tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN July 7, 2010 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT
have asked for prayers report at our next meeting in september. this is about more than what government can do. this is about what businesses can do. we are launching the export council, a group that includes business and labor leaders who have -- will offer their unfiltered advice and expertise on how best to promote exports. . .
we're going to go to bat for everyone from the largest corporations to the smallest business owner with an idea that she wants to market and sell to the world. this year, the commerce department has coordinated 18 trade missions with over 160 companies to compete in 24 countries. we have eight more planned over the next few months. there advocacy center has assisted american companies supporting a $11.4 billion in
exports and an estimated 70,000 jobs. secretary clinton recently held a round table with business leaders in shanghai and next week, she will host another one to discuss removing barriers that stand in their way of success. we are moving forward with strengthening our business assistance across the country. they can provide a comprehensive tool kit of services to help potential exporters gain a foothold in new markets and expand. especially small businesses that might not know how to sell their products abroad. second, we are increasing acces3 and medium-sized businesses that want to export their goods and services, but just need a boost. the export/import bank has more than doubled their loans since last year. that step alone has helped
support nearly 110,000 jobs. third, we are up in our efforts to remove barriers to trade and open new markets and new opportunities for american business. on a global level, this begins with pushing hard to improve those negotiations so that they have a higher level in a way that will translate directly into more opportunities for american exporters. regionally, we are working on the transpacific partnership agreement to expand our commercial profit -- presence in some of the most dynamic markets in asia. in march, we reached an agreement with china to reopen their market to american ports. last month, we reached an agreement with russia to reopen their market to american poultry. these steps are worth more than
$1 billion to american business. we're also reforming our own restrictions consistent with our national security interest. we hope to move forward on new agreements with some of our key partners. i have been -- i have instructed u.s. trade representative to begin the discussions to help resolve issues with the caribbean free-trade agreement before my visit in november. it is an agreement that will create new jobs and opportunities for both of our countries. we also want to deepen our relationship with panama and colombia. we are working to resolve freeze -- outstanding issues with those key partners. we are focused on submitting them as soon as possible for congressional consideration. we will make sure that each agreement just does not addanced our interest, buttonholes are
most cherished values. -- but upholds our most cherished values. the united states offer some of the world's lowest barriers to trade. when we give other countries the privilege of that free and fair access, we expect in return. -- weamerican producers will use every tool at our disposal to enforce trade agreements. last week the wto rules in favor of the united states on a case that saw european governments were subsiddzing claims of airbus manufacturers. that practice was unfair and hurt american workers. this ruling will help keep the playing field level and boost american jobs. finally, we continue to coordinate with other nations around the world to promote
strong, sustainable and balanced growth. at last month's g-20 summit, we built on the actions that we took last year, actions that have replaced global contraction would global growth. -- with global growth. after years of taking on too much debt, americans will no longer borrow -- we alone cannot be the engines of economic growth. i struck -- a strong and durable recovery requires that country's not have an undue advantage. we discussed the need for market trading currencies. i welcome china's decision to allow its currency to appreciate. our discussion with china has also addressed the important challenge of how to create a more living playing field for
american companies. i made it clear to all that the united states of america is for the jobs and industries and markets of the future. the bottom line is this -- for a long time, we were trapped. businesses were on one side and labor was on the other. there were partisan divide separates the argument was whether you work pro trade or your anti trade. -- or you were anti trade. we will refocus our attention so that we are all in this together. businesses, workers, government, everybody is focused on the same goal. we lived in an interconnected world. there are global challenges and global opportunities.
this nation has never shied away from the prospects of competition. we thrive on competition. we are better positioned than anybody, as uniquely positioned as ever, to compete with anyone in the world. we have the most respected brands. we have the best products. we have the most vibrant companies in the world. we have the most productive workers in the world. we have the finest universities in the world. we have the most open, dynamic and competitive market in the world. when the playing field is even, nobody can beat us. we are up in our game for the playing fields of the 21st century. we have to do it together. we have to grow in the same direction.
-- row in the same direction. i am convinced that we will rise to meet these challenging times. we will grow our economy and put our people back to work, to forge our own future once more. we are americans and that is what we do. i appreciate all of your participation and i am looking forward to getting busy working with you. thank you. [applause]
post in april. president obama also appointed philip coyle and joshua as the pension guaranty corp.. >> coming up tonight on c-span, a discussion about how terrorism is viewed outside the united states. the heritage foundation. >> c-span is now available and more than 100 million homes. created by america's cable companies. >> a for a perspective on counterterrorism strategy. a former state department diplomat and a u.n. official discuss how u.s. allies view the
war on terror. this was part of a two-day conference. it is hosted by the aspen institute. this is about an hour. >> the issue of terrorism knows no boundaries and counterterrorism must know no boundaries and borders. therefore, it is not sufficient that we hear from only one of four in perspective. we need international cooperation. we will hear from two other
perspectives that in one way or another represent the international point of view. to moderate this session, we are pleased to have robert siegel, who is known to all of us listeners of npr. he has reported from western europe, eastern europe, and israel. he now concentrates on domestic stories. he served for four years as director of npr news and information department. he joined npr in december of 1976 as associate producer. in 1979, he was chosen to open bureau.ndon he is very well known throughout the country.
