not going to go away even if we kill osama bin laden, the idea of al qaedaism or obamaism are going to last. these are enduring values on their side. host: barbara, your reaction to this story? guest: ç there are some initia reports suggesting that this guy was -- is half nigerian and half yes, ma'am a yemeni and may have gotten instruction from al qaeda leaders there including the sheik who was connected to the fort hood shootings. there is some suggestion he may have obtained materials in yemen
although it looks like fortunately for all of of us it pretty primative. he succeeded in setting himself on fire but not the plane. and the passengers were very alert and they managed to put this thing out before it caused a catastrophe. i c what is disturbing, if you look at the background of the young man, he apparently came from a very privileged family. his father is banker in nigeria. he went to the best schools available. he was studying engineering in london. so you have to wonder what it is about these individuals and again you see this pattern. it often people who go çabroad go to the west for a university who are alienated in some way or offended in some way by their experience in the west and turn toward, as jonathan put it, this brand name that is is out there for anybody who is angry and upset with the west.
host: our phone lines are open and you can accepted us a twitter or send us an e-mail. do either of you twitter? guest: i signed up for it but i haven't started because i'm too busy with the rest of my life. . i don't, no. host: you can call us also. it is the new thing. guest: phone çcalling. >> our radio listeners are on c-span radio and x.m. channel 132. we go back to the time when president obama was worn in.
>> for we know that our patch work heritage is not a weakness but a strength. jews and hindus and nonbelievers. we ares&aped byç every languag and culture, drawn from every end of this earth and because we have tasted the bitter swill of war and segregation and emerged stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds should pass and lines of tribes should stkofrpl and as the world grows smaller our common humanity is shall reveal itself. to the muslim world, we seek a new way forward based on mutual interests and mutual respect. to those leaders around the globe to seek to sew conflict or blame their society's ills on
the west know your people will judge you on what can you build, not what you destroy. to those -- [applause] >> to those who claim power through corruption and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclinch your physical. host: looking aboback almost a r later your reaction to what the president said then and how the policies have unfolded since. guest: as jonathan pointed out, there are not any huge successes out there. maybe it was unlegalistic to expect that there would be in -- maybe it was unream h rearealis effect it but he has changed the tone. he has shaken hugo chavez's hand. he sent an envoy to myanmar. he sent at least two letters to
the supreme leader of iran. he certainly has tried to change the image of the united states in dealing with countries like it. i think these countries are still pretty authoritarian. but in some cases we have seen some cracks. and i go back to the idea when the united states is no longer seen as the enam i am eemy it dissidents to protest. and even in north korea the government has had to apparently backtrack on currency reform because there's been -- there have been huge protest business people who are in private markets and who have amassed some foreign currency. and this is probably a first. i don't know that north korea has ever shifted policy because of a domestic situation. so, i think we have to give this policy a little bit more time.
it maybe that the united states can't reach nuclear agreements with north korea and iran. but it may be there will be changes in the country to make it easier to live with them. host: as part of this process, it is war council as you wrote about levin of michigan, reed of rhode island and john kerry of massachusetts and kerry phroeting the idea of visiting -- float being ting the idea vi tehran and saying this is the type of think that he should undertake. guest: john kerry has become, along with levin and reed, at least within the senate one of the obama administration's sort of top wise men if you will. that isn't to say that he doesn't have others in other
branches of the government. but on the hill these three are considered at least by obama to be people that he should listen to. if you will remember, when he was a candidate he/@@á@ @ @ @ @r terry has done other work for the administration before and is very much in tune with obama's policy. he does not carry some of the heavy baggage not hillary carries with her statements that she has made about iran in the past. particularly statements about obliterating i ran, if it were to get to frisky with their nuclear weapons. so, someone like john kerry serves as a a very, very useful
cut out for the administration. guest: procedurally, it would be easier because they have said members of their parliament to the united states. this would not convey an iranian recognition of the united states to have a member of our senate to go in the same way that it would if the rate or joe biden were to go. senate go. host: barbara slavin with the washington times and author of "bitter friends and busom enemies." jonathan broder worked for the associated press, nbc news. senior editor of foreign policy. on to the phone calls. barbara from palm beach, florida. caller: i'm sorry, we are living in an age when we have to start thinking outside of the box. i know what i'm trying to say may sound a little radical but
