tv Washington This Week CSPAN April 20, 2013 2:00pm-6:31pm EDT
we should view 2014 as nothing more than a change in a mandate and authorities, but a continuity of commitment post- 2014. if we are able to do that, we will have eternalized our most important lesson. -- internalized the most important lesson from our iraq experience. >> you think essentially 2014 should be a seamless transition to a competent and sufficient afghan forced to essentially take over? >> i do. what january 2015 looked like is we have completed political transition, we have completed security transition, but we are there decisively to assist in counter-terrorism under different authorities. now that the exact request of afghan people in the context of a bilateral security agreement, we will not be under a u.n. mandate, will not be under the military agreement, but will still be there and be able to provide the requisite support politically and from a security perspective. >> you mentioned the afghan forces anticipate to be
somewhere around 350,000. what are the estimates of the size of the taliban or al qaeda or the aggregate and in the group, if you will? >> that is a question we ask all the time and we do not know. there are some estimates that talk about 20,000 to 30,000 taliban. because you have various levels of taliban, those who are ideologically committed, the taliban senior leadership, certainly different than they today people who might fight on the ground, very different to capture a number when you talk about the cap -- the taliban. >> given the small number, the view of people at large will be critical as to whether or not they can gain any power in the situation. the will have to have support of the public. do you agree? >> what gives me optimism and the reason i am optimistic about the campaign is it is all about
the afghan security force possibility to provide security to the population. we are improving in the particular area every day. it reduces the ability for the taliban to influence the possible -- the population. i think the taliban will wake up and realize they will be not able to influence the population in the way they hav >> what is the situation on green on blue attacks? has that declined? do you feel that is under control? >> that is one of the most insidious risks to the force. 2012, we had a significant challenge of insider that spirit we have significantly improve our training. we have counterintelligence training as well as in the in -- the afghan forces.
we have a much more routine an effective dialogue with our afghan partners to vindicate the risk -- to mitigate the risk. i will not be complacent. we made progress. we have had three in 2013. during the same time, we had 20 last year in 2012. the issues that keep me awake tonight and the ones i want to stay focused on come insider threat is one of those. it erodes trust between our coalition and our afghan partners and it erodes the will of the american people and recognize that. >> what is your analysis of the leadership of the force -- the afghan force? that is important. the quality and character of the leadership is a corrosive -- crucial element. you know these people personally. >> i would characterize the leadership as improving. there are number of leaders
that have commitment and strong leadership and are taking appropriate action. will take time before we have the depth of leadership we need to have across the forces, the continuity of leadership, where we see good leadership, we see good units. where we see deficient leadership, we have challenges. that is one of our areas as we focus on quality in the next couple of years, leadership development is important. not only officers, but not commitment officers. we are short 10,000 noncommissioned officers in the army, about 6000 in the police, addressing those is a key part of what we need to do in the next few years to make sure our progress is to stand. >> will we maintain any role at
all in leadership training and that kind of professional development? >> absolutely. that is probably the primary focus of our post-2014. where we grow officers and develop integrated capability. it is the same for our coalition partners. >> thank you very much for your service and particularly your service in this difficult and important time. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general, for joining us and the service you have provided to our country. if they reach an agreement to keep troop presence beyond 2014, what are some of the tangible goals the united states will be looking for to achieve
in that country? there are certain security metrics and measurable levels of security we are hoping to reach? what would it take for you to be comfortable in saying we would no longer need a troop presence in afghanistan? >> the focus post-2014 is about growing capability in the afghans. some challenges the past -- start at the level. they cannot manage a budget right now. as an example, last year, won the execute a very small percentage of the budget, they actually had, it was not due to corruption, but bureaucratic inefficiency. it is very important to sustain our efforts. by the same token there are
logistics issues. having logistic infrastructure in place that can assure distribution of supplies all the way down to the lower level is an area that needs to be continued to work on. as i spoke about a minute ago, a leadership development is also important. when i start to look at what we need to do pass 2014, to be clear, our efforts to provide -- our efforts will be to provide security forces. we will be able to measure that sustainability overtime and gradually reduce our princess. >> you have the metrics in place to do that? >> we have the metrics in place, senator, that all the address and we havee to be 14 functional areas where we evaluate our tactical units. they allow us to determine where they are and what support they need to improve to the next level. >> the department of defense is currently spending $10 billion more conducting the war effort
in afghanistan this year than was estimated would be necessary. from what we understand, in order to make up for this estimation the department of defense will have to pull from other funds from its base budget, which is difficult because of sequestration and the other long-term spending limits imposed by the budget control act of 2011. the problems with trying to budget and plan for a war a year in advance and how unforeseen costs can arise. at the same time a $10 billion is copulation is a little alarming. -- miss calculation is a little bit alarming. general, can you explain to us how that underestimation
occurred? that we insidere u.s. forces in afghanistan under estimated $10 billion for our requirements for this year. i can assure you we have gone back and look at every dollar we have spent to make sure we have spent to good effect. we have significantly reduced the money we are spending in afghanistan. i will go back and take a look at where the projection came from and why we are in the position we are in now. >> written follow-up with you on that after this hearing. -- we can follow-up with you on that after this hearing. let me talk about the gamut of .ssues facing afghanistan we have spent billions of dollars in pakistan since 2001.
for security and for economic assistance. pakistan, at times, seem to be more of an obstacle than a partner in the progress of the region. from closing the borders to nato isilies that ties with the to lack oft groups, cooperation in the hunt for osama bin laden, what is your personal assessment of the re lationship of the united states and pakistan? >> the nexus between extremism and nuclear-weapons would be catastrophic. i personally have watched how we have dealt with pakistan over the years. in the 1990's we decided to
isolate pakistan as a result of an amendment and we stopped conducting military to military engagement. i now see the adverse effect of that policy that took place over a decade ago. much renovation of leaders to not have personal relationships with our pakistani counterparts to work through some of these issues. it is in our interest to have a strategic partnership with afghanistan. we need to manage the relationship with the end in sight, which is professional and strategic. with regard to afghanistan and pakistan, before 2013 my objective is to make sure we have a military to military relationship between pakistan and afghanistan. it will absolutely be at high levels. it can be the foundation for a relationship over time. i am less optimistic because as you mentioned earlier afghan
leaders will meet with me later this month. we have a number of exchanges going on right now. forward to a post 2013 environment, to you believe these multibillion-dollar payments will continue regardless of their being an american presence or nato troop presence in afghanistan? maintaineve we need to a constructive and effective relationship with pakistan. we need to recognize the real threat that pakistan has inside of its own borders. from my perspective we have to do whatever it takes to ensure that our national vital interests is protected. >> one of the things i am always looking into that aid is whether or not it does serve the military. you are saying we need to do whatever it takes to continue
that relationship. are you saying that payments of that size and nature are going to be what is required in the long run? >> i believe it is in our best interest to continue to develop the pakistani army in ensuring that they can effectively deal issues in their borders. i cannot tell you that every program we have in place is one we ought to assisting in the future. that is not something i paying particular attention to in my current duties. i am absolutely adamant that we ought to maintain a close relationship with pakistan. >> your fear would be that if we cut off abruptly could end up in the same kind of dynamic you are describing where the military to military relationships do not exist. >> i believe pakistan has a very real threat inside their borders now. i do not believe they can deal with that particular threat without external support.