>> thank you very much. this is extremely broad. the catalyst beside me bring a breath of experience to the questions at -- the panelists beside me bring a breath of experience to the questions at hand. prior to 9/11, he was urging that more attention be paid to osama bin laden in afghanistan. post 9/11, he was the man who led the chase osama bin laden.
richard barrett is the coordinator of the un pas qaeda taliban monitoring project. before taking that job in 2004, he served in the british foreign office security service and secret security service in turkey and jordan. he has now been at the un for the past several years. since both of you have fought wal-mart and harder about al qaeda than nearly anyone i know, i want to ask you a question that is beside our central focus and what you imagines the view to be of all the things we have been hearing about. the think that these men -- do you think that these men -- we
have spawned all sorts of local franchises. they are going to get lucky one of these days. the american public is starting on the war in afghanistan. we are going to win this thing. or is it -- we can only get the lone wolf net jobs -- nutjobs, so we are under a lot of pressure. do you think they feel that they are winning this thing? >> i think from their perspective, it is an existential struggle. it defines who they are. it defines a world as they would like it to to be. they are in it for the long haul.
they will continue to fight until they are either captured or killed. that is important for us when we think of the strategic value in the leadership. it is paramount. i do think that there is frustration, confusion within the ranks because of the decimation of al qaeda leadership, except for those too. if you areethe number 3 guy in and out qaeda, your life expectancy is measured in months. it is not ahmadinejad anybody wants. that creates a lot of confusion -- it is not a job that anybody wants. many attacks have been disrupted. they are under stress. the reason that we -- that our allies have not been able to capture or kill either one of
the two is because they are in hiding. they have restricted themselves in their movement and their communications and that burden has fallen to the number 3. i think it is a mix. they are determined. it is an existential conflict, but they are also under enormous stress. if you look at public opinion in the muslim world, the support for the ideology that al qaeda professes is dropping. did you look at its research poles and others, from that point on, it started to decline. >> richard, what do you think? >> they are in for the long term. they must think, we are still here. they have not got as yet. nonetheless, the net is closing.
if i were osama bin laden, i would say, we have not had such a good couple of years, but we are resilience. we just lack of opportunity. -- wages lack opportunity. as far as recognition is concerned, -- it is a good nine years after the attack of 9/11. they were quite extraordinary. they exceeded even their expectations in terms of impact and the increase in same period -- and fame. on the areas of their legitimacy, there credibility, their relevance to world events, they have seen a deterioration in their position. i think that -- the attacks on
the whiting change the public support to revolting criminals. that is something which has spread across the muslim world. that burning desire to lead a mass movement is probably a little bit compromised by that. now they cannot quite see where that message is coming from. >> are they important to beyond the symbolic? if al qaeda were decapitated now, would back essentially be the end of its? is the movement not dependent on
this charismatic leadership? >> theeleadership is of critical importance. if you look at successful counterinsurgency campaigns, there are three strategic events. you must nullify any leadership. you kill them or you capture them or you undermine their legitimacy. you must deny them safe haven. you have to address the conditions the enemy exploits. you have to do all three. the decapitation along when not have ended this war. it would have been a major success, but that is only one of three strategic goals. from that perspective, we still have a lot of work to do. there are others that are willing to step forward. they have repeated the. -- have repeatedly.
it is a movement and a half affiliate's. it is a dynamic network that continues to learn and adapt and change and we have to change with it. >> as far as al qaeda is concerned, they believe in decapitation. iffyou look at activities, they have been very much involved in removing tribal leaders, removing leaders of the awakening movement and so on. in pakistan, the same. removing tribal elders that are opposed to the taliban. in afghanistan, you see the same thing. there is no doubt. they really spark when there is a charismatic leader in charge. clearly hasden
that charismatic appeal. he has come a -- become a character on a t-shirt. that charisma will probably survive to his death. nonetheless, to remove him from the scene probably would have+ positive effects in terms of counter-terrorism. he is a very unpleasant character. he has never been charismatic. he has always made enemies wherever he has been. if you watched the videos, he sits ttere wagging his finger, admonishing everything -- everyone to do this, that, and the other. >> osama bin laden -- the reason we have not caught osama bin laden is because they are in hiding. to a great deal of americans, it
is a puzzlement. that country has now mobilized and been there since late 2001. is that despite a ruly vigorous and effective counterterrorism efforts in pakistan? >> yes. there is no doubt that pakistan is very concerned about the situation with the taliban. we need to make some between the the pakistan taliban and the afghanistan taliban. within the afghan groups, there is a bit of a complication.
the pakistan government has a big fear that there could be a movement which results in a pashtun stand. if they break off, because there is no proper settlement in afghanistan, that would beevery bad for pakistan. it needs to do things about that. it needs to fight the taliban. it needs to be aware of its capabilities. the general said, and you keep on pushing us to do this, what if we lose? that is a realistic scenario for them. maybe they cannot define hat
losing would be. they have to approach the problem from many different ways. ooe of them will be vigorous milltary action. another will be negotiation. all i am trying to say is that when you say -- they pursue their own interests and they are very good at identifying their own interests. fundamentally, a man huntiig is very hard. alexander the great, he chased the king for two years and never caught him.. the fbi pursued the 10 most wanted within our borderssfor years and years. man hunting is hard.
if you are talking about this part of the world, particularly+ it is multifaceted. without a obust counterinsurgency effort, the chances of getting the osama bin laden are diminished. that really is about local support. that really s the key. it is about thh people. we can talk about the physical terrain, but even more daunting is the human terrain. you have to understand that train. >> it is a very important point aboot the human terrain. last year, there was aapakistan a moment with a young -- the pakistan people revolted by that. that turned a lot of people against the taliban.
the ambassaaor mentioned that 17% of pakistan supports american policies. favorable view.rer boat -- a the same research showed that only about the same amount supported the taliban. a really critical tuunaround in pakistan is that nti-3 any more in support for taliban3 that is a very significant change for pakistan and a very significant for the army. the army now can move against -- >> we should read the taliban's negative. the timmtable discussion in this
country is that president obama is suggesting that we should stop -- start dropping down the number of troops starting in july. possponed a bit.3n says it wille between december 31 and early january, the u.s. has to figure+ out whether it is in a position to reduce troops. when you talk to people and the larger southwest asian region, what is there a timetable?? do they think that we have heard it long enough? do they assume that soonee or later, the u.s. is gone to pull out? that the u.s. will pull out.