we've to face the fact that any figure for any other group who teaches from their religious book to go out and kill someone who is not of their situation, we have to have an international law that will be in force that these individuals themselves must be killed. they have to be taken out. it is like cutting out the cancer. as long as they teach another individual that they are wise and their religious per situation says you are doing -- persuasion says you are doing a good thing to go out and kill someone we have to face up and it has to be a global effort. and it has been in the universities, any mosques or
anyone who teaches hatred and to kill their neighbor because of their difference of their belief system. and we know how work with the u. sfp u.s. -- u.n. is. maybe we needç to build anothe international organization. host: barbara, i will stop you on that point. we will get reaction. guest: i don't think it is a tenable proposition. each country deals with its own la laws, its own law breakers as best it can. the united states and other countries get involved when acts of terrorism are committed that affect americans or affect people outside that country. unfortunately, all religions have at some point advocated killing those that they disagree with and you can go back to the very first one and it is unfortunately a way that militant fundamentalists
distinguish themselves is by casting aspersions at others and accusing others of not being sufficiently observant. and if there is a way to solve this problem through education i don't know. guest: let me add in the muslim world it is deeply split by these radicals who are killing people and, i might add, many of the people thatç they kill are also fellow muslims. and what is striking and others have pointed it out as well, you don't see a lot of protests among moderate muslims against the radical muslims in their midst. some people take this to be sort of tacit agreement, the goals or methods of the radicals. i don't necessarily see it that way. i see it as they are intimidated
and they feel if they open their mouths in protest they are going to be next. so there is a crisis going on in the arab world and we are watching it play out. host: with our apologies to the radio audience, jonathan broder i want to ask you to plain this photograph. this was a piece where u.s. marines in an area once controlled by the taliban on the move in afghanistan. what does this tell you? guest: the purpose is to outline the costs of whatç obama's surge is going to be, not only in terms of of dollars but in terms of casualtiesç an logistics andç wear and tear o the military.ç in that photoç what we were gog to show is a landscape that may look sort of sparsely populated by american troops at the moment but there's going to be many,
many more walking that trail if you will. host: heather is joining us on the democrats' line. chattanooga, tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my çcall. my main concern with the war that is going on now is i really don't hear of any army intelligence going on and i really don't ever hear about who is supplying the taliban or al qaeda with their weapons. and i'm interested to know because i never hear this issue being brought up and that kind of thing might solve the problem as far as the war going on. that is my question. guest: first of all, weapons iç that part of the world,
pavilion, pakistan, are not a problem. there is a little town in the federally administered doctor stories called bara and i have never been toç anyplace like ts in my life. but there, a small market town and you can buy any weapon you want. everything from an r.p.g. and small howitzer to a pen like this that fires a 22 bullet in case you are being forced to sign a contract or something that you want to shoot your way out of. the other thing in terms of money, and this may surprise a lot of people, there was a very interesting piece by our colleague in the nationç a coue of weeks ago in which he conclusively reported -- this was not any sort of vague report, this was nailed down,
air tight -- that the taliban actually gets money from u.s. taxpayers and the way that this happens, according to ross, is that there are contracts, most of americans supplies for the military come through the port of karachiy karachi in southern and trucked north into the khyber pass intoç afghanistan be distributed to american troops. the job of providing security for those convoys is not surprisingly farmed out to private security companies. then the private security company subcontracts that to subcontractors. according to this report, the ç subcontractors simply pay off the çtaliban.
the taliban controls certain sections of that route and if you want to get your truck through it is just like a tax on your vehicle. and if you don't pay the taxç your truck goes up in flames and your driver is probably dead. sometimes you will see trucks -- you will hear a report of a truck being hit and they paid the protection fee if you will and this is the taliban way of basically startingç negotiatio for a new taxation regime. the old wasn't any good, we want to raise your tariff so we blow up a truck to let you know it is time to come back to the negotiation table. and tens of millions of dollars are going to the taliban of u.s. taxpayer money to protect our convoys going up into afghanistan. guest: there are other sources that are still getting lots of money from the persian gulf, from the saudis, emirates,
kuwaitis and others who still support the taliban, and of course the pakistanis have theiç own links. so they are not short of money or weapons. tkpwhr all of this back to the roots of terrorism which you can go back to the beirut bombings in the reagan informatiadminist. but calling in a heck of a decadeç in this one photograph george w. bushç shortly after september 11 his arm around a new york city, retired at the time -- how does that shape the decade? >> what a small question. it is responsible for so much that has happened. it led to not only the war in afghanistan but indirectly to the warç in iraq. it gave us george w. bush twice with everything that entailed. it has pawned terms such as ial ialamo-fascism.