>> thank you, general. >> thank you, senator. you for being here and for your incredible sacrifice and service to our country. let me move right to the afghan general elections in 2014. we agreed it would be difficult to overstate the importance of these elections. in your assessment what happens toween now and april of 2014 ensure the elections are free and fair but recognized to be free and fair by the afghan public? >> the first condition for successful elections is security. in summer of 2013, from my perspective is very important. we need to emerge with security in those areas, particularly areas that are important to the
elections. we need to merge with a perception of security. one of the things that was determined as free and fair was reclusive. i mentioned there are 7000 polling stations. we need to make sure the security such as people have access to those stations -- from a security perspective that is important. has anistry of interior gauge on security. >> let me move to the local police. we talked about their important role and you talked about how the town of fancies that program. if my memory is right he said they are the most significant issues the taliban will have to address it to be successful. do you still hold that view? to what extent does the alp need to be funded?
is the alp a sustainable initiative? >> i continue to believe the alp is critical to our success. it is critical in that component. spoke about having confidence in their ability. we have 21,000 guardians, members of the alp today. the plan growth to 30,000, minister of interior has requested 45,000. what i have asked my staff to do is review that in june or july this year to ensure that if we othert look at the alp than the context of the afghan forces, i am a believer in the local afghan police initiative. i believe is sustainable.
it has afghan ownership. in many cases it is the afghans who are identifying the areas where they want alp to be established. these police forces work for us, not for the coalition for the local communities. move to the responsibilities you have, simultaneously preparing for this year cost of fighting season and preparing for productions of the next 20 years. you mentioned a range of capabilities and units that the asf currently lacks. would you recommend aviation assets be provided by our military after 2014? will the u.s. government civilian agencies be able to
maintain their level of personnel and assistance without having a robust military network in place? capabilitye certain gaps and highlighted the most important ones. the most important one would be close air support. it is appropriate we provide close air support to thefgns st-2014. we have seen where the absence of that close air support made it difficult for these afghan forces. we will not address the key debilities of the afghan air forces until 24 -- the key abilities of the afghan air forces until 2014 or 2015. exists, where it is important to sustain our success, i would recommend that we provide the support. with the regard to civilian agencies, earlier i mentioned we should be in the force corners of afghanistan post 2014. one of the reasons i believe
that is not only provide the right level of advise and assist our afghan counterparts but to support the inner agency of the u.s.. hisderstand what requirements are from an nbc perspective. they are part of our planning for post-2014. >> i will not ask it into this question but i think it is incumbent on all of us to think 's, it'se president -- president'srt comments about your support. let me turn to sequestration. what are your concerns? to what extent will sequestration have on the mission and the readiness of the troops that are rotating into that theater between now and
2014 and perhaps beyond. >> you hit it exactly right. from my perspective, i have been told sequestration will not affect the resources we have available to our men and women on the ground in afghanistan. my greatest concern is that it will impact the readiness of those units who are at home stations, ready to deploy for afghanistan. one of the greatest success stories of the last 10 years has been the quality training we have been providing to our young men and women in uniform. trading today, there is no comparison to what training was earlier in my career. it is a result of the support of conference, of leadership learning lessons. it is important we sustain that same high level of training in the coming years because people still have people in harm's way. >> let me move back to the taliban, the the threats the present.
i think a share a concern that thetaliban can be viewed as best arbitrator of these resolutions. afghanistan could attempt to turn to the taliban and their courts to solve their problems. it provides the taliban power and influence. is any reason to suspect that these practices can be halted? much as halting it as providing an alternative which would cause them to be irrelevant. i do believe this resolution is a core function of national governance in afghanistan.
critical arease afghanistan will be to improve. >> thank you for your service and making the long trip here. i look forward to working as we move forward at this very crucial point in time. >> thank you. >> your mic. >> thank you, chairman. i want to follow up on senator comments. my impression is there is no plan as to what to do with them in the future. have a decision with what to do with them on the future. next week we have any team led by the secretary of defense to come over and work through this issue.
it is not a new issue. i just do not have the decision about the disposition of those detainees as we approach 2014. >> what would be the risk of not agreeing to the klan? the plan?eing to >> these are individuals who need to be behind bars. >> is it argued that the afghans would not be the best people to be in charge of these? >> i do not know if that is a viable alternative. i do not know what the afghan desire would be for those third country nationals with the legal framework needed to keep them. the afghans move through a evidence-based process for detention operation. sure that the afghan process will allow us to keep those nationals detained beyond 2014. that is something we would have
to take a very close look at. mentionedforce you 350,000 afghan forces, this would not be the police forces but the other forces? >> that is the aggregate of all the police and the army. it would be the police, border police, over that 350 two thousand is the afghan local police which are approved for a level of 30,000. we have nearly 30% attrition. in the police in this much better. it is 15% to 16%. the army is the area where attrition is the greatest concern. >> is it the highest of closer you get to the fighting season? what we have not seen a direct correlation between the fighting
season and the attrition. we have seen a correlation between leadership and attrition. s -- what sizeorce forced to we have to get people and equipment out successfully. secondly, what size force should we hope that the afghanis can maintain and sustain. to our equipment, there are three aspects of closing down. one is the retrograde of equipment where we come back here and reset our services. the other is disclosure and interior reduction. the equipment that is needed to reset our forces, we will get the equipment out by the end of 2014. we will still be closing out bases and reducing materials that is returning to ground the way we found it post-2014.
we will meet some elements to be able to do that. curly the size of the element is two thousand 500 soldiers to help us with that. ,500 soldiers to help us with that. a logistics unit actually worked the united states capitol. 350 toare looking at force be sustained through 2013. what level of help will be afghanis need from the outset to sustain that date of a -- >> they will need through 2018 the vast majority of the money necessary to sustain that forces one to come from the united states and international partners. >> the vast majority of that money -- to buy >> $5 billion to sustain that force. the afghans will pay
approximately 500 million. it would come from the international community in the united states. >> on removing our people from point toan, at what the people that are their face real danger and how many people can get the other people out? >> we will make that decision based on the security environment, based on the capability and capacity of the afghans who will provide a secure the environment. says, whenever we ask 10 soldiers to do more than 10 soldier's work of work we keepshrink the figure to protection first and foremost. >> one question on facilities,
you mentioned returning situation back to the way before. is there any kind of process we go through with afghanis to decide that they like things left their that otherwise our -- that are other was of no value? >> we have a detailed plan for afghan infrastructure to sustain afghan forces post-2014. some of that infrastructure is being transitioned from coalition forces. all of the infrastructure is above their ability to sustain over time. we have a very detailed plan that links the infrastructure post 2014. the resources we project will be available to sustain the infrastructure. those facilities that cannot be sustained post 2014 are the ones that i talked about that were reduced back to the way we found it.