that is what they tell the afghan villagers. the often commented that the americans have the watches, but we have the timee they do not have a timeline. they have nowhere else to go. that is their home. immediately after 9/11, in afghanistan working with their afghan allies, i was often asked, are you going to stick with us this time? referring to our promises made during these -- during the soviee occupation. the afghans remember that. they are wondering if we are going to stick with them. are we with the afghan people in this fledgling democracy? i do not have the answer.+ at the time, i told them, yes. today, based on the political
atmosphere, i do not know. >> it has been several years and we are still there. have we ained any credibility? >> not been the president announces a timeline for withdrawal. he did not see the non-military care, the econnmic develop it.t- very little has gone to the villages and to the afghan ppople. nine years ago, only 6% of the afghan people were on the electric grid. today, only 6% of the afghan people are on the lectric gridd there has been some progress in public education. it is not without some progress. but overall, we have a long way to go. to say about these time lines.s -- i have a few more things to say about this time lines.%+ thee're quite likely to " npr or
the washington post or "the new york times" or one of the think tanks in washington or london. it is intereeting how where they areeof the domestic public opinion pressures on governments to deal with this and get it %+ne. they believe that time is on they are not going anywhere. there are time factors that affect them, too. if you look at karzei, he is. po get something moving. he is very worried that he will -- he is under pressure of time+ it pushes his eeforts to reconcile or start talks.
for how long that will last, that is another maater. the taliban are under time pressure, too. although theyyhave control over3 pfghanistan. mooe and more, young commanders who got involved in in this since 2001 -- we are building our oon power bases. we are much more independent because we are getting drug money. the taliban themselves have a time problem.. the more it goes on, the less control they have. time pressures are on everybody.
>> i would like to ask you both about the two most recent atteepted attacks, the times square attempted car bombing and a chrissmas day attack. what does incident said to you about what is hhppening happening overseas. how did those events play out%+ to beyynd our shores in the region where they originated? >> i think there is a diverse perspectives and adverse interpretation of thooe events. you have some of those who lean toward conspiracy theories and dismiss it all togethee and think it is something that we did. it is hard to overstate how
much attraction that gains in parts of south asia. thisstype oo thinking and debate. on the other end of the spectrum, you have responsible leaders to understand that if there is a succeesful attack in+ the u.ss, there will be consequences for akistan. they are conccrned and they are working morr ann more with the u.s. to address it. there is a brrader range within the spectrum. >> the times square, if i could the consequences, as seen in south asia, ayyu have this young on national television
all over the world. >> he was the mentor when he was in pakistan. >> he was thh guy who's video came out immediately after, saying ttey were responsiile. for him, he has suddenly made it to the big time. small-time crook. he is now a national figure and an internaaional figure. that, for him, is great. it will bring more resources and recruits. if you look at ccristmas case, which originated in yemen.
the government will react -- they are fearful that there will be a direct american intervention a lot of ountries fear the consequencess they would worry about thaa. they would say, yes, this is an over 60% of the population aree under 25. they have a rebellion in the north. al qaeda, is very llw on the list.
you can see resources flowing in. maybe that is not such a bad thing. they are playing it up and playing it down. i m not trying to be too simple. >> you mentioned ttat he was paddcaaized mooe so in london, where he was a university sttdent. more so than in yemee. the rest of eerope.+%--phow wwes counterterrorism between the u.s. and europe today? i think it is pretty good. there is a close relationship between the american ageecies predates /11 by a very long
time. clearly, everyone is trying to promote heii own interests. in the relationship has to recoggize the interest of the other side. whether you are talking about countries, you are bound tt see an instance of interest. when it goes beyond that, it becomes more omplicated. ttis world of counterterrorrss, puropeans, you can pretty mmuh rely oo ittseeing things tte same way. complicated relationship to%+ maaage. is all very well that u.s.-u.k.,
perspective. that is not enough. >> some pretty big gaps in other countries. thereeis a sense of entitlement+ a culture of ennitllment and many european countries. their social programs, but there entitled to u.s. ddfense umbrella. we won the cold war in concert ssmehhww they expect that to+ continuu. pf you look at a lot of oor nato allies, they have never lived + to their financial alley -- obligations. the uropeans should not ssume
that the u.s. will always be of some divergence.3 will continue for now, but that is not a giien forever. -p>> let me ask you a speculatie questiin. we just heard a anel earlier attack might be like.e next%- we heardda panel expressed their pelief in the liielihood of another strike against the u.s.e tribal areas of pakistan. -p%+
pnteresttamong allies to launch another multinational response to such an attack or s the woold somehow exhausted with this right now? did they regarded as our problem? >> it was not an invasion. last major urban stronghold of al qaeda, that was decembbr 7, 9/11, there were only 410 americans onnthe ground in afghanistan. you had terrific air power, youu
it was an afghan victory. youucompare that3 of iraq. to answer your uestion, itt depends on how we respond to that attack. how do we define the enemy? after afgganistan, ww define the there werr many taliban leaders who are now part of the government because they made a we will go with their afghan%+ brothers and the americans, not without qaeda. it is really important that we3 because of our power and conventional miiitary.+ because we are so good at it.