created enormous hatred and division. we don't know the end of it. one hopes over time the hatreds will beginç to diminish and supporters of al qaeda realize this not leading them anywhere and not helping their people and that the islamic faith will go through its own reformation and come out the other side as something that is more humane and doesn't encourage this kind of behavior. this has been a decade characterized byç war, hatred, division and economic dislocation and we are not out of it yet. host: alfred next from algiers, louisiana, good morning. caller: good morning. nice to here these two people dance around andç just spew thr propaganda.ç one -- host: why do you call it propaganda, caller? caller: because they don't
report for us. they don't report about the people. they report for the system. theyçç report for the militar industrial complex. they don't getç to the root causes. they danced around 9/11. the -- let's look at the cause of 9/11. no one touches that taboo subject. for instance, i'm just a citizen journalist. i sit here and do my reading and i just read the fact that people that have been analyzing the flight data recorders released on 9/11, one of the recorders show that the cockpit door was never opened for the entire flight so begs the question to ask how did the hijackers get into the cockpit? because they wouldn't know that because they do not even rye to investigate 9/11. then you have theç one guy thi
so orwellian. he says if the pakistanis knew that we were doing raids into their country,ç of course they know. he is stating it publicly on tv. do they think we're idiots? host: response on either responsibility? guest: i'm not sure where he is going. >> i prefer to return to the planet earth. host: we go to herb. caller: first, a quick question tongue in cheek, steve why do you always get test sunday morning assignment assignmes? host: no, because you call and it is the highlight of my sunday we i can hear from you outside of buffalo.ç caller: my question is to your two distinguished guests, it is difficult to find an answer and
the question briefly isçç the. charter was mostly written in 1945 and we were a signatory to the united nations charter. it became before the senate like when the senate ratifies that such as a treaty, does it become law of the land. if the answer is yes, when we do not abide by the united nations charter, as we have not throughout history, since 1945, and many occasions -- then is it an obligation of the courts in the united states to then take a stand? guest: i can answer that. host: thank you caller. guest: it has become the law of the land. in order -- and the court presumably would handle any violation of law. the problem on these
international issues is that, in order for something to come before the court, the person or institution that would raise the issue has to have what in legal terms is called "standing." in other words, they have to be a qualified party with the standing to bring this issue before the court. oftentimes, questions of violations that are brought by people in the united states or institutions in the united states, they are often struck down because they lacked standing. host: we're talking about the washington times calling it a heck of a decade. others have used other terms to describe this past eight or nine years. how would you describe 2000 to dilute 2009? guest: i think it is the beginning of a tectonic shift in
world affairs. as barbara mentioned, it ushered in a time of corporate -- of war and conflict. certain forces have been unleashed. let me go back to what our breasts and where she talks about this hope that islam will have its reformation. islam will have its reformation and they will see that the policies they are following are not necessarily god for them andç -- notç good this will be more calm but certain forces have been unleashed by the events of 9/11 and the u.s. response that will be very difficult to put back in the box. >> let's go back to this past summer when president obama in cairo, egypt, reaching out to the muslim world. here is an exe ex-erpt.
>> violent extremists have exploited these tensions. the attacks of september 11, 2001, and continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view islam asinevitably hostile not only to the united states but human rights. all of this has bred more fear and mistrust. so long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sew hatred rather than peace. those who promote conflict rather than the constitution that can help allçç of our pe achieve justice and prosperity. this cycle of suspicion and discord must end. host: is it ending?