>> we need go beyond military use of those facilities to hospitals, school, some other use. do we have a checklist like that? is led by the afghan government. have governments want to infrastructure, they submit a request up to the minister of finance. the minister of finance would come to us with a request for specific pieces of the infrastructure to be maintained. it is not going to be easier and i wish well you and the people you work with. i thank you for the work. >> thank you. >> thank you for appearing before us today. i want to ask about a couple of items starting with monetary questions. i did a tour of langley air
force base in virginia couple of weeks back. we talked about this issue of the war fighter. to see theised military personnel that maintained the f-22 as are not defined as work fighters. some of the sequester is affecting their ability to maintain aircraft. that is one of the factors the leads to the step down of readiness of some of the units. 60,000 folks under how command in afghanistan was the sequestered impinges upon your mission? in particular i think about the retrograding of equipment. the missionrt of that is subject to some of these budgetary reductions? >> all the functions we are
performing inside afghanistan to include retrograde -- i have been assured by the secretary of defense and chairman that there will not be adverse impact in those areas. i think you highlighted a very important point. the units that are in home station, i know from my previous assignment, it is difficult to say we will probably be source those units next to deploy and not support those that are not next is ato deploy. >> on the retrograding question, there may have been a question asked about this before i came over from the senate floor, just talk about the current status of the relationship with pakistan as it affects retrograding equipment out of afghanistan. >> >> we just completed two
months of principle to remove equipment from afghanistan into pakistan, as well as to move the backlog of equipment that has been there for almost a year from pakistan into afghanistan. we are largely clear of the backlog. it is standing into afghanistan. we have essentially cleat -- essentially completed those groups of principle. at this point it is moving in the right direction after a long period of time with those crown lines of communication unavailable. >> we're in a good place. conversation about the importance of the relationship with pakistan and i think many members of the commits -- of the committee look at certain actions with a lot of concern. same time we also understand pakistan has lost as many people in the fight against , as many of our
allies. you alluded to but didn't go too deeply into the question of the nuclear arcas and all -- nuclear arsenal. one of the main issues that the united states for is about is an unstable pakistan that could jeopardize the security of the nuclear arsenal. that is one of the reasons we need to be so diligent and not distancing ourselves from pakistan but continuing to work to the greatest degree we can as partners for the ultimate security of that nuclear arsenal. commonlieve we have cause with the pakistan is in that regard. i think they increasingly recognize the threat of in -- recognize the threat of extremism. it to the extent that we can have at least an effective relationship in dealing with the extremist threat over the next couple of years, i think depreciation will be helpful in
that regard. >> you talked with senator gramm about the use of drums. i like to go deeper into that question and have -- there is a strong military rationale and we have been able to use drugs in with that provided a significant advantage in the military mission. as a body, a military, as the congress, we weigh the effect of the strong program -- of the silly -- onm on the the population. does it lead to additional violence against our troops? >> we employed unmanned vehicles in afghanistan. we have this instead of for proportionality and discrimination as we do with unmanned vehicles. caalties is no difference
whether it is a pilot in a talk paul -- a pilot in a cockpit or not. we identify individuals with hostile intent. we do a very clear assessment of the collateral damage that might be associated with that particular strike. i'm proud of our forces of the last 18 months in terms of all we have done to mitigate the riskf civilian casualties. i cannot think a direct relationship between a method, ,hich is an unmanned vehicle and casualties. it is the employment of that will that is most important. we are employing them to mitigate the risk of setting casualty's. a high degree of confidence you are employing the toll to minimize damage and civilian casualties. how up the perception that the drone program brings about?
it can make your challenge more difficult to create controversy in a civilian community. what is the pakistani operations understanding of the program? >> i have not detected any concern by the average civilian over those vehicles. i think that is in large part with this -- in large part due to the way we deploy them. i think the taliban are concerned. >> let me move to another issue -- about the prsidential elections. we are not an occupying force and we're not going to abandon afghanistan. trying to meet both of those goals is challenging. recentu think our announcement of policy to leave this country about post-2014
levels, what effects of a likely to have on the 2014 presidential elections? andhe message of occupying abandonment walsingham consistent exists in the same space. i am optimistic we can address .his an occupier is not clear to resonate in the 2014. what the afghan people will see in eight debases is afghan security forces providing security. believe it will resonate in 2013 as the afghans take the lead. with regard to the message of abandonment, and bilateral security agreement is a component to our commitment past 2014. what is necessary is the united the credible message of commitment passed pretty 14,
together with that commitment the message of us as an occupier and us demanding the afghan people it's undermined. i think it is an important point. it is the information environment determines the success of the elections in 2014 -- inin the messaging 2014. the messaging we are talking about is important. believe it is a critical component to the success of the elections in 2014. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. andk you for your service for taking on this very .hallenging job i want to go back to the further discussion between the relationship of afghanistan and
pakistan. i agree with your view that that is critical and our -- whatever we can do to help smooth is that relationship and -- smoothed that relationship and foster it is important. president carter's i has repeatedly accused islamabad from undermining the peace process between -- president cars i has repeatedly accused islamabad -- president karzai has repeatedly accused islamabad from undermining the peace process between pakistan and afghanistan. -- can you say if there is any peace process underway? >> i do not believe there is any credibility to misstatements about pakistan undermining the peace process taliban. the state department is working very hard.
the president has identified political reconciliation. i know the state department is working very hard to do that. there is an office being opened -- we are waiting now for taliban to meet their end of the bargain in terms of moving the process ahead. that is not a process i am baeply engaged in in a routine my job is to set the conditions that would facilitate reconciliation. that is the condition on the ground. with regard to afghanistan and pakistan i think they merely highlight the deep mistrust that currently exists and its source in -- and historically existed. if we can bring tt relationship together in a constructive way and establish the foundation of trust i think we will do military to military engagements that can be the
foundation for something deeper. it would take years to develop. i believe military to military relationships, bilateral between afghanistan and pakistan , needs to be one of our objectives. it is a component critical to winning. issues along the border area do not actually have an ad for strategic impact. do not have an adverse strategic impact. >> when i was there in 2011 we saw that very directly. one of the things you talked about in testimony. -- in your testimony is to improve that cross border coordination with the border standard operating procedure. whether thatabout has actually improved as a result of that? and can you talk about what the
potential is to keep that going post 2014, when obviously those four issues will continue because there is a basic disagreement about where the border -- who controls what along the border. >> i can. we signed an agreement back in the fall. we have an exchange of information in the event that cross border firing is so rare that it is helpful. a few months ago the pakistani is did construction on a border post. it is disputed as to where that bord post is, whether it is in afghani or pakistani territory. the pakistani spot forces to the border point because of tensions. the afghans indicated they are not going to stand for that opposed being approved. -- for that post been approved. a process to bring
together senior afghan leadership and pakistan .eadership, coalition forces we did that yesterday. in this particular case the issue is still out there. over the last three weeks we have been able to dismantle the crisis. what is most important is we eventually migrate that a bilateral relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. it is not only possible it is happening right now. i think the leadership on the pakistani side as well as the afghan side recognizes that tactical issues must be addressed at a tactical level and not allowed to lead over to a strategic relationship. is open to thati kind of relationship. we are cautiously optimistic. i am optimistic we are moving in
the right direction. >> that is encouraging. you've talked a fair amount this morning about what our presence might look like post-2014. can you talk about the commitment of our nato partners? how robust might that be? is there an agreement as to what the present looks like? >> i attended the defense ministerial in brussels in february. the collective defense ministers and -- defense ministers agreed they would transfer forces for 2014. to give guidance for the general planning to take place. i think it is fair to say that our coalition partners are a very much looking for to see what the u.s. constitution will be post 20-14. -- post-2014. enabling support in most cases, i mean specifically
evacuation post 2014, which they cannot provide but would need in place and for them to be committed -- would need inflation to keep it committed. >> is there anything we should be doing in the lead up to 2014 to provide those assurances to folks so everyone is in agreement on what happened? >> i do. i know the president is liberating now. as he makes a decision as far as the basic remarks, he has that wey committed would be there in some significant way post-2014. as he makes a specific decision i think it will be incumbent upon all of us to engage our coalition partners to ensure that we build the same effective coalition post 2014 that we have had over the past several years.