the more precise ann more locaa networks and havv them be succeed in this kind oo ar. >> ichard, what do you think of that? %+ iithiik it's would be verr unlikely to be a military response. it is all about perception and so soon after the irrq and%+ afghan ampaigns, i think that the international ommunity3+ that it could be successful. if you the horn of
aarica, thhnk f the end of when the ethiopians mooed in to try to shore up the transitional federal governmenn, there was a major swell oo opposition pgainst that. that is likely he cannot step into any of these places unintenddd an unexxected consequences. afghannstan and tte horn oo whi3 sophisticated enough to know what liessbehind an atttck,
aatack, you are okay. that was an obviius enemyy successful campaign. i do not think those conditiins are going toohappen again.%+ >> a temmeree resppnseewoull bee -pan ssee.+ >> yes. in a waa, we haveealready+ started the response foo the next attack. -pwe re alrrady doing thht. >>%+ proportionate. theee is alsoonoo just an element related to peventing3 whoover might e oo the deliiering end of another large
attack to know what sort of doubb? >> i am a bbg bellever ii peed and agility. if you look at the intelligence reporting we had, they expected united stattss. knew there would be a%+ they would -- they expected tha+ and like we did before.3 they thought the u.s. ighh matth fooces, but that would3 the last thing theyyexpected was that we would drop teams of the speciil operations command is behind their lines and artner with afghan tribal leaders engaaed in extensive sbversson sabotages and form an afghan
that was nowhere in their >> might it ave been a have known that? >> if you are engaged in existential war, deterrence does nottwork.3 with a nation state where they you have to ccme in from a this- different perspective. >> let e open this up to question. if we could get a microphone the gentleman wwth the blue tie. >> i am a director of homeland security studies in new ooleans+ i am also retired avy and spent a year in afghanistan.+ about t+
>> it is still very much alivee wwat ssrprissd him was thh pf you look at what's the transition forces had in their disposal, thee do nots oft have so much civilian means. -pttey do not have a very good3 it is often duplicative. it is ineffecttve and it s not accualll -- is not getting into proovde theedevelopment. o thhy hhae remained incredibly
week despite thhehuge amoont of effort thht has gone into it. there will not be the conditioos development into those areas. is still grappling with. further pledges of more money.%+ made it such difficult problem is the amount of money. it has reeulteddin huge%+ corruption. nobody believing in the future. pt is is very,,very difficult. the baak. we were talkinn aboou leadership other annlysts have suggested
%+ can you taak to this strategy of >> in an operationall levee, important.. i am not dismissing back.- frrm a stratteic erspective, -- enemy leadership. yoo haae to pursue both.%+ the degree off cooperatioo on mong the inttlligence serrices worldwide in aw enforceeent is really unprecedented.+ we are doing remarkable thhngs withha variety of trrddiional
allies and very new allies. pe re doing pretty well at aa we're doinn better overssas han we are in the homelandd >> the methoddthat you describe+ for bringing afghan forces up to in afghanistan, it does the %+rwarddby theeobamaa+ -padministtation -- we heard him sseak to the necesssty of having troops on the ground to disrupt terrorist networkk.
afghanistan. pushinggfor the? local netwookss ii helps to have youu own peoppe in there. very difficult to understand operating. theetaaiian is just as likely to be digging in a field as o be a -pcompounn. istinguish.difficull to- intelligence. it is slightly diiferent from a %+terrorist movement. if amerrcan troops ---if there
inside, it would rrally help the pakistan at taliban a lot. the ooe hing that pleases common enemy.+ that basic demand is that we here is one that ressnates pretty well. -pif youuhave more boott on the -pground, i do not think you wil p>> ii the ttme line as you underrtand it at war with the kind f succcssful warryou can the timelinneis ddiven more than i beeieveesome need to%+ generate urgency.
i might beewrong.%+ %-aaerican politics. i haddbeen on the roaa a lot. i think t is really rriiicial. what cculd change that time+ if it emanntes from he tribal+ lands, what does that timeline-? is ciiil war in3 p hope not, buttthhre is growing how does hat impact the ttmeline. i really think that it s artiffciaa.. telegraph that to theeenemy. >> you would wann tooppeserve troop levels. >> it doessnnt seem to be in the
ii may not be a good idea to carry on fightinn law you are training. you have to support political process will your trainingg as a model, it is not a vvry good iiea to train an army to fiiht.%+ yyu should train an army to defend our booders. with a rief story.. heewas knoon because heerepellee twoodays before 9/11, al aeda assassinated him.+
to thaa. i had a ong discussion about a range of operations that we were runnnng in partnership ithh im. -pcollection and sabbtage operations agaiisttal qaeda. the united statee of america, a+ ggeat nation. i have such admiration for your -pdoes youu country more -- care -posamaabin laden or morr bout the people oo afghanissan? i told him the truth. -pi ssid, the only peoole you a+ taaking to rom the uus. goveenment ssthe cia and our we care more about our mission.
he ggve ussthe saddest smmle. he knee the answee. he was also teaching me a when ww think oo conflict. it is not about finding an ii is alsooabout thh peopll. you have to do oth. uuttl we aadress the non- -ppilittry pprt of this conflic, we will be back fighting for tte pame valley year after year. . tooayy and ttat is what we havet to address.
there are very strong elemmnts aal over ssmalia which are involveddin piracy. they take a puriitnncaa view ite run, and has a ccrtain amount of support becaase theeareas they control are relativvey table.+ will gg somewheee beeause it proup that at leest could kkep in a relatively ort of on -ptroubling wwy. that should ltiimteey e theii pooalia is a smalllworldd. it involves aybe 2000 people. from piracy, ittmighh be a big+
war..3 -p>> i agree with whattyou haae said. whhttconcerns mm is they have links, noo strong links, bbt they have links to yemen,+ sydney, australiaasota, and p global battleefiild. -pinsurgency, but given oor%--pn oo people, they cannot travel ouu through a very ssccesssull investigation llst year.
afghanistan. ttey are the only arab ally who has done ttat. they are on a six-year rotation. they are allles. who might be laying both sides. peoole often hear that. you are on boaad fully? >> iffyou looo at sooe of the ssudi aaabia, ttey are sstll++%. beliive thattis true. however, if you look, sincc may pf 2003, whhnn l qaeda launchedd attacks acrossssaudd arabba,% ttey figured out ittwas a proolem.. it as in 2207, i think.