suspicion and discord? guest: no, not yet. obama gives a wonderful speech. no. we have a long way to go. but if you look at the polls, they do show that the standing of the united states in the world at large and technically in the muslim world has improved significantly since obama became president and that is partly a kind of relief at the end of the bush administration, a kind of amazement that the united states could elect barack obama hussain obama as president, and some recognition that he is trying to turn the ship around. on the other hand you have many in the pus him world who say the united states is still in iraq and afghanistan and obama has used the predator drones even more than bush did. he doesn't jail people inç guantanamo but he assassinates them from the air. so, you still have a potent
number of peopleç in the musli world who intensely like the united states, maybe more so because of obama. but i think overall the tone has changed and there are some improvements. host: miami, beach, florida. you are on the air.ç caller: good morning. i really am excited to have such fantastic dialogue going on on television. there is hope and i love how they both present that. what i wanted toç bring forwar as a question isç if it is possible that there might be an initiative addressed to what is the real life going on. while all of this is going on in all of these countries, we can look at any pot on the planet -- spot on the planet and we are going to find similar discord by
the interest ofç human beings. but while that is going on -- and i know that theseç two gre journalists and very important people are speaking on behalf of the government and economics and the religious discord upon the planet. but while all of this is going on, there is is the life of the peop people. and i have been so privileged because of the internet to converse with humans. an amazin amaze ining number of that i never expected to do. maybe overç 4,000 people are m friends on one of the internets, you know, platforms. but they are so excited from just beingable to experience things -- being able to experience things that we in the united states are lovingç whic are like self-help,
self-consciousness books. they want access to these things. i have people asking me please send me articles on things. i don't want to mention any names but like conscience evolvement. host: how would you respond to that? guest: well, if you are talking about social networking sites like facebook, they are an incredible tool. i don't tweet, i must admit. i think that you can't possibly express yourself in such a short form although some people do. but the other networking sites are fascinating and you see the people who try to friend you and you find out about their backgrounds and some of it is fascinating. i use it as a tphaonews gatheri tool particularly with a situation like iran where foreign correspondents are very reconvicted and often not allowed to go. a lot of information is coming
out of that country thanksç to ordinary citizens and i have friends throughout, particularly the muslim world, who have read something i have written or want to comment on it and i think this is one of the really before friends. some of can be waste of time, perhaps little annoying, but there is always a seed there or something that will give you an idea for a story or will want you to explore things further and who knows you may get to go to that country and meet that person. so i think this is phenomenal and revolutionary.ç guest: i would like to add will is a further point here is and that is that if will is one bright spotç in the middle eas it is the explosion of all forms of media. barbara and i were both based in the middle east many years ago and we remember the days we the only medias was available to folks living in the middle east was the state controlled media
of those countries where they lived. egyptian press or state controlled syrian press. now you have networks like al-jazee al-jazeera which are satellite networks and even over the protests and efforts by governments to stop these broadcasts from coming in, they are coming in over the heads of the government and everybody has a satellite dish and they get to see a lot of things from the world that they never would have seen before. then compounding that sort of connectivity are the social networkingç tools. so, you have a public in the middle east that is increasingly becoming aware of their situation and the shortcomings of their governments, and that is sort of a potent chemical if
you will that is out there now that isç roiling these societi. it is early to say what will happen, but at least in iran we get to seeç what is happening d the impact of those new mediaç. guest: theç 10th day of the islamic month is very important. this day in particular is very symbolic. it is the day onç which the grandson of the prophet muhammad and 72 companions wereççç sl the desert in karbula, now iraq. this was 680 a.d. this particular event crystallized what it meant to be sunni or shia.
the shiaç are the rebels of th muslim faith. they brokeç with the leadershi that had been chosen for the muslim faith after the prophet muhammad died. and they wanted members of his familyç to succeed him. first ali who was his son-in-law, then ali's son hussain. and instead there was a khalif the evil yazid who was inç chae and he went out with his powerful army and laureated the imam hussain and his followers in the desert after he firstç left them without water, so they were dying of thirst. for shia muslims this is a day and time when you recognize this event, when you celebrate the heroism of someone who was willing to go out and fight against injustice and be willing to lose his life in order to overthrow an unjustice
tyrannical ruler. well, guess what. here we are six months of the proud-painted elections and the people of iran are taking the governmentç sanctioned holidaya huge event, and they are once again turning it against the regime saying the supremeç lear of the country and the hussain is the chief opposition candidate so they are yelling kwra hussain. and death to the dictator and assorted other interesting slogans. host: the developments overnight a handful of deaths as iranian security forces opening fire in tehran as part of demonstrations barbara slavin was talking about. vivian joins us from denton, texas. independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to talk to you
are having çthere. i'm reallyñr upset that obama ds not do more and have more conference wasç israel because believe hatç jews have suffere -- i believe that the jews have suffered enough and we are going through the same thing because of al qaeda and bin laden and i think their deal was not 9/11. it had to do with ruining the united states. they took all of our money. they have taken everything away from us, including our sons, our daughters and everything else and i believe that the government should do something about it instead of just sitting on their hands and not helping the military take care of this.