i think it is a huge success story the way we brought need a together to accomplish the mission inside afghanistan. i think it is important we maintain that same level of o commment 3 and in terms of sequestering -- level of commitment. thinkms of sequencing i we will see the coalition partners make their own decision. their ability to generate the political will post 2014 and to the budgetary planning necessary for post-2014 in large part rests with the u.s. decision and what our presence will be post-24 team. >> thank you very much. i want to offer my condolences. as a boston native i am sure that you shared the concern we all felt yesterday. awfully you did not have any family members that were
affected. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. thank you so much for being here today and for your service to our country. we appreciate your leadership. ask, first of all, about the transport of the detainees in afghan control for the detention facility. how was i going? how is thatit you can tell me e capture -- if we capture a havet that may intelligence that is helpful to preventing future attacks, how do we handle that situation? >> i can talk to you about the
transfer. one of the last things i did before i left afghanistan, it was 10 days after the transfer, i walked down to bar one. i walk through each and every function that is being performed inside of that facility to ensure that the partnership arrangement we have with the afghans protected our interest. i am satisfied that it does in the sense that we still have good control. we are in a position to ensure that the humane treatment takes place inside of the facility. >> with regard to future targets, one of the things is we have a commitment by afghanistan that will not only keep inattention the during security threats we have identified the any future security threats will also be detained. i would prefer to talk about the intelligence peace in a closed form. i will tell you that i am satisfied that we will have appropriate access to intelligence sharing with the afghanistans.
up in a moreollow- appropriate forum on the intelligence -- we can follow-up in a more appropriate forum on the intelligence gathering. you said you are satisfied that the afghans will maintain control of those individuals. i think you and i both would want to avoid a situation. can you assure us how this agreement -- to your satisfaction that we will not have that kind of situation? >> we have a commitment to president obama that those individuals will be detained. what i have said to the chairman and the chain of command is that were afghanistan not to meet their commitment we would have a real operational policy issues to address at that particular time. i think we changed fundamentally the nature of our operations and
certainly change the support we might provide to afghanistan in the future. we have an agreement with afghanistan to keep those people detained. were they to violate that commitment i am satisfied that would be a significant change in our relationship and the nature of our operations. >> thank you, general. i want the follow-up on the questions that senator iumenthal ask you about -- appreciated your testimony. sponsor of the contractor enemy permission. as a result of that we have introduced legislation called"never contractinfg with the enemy." made significant progress.
to fill in some of the gaps, including dropping the contract level from 100,000 to 20,000, as you had mentioned earlier, it is not just the dot that is contracting. what other agencies are contacting in afghanistan? describing the new legislation, it will be critical contractshat dod has but specifically the u.s. -- they would have the same authorities that we do. >> from your perspective have we already been able to save taxpayer dollars from the provision? importantly we have been able to prevent those dollars from being in the hands of the enemy. legislation that senator blumenthal raised, is
this something you would endorse it? >> i would. anything that keeps resources out of thhands of the enemy would be a positive step. so far the legislation has been very effective with both contractors and subcontractors --expanding that to include and subcontractors and expanding that makes sense. >> i want to thank you for helping put together this legislation. we are grateful for your support. ask for the follow- up in 2014 and beyond. afghanistanea of thinking about the follow on the recommendations you will make to the president, how important is it that we have a presence in all four regions of afghanistan? >> i think it is in the i think it is very important. it starts with the lowest level we should advise and assist post 2014.
six court levels in the four corners of the country. it will help support the state department mission. i am completely integrated with the regn with ambassador cunningham in terms of u.s. presence post 2014 tweet beating in four corners is going to be necessary -- post 2014. being in four courses on to be necessary post 2014. ,> when we look at iran thinking particularly post's what area of the country are you most worried about with respect to iran in terms of having a presence? iranianrtainly see influence. we see a great effort to control what goes on inside afghanistan. i am happy to report that many
of the resources have not fallen on fertile ground. they have been unsuccessful. we have great interest and influence in the western part of the country. >> if we were not have a sufficient presence in the western part of the country, looking at our post 2014 posture along with our nato allies, what type of influence do you think iran would have and what you think it would do with that? >> i think it is fair to say there would have included in the western part of the country. it is also safe to say that influence would be maligned and it could be destabilizing for afghanistan. >> how are we in terms of negotiating bilaterally? >> the next bilateral security agreement is in may. the last thing i did before left was meet with the afghanistan and acid to the unitedtates.
he is the priryegr anista all i can say is that at least on the afghan side his sense was that things were moving in the right direction. he was positive we will be able to sign a bilateral security agreement. president cars i have said the same thing to me. there are two or three difficult issues we are working on right now. they are non-negotiable from a u.s. perspective. i think the team is working very hard to address that right now. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your leadership and all of those tessera underneath you. you do an excellent job. >> thank you. >> i have a few additional questions. is the use of the term safe- haven. i have used them interchangeably, safe haven and sanctuary. obviously you do not. it became obvious from your earlier explanation this morning, can you explain the
difference in your vocabulary between the two. who has got what where? >> when you use the term safe- haven it is an area of in which the enemy has freedom of movement inside afghanistan. sanctuary we use with regard to pakistan. enemy savelk about som havens we're talking about areas geographically within afghanistan. sanctuaries are those outside afghanistan. think there is some confusion about those terms. i am confident my colleagues have used the terms interchangeably and that may has the comments this morning.
i thought you were referring to a taliban not having a sanctuary in pakistan. i think he would agree they do --e a sanctuary inside that inside pakistan. >> absolutely. wereer i thought we talking about al qaeda. >> you may have misheard. i think there was some real uncertainty. in the exchange that was the uncertainties, what was being referred to in afghanistan -- it is clear there is a sanctuary for the afghan taliban inside of pakistan.
>> there is no doubt. and pakistan taliban has moved east to parts of afghanistan and back into pakistan. think in the future it would be wise to pin that down and talk with the members of congress. repeatedly used interchangeably. saying it is a mistake one way or another but it is used interchangeably by many colleagues. i am good tread be more accurate in the future. to be moreng to try accurate in the future. if i am accurate you should be aware of that. secondly i want to ask you about thesthe decision
on the number of troops that will be there after 2014. i think maybe all of us agree critical commitment earlier. the uncertainty does exist in afghanistan and to be removed from the eyes of the people and government who clearly want an ongoing presence is credible. will understand that there will be an ongoing credible commitment from the united states. ,rom the specific number america what that would amount to, you have not made a recommendation yet. you have indicated that there are a number of factors that can affect your judgment as to whether that proper number -- as to what the proper number range would be. am i right so far?
>> yes, chairman. >> the one issue, however, and i think he spoke on this, i want to be real clear on it, in your mind in making your recommendation it is essential there be a bilateral security agreement that protects whatever number of troops we have there, for instance. in other we are careful about protecting our troops so it is not additional arms of other countries if we do not think it is appropriate to be the case under what circumstances will an american soldier be subject to foreign jurisdiction. >> that is correct.
out in a bilateral security agreements. this is a subset of the bilateral agreement. if whatever commitment is should be conditional upon a bilateral agreement. >> any authority we have to operate would be within the framework. this expires in 2014. it will be based on this. and not only would it be dependent on this authority,
whatever no. we have good only the commission if we had a bilateral security agreement. we need a security agreement lefte troops are ouaction there. >> that is right. is a thousand or 12,000 or 16,000. totalour share of the number of troops. accomplished if there is a bilateral security agreement between our two countries. we all thank you very much for your service. you have done a superb job following commanders that have preceded you. you are carrying al a very
impressive tradition. we will stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> chuck hagel will be in the middle east next week to discuss security in the region and the developing situation in the syrian border. then he will travel to jordan this.ypt, wrapping up most expensive weapons system in the history of the united states. jet that is to be used by the marine corps.