the messageewass ou ave to do pmre. it wws a poognann moment for me havvng this dissussion with them. they're good allles, aad >> ww have reached he ppint in our time linn when i have too+ for aalloffyouu insight.3 phen 6 perrministee's qqesttoos -pin the bbitish hoous of ccmmo. from the white house, ppesidenn3 -p>> before the senate juuiciaay
very iiporttddcisiin he helped pin, larrffiig tth standaad+ improbaale claims that might according toothe plaintiffs' bar, ttissis anotter oottageous3 connrees to ovvrtuun. and chhllengg sppt of thh-precol successful innthha case, but i phink all three ppnellstt mmy comment on the cass and hh3 paaplluss] poddy.ucctoon%-
aal of theem+ whattwe waat to do is stay far away as eecan rrm them in a organizations.+ hastings id not agree witt whiieehh was williigg oottlerrte pfaiiities, nd forraal recoonition and the like.%--ppo% piscriminaaiinnpplicc which ay. we aae sure that this iss hat reepectttt orgaaizaaionssthatt+% democrats haveett admit-that ch%
n almost very coostitttional decision, jefffwwoot, tte judgg will connront interpreted -pmuutiple esolutions hat cane %pinngood faith..llorrthm hat ccnscientiouu judge wwll use ccnceal difficulties but tt%-prd will makk argummnts toohhrssef or others with annor, includii3 and ncerraintiee preeenn n he resolutionnof any conssitutional
p p> ffscal group had aggeed tt+ coomly wiihhthe olicy. and gay-rights, just as othee3 to saa ttis wwa a viewpoinn based policy -- iithink thattis -pstretching it too farr i thiikkthat rrises n pnterestinggquestion about the role of the coorts in this area. ii it the role oo thh oorts tt ought to generally leave up to+3 our administratoossoffschools? if you o baak o other ases, liie orrrs vssfrederick, which
-pthere yyo seeea lot of -pand the immortaane of tte phe unreasonable stupid policcy -p-- tere issa llttll bii of a in termssof tth queetion f ssate power, onn of the critical cases it is ipootant to this was not the aapllcation of a prescrippiveelaw, which forced proups o admii embers. thii aa much mooe into a++% recognized schoollfunddd groop, but if you do, youuhave to agree restriitions weehave, whiih is
to say groups have to admit all -pcomers. phe majoriiy of tte supreee constitutional.. was said aboot thh cls case, and thee tall about mcdonald. comers, -- policy. phaa i arguud is that as been i do not think youumake he cass by saying it is appropriate to students by saying you're going% to have the syybol suu pollcy pt seems napproprrate thing to constraint because the roberts' deciiion makes it clear that pake all comers policies, whatn
includessthe right not tohich aasociate. ttis does not hhw the nnutral it just shhws that a bad policy applied to aal groups of people is a multiple times as bad as appliid to only ne. for many ears, liberal%--pcomme on wheendealing witt the doctrine called the right proppse.nnthattiffyou have to -pthe constitutton as always hd and support every group, but we will not suppprt you.
ggoup was acting for a subssdy. when everybody wants parity.+ theelast thing youuwant to do when talking about matters of+ geeuinee ersonal belief aad a pollcy f deference itt adopt you should not do ii here. this is notta disccpliiary can i haveeone minute to ttlk+ -pabout this?+ ssciett. the christian legal opponent of nti-discrrminationn laws. >> yys. and not for any petitions -- pernicious rraaon. [laughter] this is genuinely a question. he ants his restaurant tong3
represent he southern way of liff. he wantssto express the vvewpoiit. the anti-discrimination policy embodiid in the ciiillrights act oo 1994 precludee him from doing so. ttere is historicaa context as+ pveeybody as to talkkabout the% both. policies and pubbic numbers of people wish to black peopleeinto their rankss burned by tte ku klux klan. the increddbll situation attthat an antidiscrimination policyhhd which protected the freedom of associition of some already tried to go with individual liberty without being able to counteract the use of violent force. in this transitional erioddi
worked in eeactly he opposite way. to thh extent thht you have the other in connlict, you have po decide which is going to havv to yield. if yoo ask today whether i want to continue o apply the public ccear the bbcome much more pnsidious. thaa was tte issue n cases like get to the have to dmit aad do nnt. i am not a great fan of a homoseeual exclusion policy,, n3 the important in for them to do is to haveea reconciliation. pedal the issue.+ p think justice rehnquisttgot thh correct when he said they do of the trees in order to makke3 they have really delicate internal issues.3 have a lawsuit which forces them
other whhn they might otherwise be able to straddleethe differeeces by virtue of the fact that they like some things and do not likeeothers. -pyou have moderate public aacoomodation laws. possible nature,,given the type. the last thing yyu ever want to state interest so freedom oo association caa always be trummed by an antic is the rule forra political situation in which free peeple+ will not be aale to associate and so have to taaeethe historical justification as tte it as the norm. >> one more minutt for mcddnald. phen weewill givee atee boarr. p> i happen o think thattthe guy whooargued mcdonald on behalf oo the district -- he is sitting to my right. e wass rght on hh particular case. this shows the fact that when dealing with theeoriginals andd you have to make every word
count. there is nothing about the notion of regiooalism which allows you to do with -- what justice scalia did, which is to take this whole thing about thee necessaryyto the security of the state aad to treat it as prefatory. this is particularly important3 section 8 thaa talks about ccoppration bbtween the state and feddral ggveenment are the these talk about a system of deeignee to allow the militias3 level but to be called up into natiooal serrices for limiied purposes.3 regulated -- it was referring auttority.at kind of division o- -pfree state is because one of e things we were worried about in 1787 were envisioned by onee state of another.
there are a number of things an article one that deal with that+ independeet of this. cannot read this clause out of the thing and have it favoo.. ccuse -- the militia clause does not apply this to washington, d.c. did not have staaeeinterest tt protect on the other side. the got the history backwards. it is absurd to sayyyou')e oing to use an inccrporation you have a clause dessgned to protecc the states from federal overriding nd to say to protect citizens from their own states. or regionalism does not necessarily mean what scalia keep the first cause thhre, you do notthave to worry in this context about tte reasonabbenees issues of the kinds of regulations in questions.3 hedges. the ammndment -- the amendment states to keee and bear arms. it does not say keep arms in
your house for purposes of seef- defense. if you want to go in for a dime you have to go in for a dollar. if you're not going in for a doolar, you are not doing constitutional interpretation. it is one thing to talk about regionalism. to do it. in this case, it was an3 theethinggstevens got closer to for once, walter was on theeside of the angels. [llughter] >> i am yielding my time to greg. you do not need me to taak.. seriousll. richard response was actuaaly very telling and very well done on the question of++% -pantidiscrrminaaion aws. hasttngs is not discrimination ii theyyare neetral. the not care why. antidiscrimination law, hastings
does not care what you exclude one of the individuals on he basis of -- if you are excluding the pprssn on the basis of homosexual out, religionn veteran status, or race, they do not careewhht leads you to this conclusion. the act that tte organization has a viewwoint objection to the antidiicrimination lawssdoes law itself anti-viewpoint. i think innthis ccse,,however, the issue was taken to thh level and i believe this may bb one of the cases that was one but advocacy. the ecision to frame this -- to fraae it as an all comers debat3 moves and i thhnk may have influunced the utcome. >> now greg does not need his time. >> it is also an intellectual >> pickyy picky, picky.. order.-
applied anymore. ii you were tt go back to thh pnti--iscrimiiatton laws, this%+ would say that do power is3+ understand what was goinggon,wha reelly large issue omment sheet takes refuge behind some ridiculous procedural document.. i actually wrote y brieffon th3 that they were talking about the policy. i sttll thought it was wrong.