i'm so tired of saying i'm sorry, i'm sorry i'm an american and that is the way it is now.ç that is w that is what obama is telling everybody. we are so sorry. i'm so the sorry. i'm upset. i'm very upset. my son died a month before 9/11 in an f-14 off theç u.s.s. constellati constellation, and i know that it was one of the problems that started 9/11, it was just one of the things that happened. he is still in the indian ocean in an f-14 abubecause they coult bring him back. now you tell me what are we posed to do with iran? what are we posed to do to make them listen? we can't do anything because they are not going to. all we can do is just say ok, we are going to take it and what
have we got? pr ruining ourç military. he is questioning everything our military does. he is ruining the united çstat. host guest: i am very sorry for your loss. obama inherited a very difficult hand when he became president. iran is a, at least, from the evidence we have seen, they are determined to develop if not an actual nuclear weapon that at least the capability to build a nuclear weapon. it is very, very difficult, as we have seen, to try to get the world to try to come together
for some sort of sanctions against iran. the other option, obviously, is the military option. if you cannot convince them through sanctions to stop their program, then you face the military issue. we are already involved in iraq and afghanistan. we did not have an infinite army. we do not have an infinite money to pay for these wars. obama, i think, to be fair to him, is doing the best the can. i would not be so harsh on the president in the circumstances. he fully understands, i think, the gravity of the situation. i think he is trying his best with the policies he is pursuing. that does not always mean the government on the other and are one to respond as quickly or as we would like.
i did not personally agree that obama is doing nothing. i think he is trying his best. i think he is trying his best. host: this from sasha says obama gives a wonderful speech. the tone changed. we go to michael in philadelphia. caller: good morning, everybody. thank you for being here on the holiday season. i want to ask just two quick building with all of these extremisms and we referred to yemen, afghanistan is still a work in progress, it is very difficult for the u.s. to do had by itself and fortunately we do have some allies participating to some degree. it seems that there are almost
limitless opportunities for failed states. mo mo somalia is one. it strikes me that any real effort toward building states would have to an broad international effort and would have to include some rising economies like china, russia, india. do you see any efforts toward that happening in any kind of broadway and consensus building that enough nationsç are concerned enough about the dangers of failed states that a broader integrated effort will take place? that is a broad question. i think i will leave it this wh wh guest: in pakistan and afghanistan you seeç the effor being led by the united states,
butç there are nato countries that are joining the united states in that effort. the problem is that a lot of these situations of failed states, as a broad subject, becomes very specific we you talk about specific countries like afghanistan. then there arises the question of the popularity of that in the country. afghanistan ha feted as cause among nato countries. while the united states had a lot of allies when we first went in afghanistan, a lot of these countries that were our countries have tired of these wars. they have associated them with george bush. and the leaders of these countries don't have the popular support to provide as much aid as they would like. so, it is a constant truck to try to maintain the coalition.ç
host: sheila has been waiting on the republican line from doylesto doylestown, pennsylvania tkpwhrao i would like to say something about your guests. i believe they are the same that are on fox news and haveç spre the sail garbage about iran and said the same things about the war. basically those people have no idea that [inaudible] it was a [inaudible] building and it came down. tkpwhr first of all, we appreciate your joining us. we appreciate both jonathan broder and barbara slaven to be with us but there is the theory that the planes didn't bring down the world trade tower. guest: it is a little early on a sunday morning. i wanted to go back to the early
question bucking about this issue of failed states because there is infrastructure out there. we have the i.m.f. and world bank and united nations with all of its many organizations. you have some very good organizations like unicef, world food program that provide all kinds of memb kinds of emergencyç help even places that are falling apart and sometimes at great risk to the people who are providing the aid. what we don't have is a coherent international structure for helping countries build and rebuild particularly after conflict. and each country has its own infrastructure, a lot of mope gets wasted on overhead, on contractors and subcontractors. a lot of the money never gets to where it is supposed to go. you have individual like greg morton son with his three cups of tea who goes around building in bothpri minister areas. it would be great if we could