it is supposed to be our all- purpose fighting. it was supposed to be in the skies. it was a troubled program. it has begun sense of billions of dollars over budget. a burrow into this as a way of to to this. singular in is terms of this. this may not be all of the radars and sensors and missiles and ability to fight at supersonic speeds. and maybe the way to aavoid >> those weekly
address is focused on the boston marathon this. on monday, an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three innocent people at the boston marathon. but in the days since, the world has witnessed one sure and steadfast truth: americans refuse to be terrorized. ultimately, that's what we'll remember from this week. that's what will remain. stories of heroism and kindness; resolve and resilience; generosity and love. the brave first responders police officers, firefighters, emts, and national guard who ran toward danger to help their fellow citizens. the race volunteers,
spectators, and exhausted runners who rushed to help, including troops and veterans who never expected to see such ofnes on the streets america. the determined doctors and nurses at some of the world's best hospitals, who have toiled day and night to save so many lives. the big-hearted people of boston residents, priests, shopkeepers who carried victims in their arms; delivered water and blankets; lined up to give blood; opened their homes to total strangers. and the heroic federal agents and police officers who worked together throughout the week, often at great risk to themselves, to keep our communities safe. as a country, we are eternally grateful for the profound sacrifices they make in the line of duty sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice to defend the people they've sworn to protect. if anyone wants to know who we are; what america is; how we respond to evil and terror that's it. selflessly. compassionately. and unafraid.
through days that would test even the sturdiest of souls, boston's spirit remains undaunted. america's spirit remains undimmed. our faith in each other, our love for this country, our common creed that cuts across whatever superficial differences we may have that's what makes us strong. that's why we endure. in the days to come, we will remain vigilant as a nation. and i have no doubt the city of boston and its surrounding communities will continue to respond in the same proud and heroic way that they have thus far and their fellow americans will be right there with them every step of the way. may god bless the people of boston and the united states of america. >> i and the senator from south carolina. this is a day that celebrate our journey toward freedom. hasboston marathon bombing left all of us with a heavy heart. we pray for the victims and
their families. can shake hope they the confidence of the city. they have only strengthened the resolve of our nation. this became apparent as first responders ran toward unknown dangers. they put their own lives on the vine to help others. we are still thankful for these men and women who sacrifice. they are friends, family, neighbors. join me in prank for the victims and their support systems, to those let me say this, there is no hiding place in america that will keep us from finding you. the leaders will do everything in our power to bring justice and power to the family in communities.
our freedom is our most precious recession. it will only shank and our determination. it is crystallized by how we respond to challenges. we will stand strong. united.stand thank you. god bless america. >> tomorrow on "washington at the un and immigration legislation. the study ofe terrorism and responses to terrorism. the constant to each project's on the use of torture by the united states "washington live at 7:00 a.m eastern on c-span.
>> an independent investigation reports that the u.s. >> an independent investigation released a report this week that said the u.s. for toured suspected terrorists in the aftermath of the september 11 attacks. the report also criticizes the indefinite detention of prisoners at guantanamo bay. the two-year investigation was conducted by a task force made up of former members of congress and former officials from the departments of state and homeland security. members of the task force discussed their findings on >> thank you, jim, and thank you for your leadership on the task force, and i want to express my thanks to the constitution project, but also to all of my fellow task force members, what they brought to the table in terms of experience, wisdom, public service, really made a difference in the development of this project and important report. there's more than 24 findings and recommendations. we can't cover all of those this morning, but we do want to hit some of the highlights.
we hope you'll take the entire report, study it through, and look at each of those recommendations. why is this report important? it's important because we as a nation have to get this right. i look back in history to the time during world war ii that we interned some japanese- americans. at the time it seemed like the right and proper thing to do. but in the light of history, it was an error. and so today this report will hopefully put into focus some of the actions taken in the post- 9/11 environment. were's some key questions wanted to address this morning. one is the treatment of suspected terrorists in u.s. custody rise to the level of torture. secondly, if so, how did this happen, and what can we learn
from this to make better decisions in the future? on the first question, we found that u.s. personnel in many instances used interrogation techniques on detainees that constitute torture. american personnel conducted an even larger number of interrogations that involved cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. both categories of actions violate u.s. laws and international treaty obligations. this conclusion is not based upon our own personal impressions, but rather, is grounded in a hoe row and detailed examination of what constitutes torture from a historical and legal context. we looked at court cases and determined that the treatment of detainees in many instances met the standards. the courts have determined constitute torture.
in addition, you look at the united states state department, in its annual country reports on human rights practices, has characterized many of the techniques used against detainees in u.s. custody in the post-9/11 environment, the state department has characterized the same treatment as torture, abuse, or cruel treatment when those techniques were employed by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with policy, positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to
criticism when it criticized another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of like waterboarding, stress positions, and deep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel, which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have suspects been repudiated by legal experts and the o.l.c. itself. even if its opinion, it relies not only on a very narrow legal opinion of torture, but also how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is an important context as to how the opinion came about, but also has to how policy makers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available public record, we determined that an application, torture was used against detainees in many instances and across a wide range of theaters. on the question of
responsibility or how did this happen, any effort to understand how the government decided to approve the torture of detainees must begin with a recognition of the fear and anxiety that enveloped our country after 9/11. we have a small taste of this today even after the events yesterday in boston and the desire of first responders and law enforcement and the public to know the perpetrators of this incredible act of violence. the intensity was even much greater post-9/11 because of the incredible loss of life. and the greatest concerns of americans and leaders in that period were simply preventing further attacks. task force members understand clearly that those officials whose decisions may have contributed to the use of
torture undertook those measures as their best efforts to protect their fellow citizens. are and while our report is critical of the approval of interrogation techniques that ultimately led to u.s. personnel engaging in torture of detainees, the investigate was not an undertaking of artisan fault finding. our conclusions about responsibility should be shared very simple as an effort to understand what happened at many levels of the u.s. policymaking. there's no way of knowing how the government would have responded if a democrat administration were in power at the time of the attacks. indeed, our report is equally critical of the rendition to torture program, which began under president clinton, and we requested several actions of the current administration as well.
it should be noted that many of the corrective actions that were first undertaken during the bush administration as well. but the task force did conclude that the nation's highest officials after the 9/11 attack approved actions for c.i.a. and defense personnel based upon legal guidance that has since been repudiated. the most important decision may have been to declare the geneva convention did not apply to al qaeda and taliban captives in afghanistan or guantanamo. the administration never specified what rules would instead. the task force believes that u.s. defense intelligence professionals and service members in harm's way need absolutely clear orders on the treatment of detainees, requiring, at a minimum, compliance with common article three of the geneva convention. this was not done. civilian leaders and military commanders have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that
their sub ard natures comply with the laws of war. president obama has committed to observe the geneva conventions through an executive order, about the a future president could change it by the stroke of a pen. congress, one of our recommendations, needs to work with the administration to strengthen torture statutes, the war crimes act, and the uniform code of military justice to remove the loopholes that allow torture to occur. in terms of the c.i.a., we did not have access to classified information. this is a reason we asked the administration to review much the classified information to see what can be released without compromising national and to provide more trance parns a and life on how the policy decisions were made. dr. david would be happy to answer questions when we
conclude about the responsibility and how the absence of clear standards left troops on the front line in an untenable position. on the question of effectiveness of torture, there is no persuasive evidence in the public record that the wide spread use of torture against suspected terrorists was necessary. that is that it produced significant information and value that could not have been otherwise obtain. i'll simply make two points and observations in this regard. the task force believes it is important to recognize that to say torture is ineffective does not require a demonstration that it never works. a person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information, nor does the fact that it may sometimes yield legitimate information justify its use. what values does america stand for? that's the ultimate question. but in addition to the very real legal and moral objections to its use, torture often produces false information, and it is difficult and time-consuming for interrogators and analysts to distinguish what may be true and usable from that which is false and misleading.