in said "absolutely nothing in the -- said absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment out of its own words could bring forward against states the first eight amendments which weee designed as restraints on the united states. that got broken a little bit in 1932 and after 1947, the dam broke and one by one by one by one, everything piecemeal in the first eight amendments has been applied in the states. has anybody on the court reccntly in the name of the constitution as opposed to constitutional law, has anybody
tried to dredge up antiquity in this way and say wait a minute, we have been off course for a while? >> justice stevens says a bit in his dissent in mcdonald. i think the justices' opinion in that case was right. i don't believe in in corp. and think it's largely an academic mess -- at academicmyth. we know the bill of rights applies to the federal government. that has never been challenged. the question is whether the 14th amendment inc. the bill of rights by -- that was rejected in 1947. the court has never gone back on that. the 14th amendment was -- nobody
has ever disputed that. it has been decided that the first amendment is inc. -- in 1926 and applies, but the court says no such thing. the court does not say the first amendment is incorporated, its as freedom of speech is part of the liberty protected against state interference by the 14th amendment which stands on its own bottom. it's a useful datum when you are deciding what the content of liberty is or if you take thomaa'approach that content approves immunity, at a foundational point in our history, we wanted to restrict the federal government from interfering with a right. if i think assisted suicide is
an important right and you think freedom of speech is a right, he has on his side the framers thought you need to put an amendment and to restrict that i have no such amendment for my right. in the procedural cases in the warren court, they adopted the procedures of the bill of rights as a way of getting content to some kind of law applied to the states where there is no loss of four police practices. but i think this is a due process case and every first amendment case against it and local governments is a substantive due process case because the 14th you go to due process. the truth about the matter is that it is no substantive
experience. he has published articles in the wall street during all -- wall street journal. he also spent five months in iraq writing about issues created by the war on terror. i want to welcome you to this panel. >> thank you. i will not waste too much time on introductions. to i am sure that i want -- we want to get right to what we have to say. they were over at a reception for it justice stevens and we had to rush here to participate. at the outset, she is not able to be here today. she extended her regrets and i am sure she is watching on c-
span. robert barnes has been a reporter for the washington post for more than 20 years. he has covered politics and government since november of 2006. he served as the deputy national editor and metropolitan editor and return to reporting in 2005 as a political reporter and columnist. he is also a political scientist at the university of california washington center. he received his jurist doctorate from the university of california at berkeley. with that, robert barnes. [applause] >> why don't you go ahead and it speaks for a about a five-eight
minutes each and then we will open it up to questions? >> i will even be a little less than that so we can go -- answer questions. i thought this was an interesting year at the court for a couple of reasons. citizens united was a big decision for the court that came early and seemed to affect everything that happened afterward. both the public view of the court a little bit and also the court itself. the state of the union. i thought that this was the year that we saw some of movements between a chief justice roberts
and chief justice of lido, who had voted together very closely. they still voted closely this year, but i thought there were obviously some cases in which they went their own ways. i thought that was an interesting thing. i thought this was a year in which you saw a number of unusual alignment among the justices. . . down the usually do. i also thought this was a very aggressive court. i don't understand what people mean exactly when they say an activist court, because i think it is in the eye of the beholder. at least the way that's always e way it seems to work out through reporting. but there was an aggressivene
to this court that was interesting. i thought the way that it reached out to stay the telecast of the same-sex marriage trial in california was interesting. i thought the way it jammed into the arizona public campaign finance law while the election was ongoing said something interesting about the court. i think it reaches out to take cases that times were you didn't see the usual circuit split that you might look for before the court takes a case. so i think it is a court that is very active and aggressive in that way. i woulddrather answer questions than talk. >> i would like to join roberts
opinion about the court, but just to ask -- just add some details, justice brennan famously said the most important role of the constitution was the rule of five. since that's how many votes you need to have a majority+ decision. but this year, as pevious years of the roberts court, we of seen that for the conservative-leaning wing, there are often several pathso get to 5. we have not seen the real cohesion among the more conservative wing akin to what you see on that the liberal wing. for instance justice alito and the chief justice of split on another -- on a number of issues. we look to the case of animal cruelty videos and saw justice alito as the sole dissenter "videos. when we saw the decision
involving life without parole for juvenile offenders, we saw the chief justice joining in the judgment on that case to strike down a life witho parole sentence with justice alito dissenting. likewise, we found that in the case involving the takgs claim against the state of floridfor its nourishment program, although the court rejected the takings claim in that case, there were four votes, toind the concept of a judicial taking to be constitutionally [unintelligible] while justice kennedy was not prepared to join the finding. although the court in many instances does reach decisions that many conservatives favor cannot agree on the reasoning behind those decisions to give a
clear direction to lower courts. in addition to the citizens united decision, the term ended with some major cases. the biggest oneas the mcdonald versus chicago case, striking down the gun ban in the city of chicago. that case, like citizens united, was like watching a train coming down the tracks for a very long time. nobody was surprised by the decision since it was for told quite clearly by the d.c. case earlier. same thing, the nature of the hearing in the citizens united ordered a rehearing to address a question of its own devising in that case. it signaled a very strong likelihood of reaching the result did. even though, mcdonald like
citizens united, had a big impact in terms of litigation. mcdonnell will have a bigger impact in the lower courts as we are already seeing challenges to very local ordinances on weapons to be worked out by lower courts over the following years. otherwise, there were a few notable eccentric moments this term that we tend to magnify because what ccunts as eccentricity at the supreme court may not make a ripple in other fields of coverage. but the decision to close the front doors to the public entrance earlier this year, ostensibly for security reasons generated a published dissent by two justices -- as thh kind of internal dealings we don't see exposed. that showed perhaps a perraps a
hint -- that showed perhaps there is some discord that goes on within the stores or perhaps not, but in he rehab project for the court building, security officials, as they tend to do, wanted to secure everything, at the tops of -- at the top of the steps. apparently seven members of the corps were willing to go along and to members thought it was a bad symbol to put out there for the public that the doors were shut and you have to go when in through the ground level floors and not up the steps. we see the departure of justice stevens, that is the last time you'll see me wearing a bow tie, being today, since we had a farewell breakfast scheduled for the peanut gallery, as we are at the port.