find some better way because this is aç enter solution than war. obviously schools, food, jobs would be very important in terms of reducing the number of foot soldiers for organizations like al qaeda and the taliban. so, perhaps that is a task for the next decade and thoughtful people to think of a better way to do nation building. host: other advice is a tweet from a viewer. guest: that is fine in theory. but it is not possible. we are living in a world that is extremely globalized. what happens overseas affects our lives as anybody who has lost a job has seen it go to china can testify. nor should we want to avoid
foreign i think tanglements. we are all global citizens and we have to play the game. host: jim joins us from henders hendersonville, north carolina. independent line. stpwhr tkpwhr caller: i wanted to get the guests' view on the opium trade in afghanistan. we talked earlier about the funding of the taliban and al qae qaeda. and for the past eight years or so the policy has been to try to convert farmers afrom growing opium to grow wheat and other crops. was wonder iing what you think the possibility of purchasing the opium from the farmer which provides him with his income which is why he grows it and just destroying it and taking the middle man and the warlord out of the equation? guest: that has been proposed
by i think brent scowcroft and zbigniewç bridge engines sk zbigniew. barry mccaffrey has suggested it. the problem with the opium in afghanistan is that basically there is no economy in afghanistan except for opium. they don't produce anything. it is largely an agricultural economy and the only crop that really pulls in any money is opium. now, the opium not only supports the taliban, it supports many people in the government, too including the one of the president's brothers, hamid karzai's brother walid. dick holbrooke the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, has suggestedç a
crop substitution program but the problem is that it requires not only just seeds to grow a different crop like wheat or cotton, but it requires an entire infrastructure. it requires roads, it requires trucks to get these products to market. it requires markets. so much infrastructure is missing in afghanistan that to build an economy based on a different crop would be a massive, massiveç nation buildg effort. and it is easier said than done. host: the military is calling in afghanistan snatch and grab as u.s. troops tried to take in some of these so-called terrorists and cnn this morning
reporting in neighboring pakistan 13 militants were ki ç killed by the drone and reaper technology which are the unmanned missiles that are taking down at least the taliban or members of al qaeda. what is going on? >> this part of obama's focus on al qaeda as the threat even more than the taliban. the hope is that if you can kill enough of the militant leaders and squeeze them somehow in this border areaç between pakistan d afghanistan, kill them with drones, get them on the afghan side, if possible on the pakistani side by the pakistani army, that you can reduce the threat. and this is to be coupledç wit improving securitior major population areas and providing jobs, other things to do for potential taliban recruits. we have also reported in the washington times that there have been discussions mediated by the saudis and united arab emirates with some of the afghanistan taliban leaders trying to
convince them to lay down arms, to come into the government. so, i think that you can see that they are working on a number of fronts. the hope is that if the momentum in the war shifts and taliban no longer feels they are winning they maybe more willing to lay down arms and at least temporarily agree it a political settlement. guest: one of the aspects here is the role the pakistan plays in supporting them. the military and national security leadership of pakistan is mainly afraid of india. they are the main threat that pakistan feels it faces. what they are afraid of mostly is being encircled by india. they have india to its east and afghanistan on the western border and they are afraid of an alliance between afghanistan and india which would basically put pakistan in the middle of a geo
strategic sandwich. what they do is back the taliban in afghanistan as a force that will hopefully gain power in afghanistan and prevent any sort of indian influence from taking root in afghanistan. the problem with the pakistan has with the united states the military doesn't trust that the united states will be there for any reasonable length of time and that when the americans leave, the indians will move back in. so, the taliban is their hedge against indian encirclement. now, these drone attacks are going on on the border around the federally administered tribal areas, but there's been some evidence reported by our
intelligence folks that the pakistan pakistanis, who are assisting the afghan taliban, are providing them sanctuary in border cities, are now moving them to safety. guest: we reported this. guest: into karachi to get them out of the gun sights of the predator missiles. it preserve the afghanistan and taliban leadership so that they can have this hedge policy in afghanistan. host: to both of you for your expertise and your background, jonathan broder defense and foreign policy senior editor
>> next on q&a, omar wasow. another chance to see the bbc record review. >> tomorrow is the start of the campaign management institute work for republican and democratic strategists discuss a variety of issues. the 2010 senate races from a campaign strategy and polling techniques. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span t2. this thursday on c-span, a day of tributes to world leaders. then, new year's day, a look at what is ahead for the new year. what is ahead for the new year. russian prime minister vladim
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on