also conventional lawful interrogation methods have proven to be successful whenever the united states uses them throughout history, and i have seen this in law enforcement as well. we've seen no evidence in the public record that the traditional means of interrogation would not have yielded the necessary intelligence following the attacks of 9/11. general david irvine who taught prisoner of war interrogation for 18 years at the sect army intelligence school was on the task force and will be happy to answer questions about the effectiveness of torture. those are a couple of the key findings, but there are many more findings in the task force report that i hope that you review. this has been an important task
that we have engaged in, but we understand how difficult it is for a nation to come to terms with what these findings are these recommendations. we hope that we will learn from these and improve policymaking decisions in the future, and with that, i'll turn it back to my co-chair for questions and answers. >> thank you very much. they've asked me to highlight just a few other things in the report and to identify some of our task force members to whom you might want to ask questions. the effects and the consequences, the report looks at the impact of our actions on our relationship with other governments in the world. thepecial interest is
extraordinary rendition program after september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the bush administration resolved to use every available means to protect the united states from further attack. this extraordinary rendition program used previously by president clinton quickly became an importa tool in that effort. and in years since, numerous investigations and inquiries have found evidence that illegal acts in the form of arbitrary detention and torture resulting from the program. these need to be reviewed. we found an investigation of extraordinary rendition by the task force. they uncovered many new details regarding the black sites in poland and lithuania. in poland, an official investigation has been hampered by the u.s. government's refusal to provide any -- and share any information, even as the polish prosecutors have issued indictments against polish
officials for their role in facilitating the black site. in lithuania, prosecutors face many of the same problems of being able to get shared with them from the united states government. and in that particular case, they close the investigation in 2011, and while they admit that there are sights there, they have no evidence of what prisoners were detained there. there have been a number of inquiries into the rendition program in the united kingdom, including one by the house of commons and one by the all-party parliamentary group headed by a conservative m.p. the task force will actually present our findings to them in june. and due to the growingal litil consequences of e c.i.a.'s rendition program and network of secret prisons and the fact that officials credibly assert that both been discontinued,
force recommends that the united states fully comply legal obligations under the convention against torture. and in cooperating with the pending investigations around the world and these lawsuits, president obama's early executive order also closed the c.i.a.'s black sites, but their effect on the c.i.a.'s rendition of detainees to foreign custody is less clear. so there are, the task force makes specific recommendations in order to strengthen the process of rules on those renditions and the process of
diplomatic assurances from those countries to which they are rendered. ambassador tom pickering can answer the questions that you have in this particular area of international and diplomatic issues that we discussed. we also looked at the effect of our actions on former detainees. detainees are not traditionally an object of sympathy, and yet many of these detainees who were found not to be guilty of anything that we -- even though they did not have a trial, were released and released virtually with no assistance, no help, no way to get back into the world. this is an issue that i think is of importance, and the doctor can answer questions with regard to those. a few words on the medical and legal profession in this effort. medical professionals, including physicians and psychologists, participated variously in
interrogations. rules and regulations and operating procedures were altered to guide physicians if n their involvement in detention and interrogation procedures that put many of them in direct conflict with their ethics.onal we offer several recommendations to preclude this in the future. we have, as asa mentioned, the force feeding part, and that, for the military, acknowledges that there are 28 -- i think it's a little higher as of today -- detainees at guantanamo are conducting a hunger strike, 10 of whom are being force fed. the press reports that some lawyers of other detainees report that the hunger strike is much more wide spread involving a majority of the 166 men still held there. and some have lost significant
weight in recent weeks. again, this is a medical issue that i would suggest you direct your questions to dr. jerry thompson. on the legal front, one of the things we found was that this was a war conducted less by the generals and more by the lawyers. the lawyers also played a very key role. in the aftermath of the attacks, lawyers in the justice department's office of legal counsel provided legal advice that seemed to go to great lengths to allow treatment that amounted to torture. the report offers a systematic examination of the ways of legal
interrogation evolved in response to the court decisions and public pressure. the role of the o.l.c. in the federal government is unique. it is the president's law firm. and they have a responsibility to push back against unreasonable institutional pressures from the white house or anywhere in government. the task force recommends that the o.l.c. should periodically review confidential opinions to determine if they may be declassified and released. if opinions from the o.l.c. might someday be disclosed, the o.l.c. attorneys would be more mindful of their responsibility and to act in an impartial manner and less likely to engage in advocacy. and the professor is available to answer those questions. on the issue of the obama administration, during the 2008 campaign, president obama criticized the bush administration's treatment of detainees. candidate obama promised to close guantanamo and to reject torture without exception or
equivocation. he also criticized the previous administration for executive secrecy, included repeated invocation of the state's secret privilege to get civil lawsuits thrown out of court and the promise to lead a new era of openness. the administration has fulfilled some of those promises, and conspicuously failed to fulfill others. in some cases because congress has blocked them, but in other cases for reasons of their own. as asa mentioned earlier, high- level secrecy surrounding the rendition and torture of detainees since september 11 cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security. the authorized enhanced techniques have been publicly disclosed and the c.i.a. has approved its former employee's publication of detailed accounts of individual interrogation. ongoing classification of material documenting these practices serves only to conceal evidence of wrongdoing and to make its repetition more likely. apart from redactions needed to
protect specific individuals and to honor specific diplomatic agreements, the task force urges the president to direct executive branch agencies to promptly and fully declassify as much material about the treatment of the suspected terrorists as possible. the convention against torture to which the united states is significant in aer to is, in addition, prohibiting all acts of torture, requires that states ensure in their legal system that the victim of an act of torture contains redress and has an enforceable right to despair adequate compensation. the united states has not complied with this requirement. the task force recommends that the state's secret privilege should be subjected to
independent judicial review and restrict the use of the privilege to cases where it is truly necessary to guard against nonspeculative harmsnaonal security. as asa mentioned, we have 24 findings and specific recommendations, both to the legislative and executive, to act on. we urge you to read the report. we think it's readable as opposed to just a dry set of words, and now let's close and open it up for questions. first of all, let me say that because we're trying to get the website and others to be able to understand the questions, after you raise your hand, identify yourself and then wait for a microphone to come to you. we have two microphones on both sides of the room. so thank you for listening to our summation of the report. who has a question? >> thank you for doing this. i'm from al-jazeera english
television. i have two questions. one, you mentioned it a little bit, about the force feeding of some hunger striking detainees at guantanamo. i wondered if you could talk -- if the doctor could talk a little bit more about what the long-term impact of that is and what can we see -- i mean, how can this situation be resolved? that leads to my second for the both of you about political will to do what the administration has said is its intended goal of closing the facility and, you know, in due process for as many of the detainees as they can put on trial. you know, it seems there's no will on either side, and they're just blaming -- congress is blaming the white house, and the white house is blaming congress. what can be done to move both of these issues forward? the long lover term impact can be seen -- the long-term impact can be seen, i think, in two
ways. one, the impact on detainees in terms of success, in terms of personal risk and injury. and second, what's going to be the impact politically on the situation at guantanamo? you know that the task force came out very strongly condemning force feeding, and this is in keeping in line with international, ethical standards, both of professional treatment of hunger strikers and the ethics of treating hunger strikers. we do not believe that force feeding should be an approach to the hunger strike. if you can imagine being a detainee and using refusal to eat as a form of protest, and then you are forced to eat, forced physically to eat by being trapped into a specially made chair and restrained -- having restraints put on your