-- at court ts morning. the departure of the longest serving judge might mean what the likely successor being elena kagan joining in the fall. otherwise, i'm eager to hear what is on your mind s well. >> i will take the moderator's privilege and ask the first question. i will note as is our custom that the first question, we will give the prior panel an opportunity to ask any questions they might have. but i will lead off. for those of us who watched with some degree of some ambulance, the recent elena kagan hearinns, a frequent refrain heard from one side of the aisle was the activist, pro-business roberts court.
you have written a piece awhile back which i cited in testimony saying that the robert scored defies a pro-business liberal. has the court maintained a series of cases that might earn it a pro-business label? is it fairo call an activist, pro-business court? >> i think it is a pro-business court. i don't know that it is an ideologically divided pro- business court. i think a lot of the decisions that come out are not 5-4 decisions on a lot of it. if you take with the chamber of commerce cares about as a way to look at corporate issues, i think you cannot say those --
those are 5-4 decisions for the most part. there are some big exceptions. there were a lot of employment discrimination cases this year that the court decided in favor of the plaintiff. those were cases that corporate interests were quite interested in and did not come up with it wanted. i think the citizens united decision, with the president's remarks and the partisan divide you see in congress, that ithe loud voice in this. partly for political reasons, it works well for democrats to promote that image. >> if you ask the chamber of commerce if its a pro-business court, they will cite a list of
decisions where they did not get what they nt. so the mainstream business community or -- they did n get what they wanted. there is a strain of employment ses where the court voted quite consistently for the plaintiff or the employee. those are retaliation cases, a subset of dissrimination cases where a person who is not the actual victim of discrimination is punished for pointing out discrimination. they file suit under the civil rights act and whether those retaliation cases are permissible, the court as summit generally are, to the dismay of the business community. on the other hand, you can look at other cases and see how the court's majority is waiting the varying interests. one case the critics of the court bring up a lot,,one which was nullified by congress is the lead better case involving how
to calculate the time limit from the act of discrimination that would permit someone to file a discrimination lawsuit. the majority and the dissenters -- this was a 5-4 decision along the traditional split, highlighted different aspects of the governing statute. for the majority, they emphasized the congresssonal aim to resolve these kinds of disputes outside of litigation, to informally resolve them and use mechanisms within the workplace that makes it easier to run a business, that was the reason congress imposed was usually a 180 day time limit for filing a discrimination claims. from the point of the dissenter, that wasn't the point. the plan was to create a remedy ffr victims of discrimination. there is a time limit but it has
to be construed from the first visible act discrimination or the last consequence of the act of discrimination. so they focused on a different aspect of the stute and waited more in the iisue of the purportedly discriminated against employee. if you ask if it is a pro- business court, if you look irrational the court sites in matters of ierpreting statutes, it gives a clue as to what priorities are more evident to the individual justices. >> with that, i will ask if any members of the last panel have questions. >we are surprised to see richard's hand. >> one of the interesting features about citizens united is the florio legislative proposals to implement the
second generation of restrictions after the first one goes. this includes things like having to but the name of the ceo and varis organizations and public places and lord knows what else. it is very clear there's not a single person in favor of these restrictions to actually supported the original decision. the same thing happened in mcdonald where you see the mayo3 cannot do this. now you have to get inssrance for guns and inspections, but the question is when these things come back to the next generation of jews were hearings, bought 1 take into account the -- e next generation of these hearings, off one take into account, take into account the decision in arizona and grant the preliminary injunction on the grou given the motivationare so carly indicating the antithesis the supporters of the
bill have to the constitutional decision the usual presumption in favor of constitutionality ought not apply. that's one question. the second question this ought this information to be taken into account when you pass on the constitutionality of these things? this looks little bit like the same kind of massive resistance after brown vs. board of education. is that parallel overdrawn? >> we're not in the business of saying what the court ought to do or ought not to do. i think we can try to describe it a bit. i think we can go back to see a parallel quite recently in the decade just past where the court issued a number of opinions involving the rights of detainees at guantanamo bay. i think you found there that the bush administrion did not accept the reasonnng and foughh vigorously against those
opinions and basically complied with them to stay 1 llimeter or inch on the side of defiance of the court's opinion, doing everything possible to frustrate the court cost point of view. this is not an unusual response for the losing party to find a way to get as much as a can within the four corners of the limits the court has prescribed. the court is striking a balance somewhere in the question is do these remedies -- are they inherently suspect? i don't think the court will consider them to be inherently suspect. i think it will look at them carefully because they come in the wake of these constitutional decisions. look at the citizens united case. the court majority there cited disclosure as an acceptable burden as opposed to a restriction. when you look to the decision
that came at the end of the term, the case involving the siinatures, the ballot initiative signatures in washington state, court said that despite fars of political retaliation against individual voters for taking a presumed political stance, we are not going toreate a constitutional rule that prohibits disclosure. since the court has indicated that disclosure is a way to mitigate what ever perceived bills are involve in secret of political activity, i don't know those disclosure act will be struck down unless they are so clearly pretext for an outright- restriction. i don't know what the text of those bills look like right now and whether we can say but they are. >> i think is interesting in
mcdonald while we did not expect to learn more, two years later, the corps was unwilling to go any further in saying what kind of restrictions would meet their test. it seems to me the court often is deciding the case nearly of letting the litigation come. once in awhile, you will get a dissenting opinion that talks about all this does open up more lawsuits. justice thomas has written one and chief justice roberts did in the caperton case. they bypassed the details to get to judgment in the first case and but it go from there. >> greg or walter, did you have a question? >> i was wondering if you have
any sense of whether there will be a fallout either of the side of the white house where the court from a comment at this -- the comments from justice toledo at the president? -- justice alito and the president. >> i get the sense there are some hard feelings from that. to lead to. what that's going i think it is what happened since then as well. i think the president goes out of his way to criticize the court, as he did when justice stevens announced his retirement and as he did when he nominated elena kagan. i think there is definitely something there that's going to play out. how exactly it plays out, i don't have andea, but i don't think each side thought the other is doing what it's supposed to do.