limbs, your arms, your legs, your body, your head so you cannot move, having a tube inserted into your throat that extends into your stomach and you're trying to resist that with the only muscles that are free in your throat, pain is discomfort, obviously. in addition to that, force is then forced in a liquid form into your stomach. you're kept in the chair for at least two hours, usually more than two hours, to prevent you from vomiting and undermining the force feeding. you can't go to the bathroom during that time. your dignity is taken away. the world medical association
and international officials have clearly identified that process as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and whatever -- given the level of brutality, it could extend to torture. now, sense you're reviewing food, that's going to happen to you twice a day. day after day, month and week after week. and for some detainees, it has gone on for years, as much as four years and longer. now, no question that that has great risk to the detainee, and if the detainee is not treated properly, some damage can occur, and obviously there's always the risk of death. we worry about this hunger strike -- it's not the first, as you all know, at guantanamo bay. perhaps the most dramatic and extensive were in 2005, and there were two, dealing with the conditions of the detention camp and beginning to come to grips with the extended detention, the hope of getting out of guantanamo bay. the first part of the 205 ended because the detainees thought there was going to be application of the geneva detention, and they were in discussions. when that didn't happen, they
had the second hunger strike, and it was during that hunger strike that the restraint chairs and the force feeding and restraint chairs was introduced. this now is a hunger strike occurring with very different circumstances. the last hunger strike seemed to have been broken by the use of the force feeding because the numbers dropped off dramatically during the force feeding. in addition, you have to believe that there was some hope in association with that that the detainees saw in addition to the force feeding. this time we're dealing with force feeding and hunger
strikers who may have much, much less hope. in fact, the reason for the hunger strike is an absence of hope. so we're concerned that force feeding is being used, and second, we don't have a lot of transparency on how it's being done, and third, it's very hard to see how we're going to have a reasonable outcome here without some sort of international help. >> when you asked the second part of the question, when will the political will come about with congress blaming the administration, the administration blaming congress? before you got to guantanamo bay, i thought of budget, gun control, immigration, that seems to be prevalent in washington these days. i point out we had unanimous agreement on all parts of our report with one exception, and it's part of our report, and that was on what to do with the guantanamo prisoners which are the minority of those who are there now, who have not been tried and who, for various reasons, of evidence being
tainted or whatever, probably will not be tried. and that's where we had some disagreement and had the minority opinion. i might ask ambassador tom pickering, however, who was very outspoken on this particular issue to comment on this and on her question of the political will. >> thank you very much, jim. if i knew the answer on political will, i suppose there would be more prophetic qualities to my history. one hopes that we will see it. one hopes that bell see immigration and gun control and other efforts. i spent my life as a diplomat and spent a good part of that life trying to i am for tune other governments to live up to the rule of law.
i was chagrined, embarrassed, and indeed, in many ways felt undermined by the notion that our country, which instruct me on numerous occasions to uphold the rule of law particularly in definite detention without trial, was something that we now practice and continue to practice despite all of the questions that people tend to try to raise about a war and prisoners of war and all of the rest. my sense is that we need a specific way forward. the report contains recommendations on a specific way forward, simply trial or military commission with rights and privileges equal to our article three court system. if that won't work, then various ways of deportation, and in the end, if that won't work, at least moving the prisoners to the united states and retaining them in the system which the immigration statute provides for ultimate
deportation with regular reviews. this is not a perfect answer, but it does in many ways address the question of the symbolism of guantanamo, which i think is now an unfortunate blot on the record of the united states with respect to the use of the rule of law and indeed to the question of indefinite detention without trial. we also recommend that in parallel with the position that occurred when our forces left iraq, when the major effort is terminated in 2014, there be, in fact, a public statement declaration of the termination of any application of the thought that there is a war-time situation continuing with respect in particular to these detainees, and i think from my earlier remarks, you will understand the importance of that. >> let me see if i can sort of
identify what the sorts of differences are. first of all, there are none of them that relate to the of what has happened and how it can be avoided. i think all of us believe that one of the most dangerous findings is that people in good faith can do terrible things because authority tends to erode and to slip as did you further and further down the chain. what happened is there's a greater and greater departure from the things that were contemplated above. but as a kind of professional lawyer, remedial side is always extremely difficult to deal with, even though there's very strong agreement with respect to what is wrong under these cases. so on guantanamo, the terrible questions is where and to what? and if the extra turns out to be sending people to the air force base where we're now able it, that would in my mind
be an even worse outcome the way the supreme court and interpreted some of our authorities, it says that the kind of treatment that all of us are in favor only apply when you're in the territory of the united states and shipping people to four remote areas may give them fewer rights and also much less assistance as they otherwise get. on the question of the indefinite detention, i think we all agree it's a completely nightmarish situation, because we do not know when a conflict ends, and so therefore, we do not know what to do in the interim. my own view is i would prefer to try some of these people. i would prefer to release some of them, but in many cases, it seems that the evidence leaves you in limbo, strong enough to detain, but not strong enough to try, and my own view about that is i think what was said earlier about the need for a constant system of oversight and review is important. one of the things that's wrong with the system of habeas corpus is it's a once and for all determination made at the
outset of a hearing, and that's a mistake. upgrade to constantly based on new information. you must have constant oversight by other individuals. and the situation here is very similar to that. in general, surveillance, a warrant under the fourth amendment doesn't deal with the situation, but the thought you should allow this stuff to go on indefinitely without independent review is, in effect, indefensible. you should understand that the differences that exist on this task force with respect to remedies are not differences, that there is something about what's going on here which is more laudable than the report makes out. i think i speak for everybody when i say that the level of thoroughness that nick and his team brought to this is second to none, and we hope that even if there's some disagreements on the remedial side, that we all agree that the report will place very powerful limits on what counts as a credible response to the difficult situations that we've faced in the past and which we must do everything in the future to avoid.
>> let me also just brief mention on the political part, a question. there's a lot like -- in my backyard for a project in this regard, there's a strong feeling among many on both sides of the political aisle that these people, if they're brought to the united states, put in a prison, would be a danger to the united states, a security problem for the united states. that has not proven to be true in other terrorist actions. the civil courts, the federal courts have been able to try these cases, get convictions. i think there's something like 300 prisoners that fall in that rubrick of prisoners. they're on united states soil today, and there have been no escapes and no dangers to this society. but it's a political feeling that it could, and that's the problem. other questions? >> thank you. toouple of questions, one follow up on the guantanamo issue.
again, you gentlemen were not able to reach unanimous recommendation after two years of your own, i'm sure, very reasoned struggle. so what, if any, chances are there that congress and this administration in any reasonable amount of time can overcome the political, legal legislative obstacles that have been set up to closing guantanamo by the end of 2014 as you suggested? the other question, it relates to the boston tragedy. i think what you painted is a picture of overreaction to 9/11 in many ways, and it's the detainees in counterterrorism operation and the like. what, if any, danger might you see of an overreaction coming out of what's happened in boston in terms of let's say the safety, security of public places, the kind of surveillance that is conducted domestically?