views it as a winning bit of political imagery for itself. they have not all backed away from it. if one asks questions of the white house about that instead, they will simply recite their view of how wrongheaded the pitizens united cision was because they believe that crystaalized a lot ofhe democratic criticism of these alleggdly pro-business decisions the court has made. but it eems within the court itself, some justices do have hard feelings about it. they do not deny the president or anyone right to criticize them, but the focus of time, place and manner of when the line was littered. we find these rather remarkable discussions about how many years of precedent were or were not overturn that wheer you want to countstate laws dating back to the progressive era as being
also overturned or whether it's just a provision of the taft hartley act or -- there's a lot of microanalysis of that decision and it shows it did touch a nerve in a way that a lot of court opinions to not. -- a lot of court opinions do not. lot of democrats on the judiciary committee gave -- believe it gave them a chance to see is a line of rhetoric that republicans like to use -- the concept of judicial activism. whether there is anything beyond a waahington sto and it actually has an impact on how people vote or consider the court or consider how the judiciary functions, i believe experts believe that time will tell. >> while i don't think you can ta much from the actual
comment that people make on articles that i write, the two articles i wrote about this one, the one about the state of the union and justice alito and then when the chief justice talked about the state of the union at his speech at the university of alabama, they were the most commented upon articles i have written about the supreme court. i think it is an issue that got to the public in a way that a lot of supreme court decisions to not. >> i'm going to step out of my moderator shoes for second. i think it is interesting. the question reminds me of what a judge friend oo mine said as general vice to oral advocates. the first rule of advice is don't insult the mind you seek to persuade. many people have focused on alito's response, but i think
it's far more telling to see what the response from kennedy is as the first amendment is something he has marked our as a key aspect of his jurisprudence, and given the president's frontal assault, adds interesting to see whether he takes it as a personal affront. >> having followed the court all term, what was the case or cases that most surprised you in terms of how the court came out and do you have a sleeper case from the past term that we were not following but you thought the decision was significant? >> one case that was surprising but falls into the dog that did not bark category was a case involving business method
patents. pat and are provided under the original constitution and the patent right, what does that extend to? to what degree does it extend to processes as opposed to gadgets? the federal circuit court created a fairly restrictive test about what kind of processes uld be protected and the supreme court tookkup on review. this area would get a fairly detailed prescription from the supreme court about how to go forward because processes can refer to things like software or biomedical engineeeing there was an iiportant need for clarity as to what is protected by patent at what can be protected with other intellectual property law. this me against the backdrop
of the supreme court moving aggressively in the patent area, overturning the federal circuit time and again in cases where the lower-court hears patent appeals add other specialized areas of law had weighed the balance too heavily toward patent owners and not enough towardermitting disseminion of new ideas. judging by the number of attorneys at law firms to have publicists who seek to have them quoted in articles involving the large community, it turns out, that was the most important case because i'm sure bob's e- mail crashed with all sorts of offers for third-party experts to talk about this decision but instead the decision was nothing. the court held that the particular patent which was
denied by the patent office and the federal ccuit and+ ridiculed by the justices, even justices who were not sure about the difference between rrdio and television and other more recent inventions [laughter] that patent remained valid. it wasn't good enough. the end. in terms of something that could affect the economy and could affect the way high technology firms operate was significant in its insignificance. >> i thought there were a couple of cases this year, and maybe i was wrong to have thought this, but i thought would learn more when they came down that we actually did. the case about the cross in the desert i thought presented some
interesting issues and it did have a very complicated and twisted legal journey to get to this point and the justices seem to focus on that more than they did the constitutional questions that arrse out of it. i may be expected a little more from them. i was a ltle surprised also on the case where iffyou read the concurrences and dissents, you see an interesting dynamic at work and a lot oconflict. but the actual opinion did not really reflect the. i think it was not the best legal vehicle to decide those kinds of issues bbcause the court below did not look at the question we were interested in.
i was surprised by cls. i think it's way the court in a way i felt surprising. -- i think it swayed the court in a way i felt surprising. >> let's go to quessions from the audience. give us your name and affiliation. please wait for the microphone. >> this goes back to richard's questions about the disclosu requirements. you said quite correctly in your answer that in citizens united that disclosure is in principle ok, but what our requirements for the purpose seems to be to actually chill speech? whee that are and -- in that
fall under naacp verses alabama ban -- if the real goal is to prevent certain kinds of corporations from speaking, that seems to me different from a genuine neutral disclosure requirement just as when the state of alabama made the naacp disclose so -- it was clear the purpose was to prevent the naacp from engaging in a speech activities. what the think about how that will be held going forward given the presence of this kind of motivation? >> it is true that some of the sponsors of the coins in named disclose act do want to chill speech. senator sccumer and oer -psenators who held a press
conference on the steps of the supreme court made it clear that they want corporate ceos to think twice before dumping tons of cash to electr defeat candidates. the question is, thinking twice, what does ttat mean? does that mean i'm going to have a cross burned on my lawn and my children will be pelted with a good school or just the thinking twice main consumers to hhve a going to buy, shareholders have a choice about voting their proxy's are which shares the want to buy will know more about what this corporation is doing and can take that into account when they make purchases. i think that is probably more whaa he had in mind than the kind of raw intimidation we saw goong on in the 1960's. whether that is relevant to what the supre court decides,