>> well, on the first question, one of the reasons for giving a comprehensive report and putting it in context that you can relate to, and particularly the recommendation that is much classified material that supports or rejects what we found be released, is that will give congress and the political forces a clear peculiarity of what really did exist and what exists today. and based on that, we think there might be some changes of attitude with regard to guantanamo. as far as the boston overreaction torque me one of the big problems of the post- 9/11 was the lack of clarity in what people down the line were asked to do, and i don't think that is likely to be repeated. i think one of the things we clearly feel is necessary is a clear line of responsibilities
and of what you do with those responsibilities. hopefully that won't happen again. anyone else? >> you made the point very clearly, the fact we're holding this press conference this morning in the aftermath of a tragedy of great proportions to the country and talking about correcting the errors of overreaction should in itself, i hope, speak something to the public and to the press and indeed to those who have to make decisions. we have put in our report a kind of road map of how to avoid future error, and we hope that the fact that we decided to go ahead this morning, despite what would be some normal tendency to postpone speaks to the question of can we and shouldn't we get on the record
what, in fact, is a record of the need for corrective action and do it even in the aftermath tragedy of the proportions we saw yesterday. richard? >> yeah, one of the things i think that we learned from this report is that the single most dangerous notion in dealing with these things is to assume that necessity allows you to excuse yourself from the observance of standard procedures. it turns out that trying to make ad hoc judgments on the spur of the moment leads to more mistakes than it avoids. if one takes the analogy, for example, the sound medical treatment, the ability to follow protocol with standard procedures when it looks as though there are independent reasons to avoiding it is one of the reasons things you have to constantly stress. there's much too much evidence or willingness to sort of stress the emergency of the moment and not enough to get really clear
>> i concur. in terms of boston we are still learning. the fbi is looking at this. i have no reason to think there would be any overreaction or breach in normal protocols. we have had questions on the efficacy of torture that is beneficial to the united states. can you comment of that? as we approach the question of what brutal interrogation can are cannot produce it became
evident that there have been many claims made bets harsh enhancedtion interrogation techniques. the claims that it is effective, thousands of lives, has largely been made in a vacuum. interrogators in some instances. important in determining whether the claims that have been made effectiveness of these useful information gained from going to the dark side that
public record to support the notion that we have been badly misled. by false concessions that have been derived from brutal can bear. other people become so immune tothe issue of whether cruelty, torment, torture, is effective, is a question we cannot say in this is an issue that will be on intelligence can release the report it releases for those senators and staffers who had actually gone into the an analysis based on that information so far, the reports for the interrogation had been
into the classified record and made an analysis based on that information. so far the reports are that there is not much there that would suggest this approach has been useful. in 2001 the united states have had a great deal of experience with strategic interrogations'. we have been very successful over a long time and learning how to do this and doing it very well. the policies were developed that led us to the dark side, many of those involved in formulating those policies that no experience with law enforcement, with the military and have these matters are approach.
one of the most successful interrogator's prior to 2001 was joe navarro. he was probably one of the handful of strategic interrogator's qualified to debrief a high value al qaeda prisoner. he said eileen need one -- three things. i'll do this without breaking the law. i want to know what the rules are. i do not want to get in trouble. third, i need enough time to become that person's best and only friend. if you give me those three conditions, i will get whatever that person has to say, and i will get it quickly and safely and within the terms of the law. we can do it well when we want to. we need to do more looking at
our history to remind us what works and why it worked and not resort to expedient, clever, were necessary. >> other questions, did you have a hand up over here? go ahead. >> thank you for the report. i have two questions. number one. are you planning to have a briefing or hearing on this issue? members of congress on the republican democratic sponsored here. number two. are you planning to meet with people to speak about this issue to them? how much of this issue impacts
the relationship of the united states and the muslim world and arab world in terms of the image of the united states? >> let it be known, we would be willing to testify and to brief anybody in the administration and congress. it is up to them to invite us. >> thank you. i would like to say i have been very honored to be on this panel and to find out a lot of information throughout the two years that i did not know in such great detail. it is important to me because one reason i am in this country is because i believe in the ideal of the constitution and of this country. let's not mislead ourselves into thinking that everyone who comes here comes for economic
reasons. there are a lot of people who come here for our values. it is our values that we need keep up. that is who we are. the problem with these issues is that i am now found the out -- finding out a lot as you are. muslim and arab countries, we have heard about these in detail for a while now. many detainees went back and talk. many of these people, children, under 18, and we were found not guilty and released. and they went back and not only did they talk to families and communities, but some. on television. that is a very uncomfortable position for me, someone who has been working on human rights issues from the world for the last 30 years.
to find out that we have a problem with human rights. i have worked very closely on issues of religious freedom. there are also some of these issues that. in guantanamo and other places, as you might have heard. this bothered me a great deal as an american. but you can imagine the situation abroad. i am very concerned al qaeda has seen an expansion. it has been able to expand its forces from initially being in afghanistan and out among all the way to syria and parts of egypt and so on. i think the more we stand up for her we are, the more we expand our values, the more we are going to gain and give think that the more we stand up for who we are, the
defend our values. to gain we're going influence and give voice and moderate muslim world. >> we have three minutes left closing. dr. gushy, you have anything you'd like to say. he like to ask nick lewis if had anything because he led a terrific team and then asa, close it off? thank you, jim. the task force says in our eport, all societies behave differently under stress. at those times they may even to conflict with their essential character and values. that's what we did here. were under stress and we took actions that conflict with who we are.
who we are called to be and who we have committed to be. willing to rs not face the truth. and a loty euphemisms of state secrets. has etainee task force functioned as a sort of truth commission, revealing where we strayed from our values, about the light of investigation and analysis on to in the hope that the next time we're under that kind thetress, we do not go down same road and it's been an honor to serve on this panel. you, david. nick? >> final word. just in terms of new things here has discussed the general contours of the report, which is the most important thing. there are some new points raise in the report, discussion of the role of the international committee of the red cross and the debate inside that organization. an interview with the icrc w who's the
representative in washington and we have an interview with the -- of the first commander detention hospital at guantanamo as a support for the humane face of guantanamo in the early years. was's a naval captain, a the el, and now teaches at u.s. naval war college. in our report how he's filled with remorse and misused d feels he was and contrite about what happened nd he did not notice at the time. thank you. >> it's been a great privilege or me to co-chair such a distinguished panel. i thank them because they were deeply involved. off?close it >> likewise, been an honor to work with you and all of the members of the task force. i would end be i saying i hope this does mark an illustration well how things can work in washington and in our nation a t a group of leaders and
bipartisan and left-right, if there is such a thing, way, can thorny issuea very for our country. difference, and this will set a good path for the future. thank you. >> thank you very much for coming. [ applause ] >> on "news makers," illinois a gressman luis gutierrez member of the committee on immigration and border security caucus task of the force talks about efforts to develop an immigration bill in house. "news makers," sunday at 10:00
on and 60 p.m. eastern c-span. >> we'll hear more next week about the proposed legislation from the gang of eight. unveiled this week with the rupt of the white house, the afl-cio and other organizations. the senate judiciary committee leahyd by senator patrick will hold the second hearing on proposal live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. began, the war congress came into session in issued a statement every since know as the creghtonen resolution that the consensus or goals of the united states. it was very simple, very clear, purpose of this war is to union.e the it is not ot -- and
to disrupt the social institutions of the south. and everybody knew what that meant. it meant not to disrupt slavery. evolution of president lincoln's views of slavery, texas at austin professor george forjooe on history tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 3's history tv. > this documentary comes from alexandra chandler of clearwater high school in florida. er message to the president focuses on reducing gun violence in schools through stricter security measures. second prize-winning video in this year's c spran's competition. ♪ abcd ♪g ♪ hijk ]gunshots ♪ lmnop
gunshots ] ♪qrstuv [ gunshots ] ♪wxy and z ♪ now i know my abc's next time won't you sing with me ♪ [ gunshots ] about gun eo is not reform. it's not about gun laws. it's a story. it's a story about what could have prevented the loss of protect the s and ones of the future. >> 20 years ago, my mother attended high school. of was a cheerleader, member the honors choir. on february 11, 1988, a day like day.other she and her friends were eating lunch in the common sense area
erupted. >> all of a sudden, there was a loud noise. screaming, kids were yelling. it was so confusing and at first be a fight.ere must but then i saw all of these kids running towards us, tables were turning over. ground.lates were thigt -- people were scream iing gun"!e's a gun, there's a >> two sophomores had brought school, however, only one opened fire. and teacher ern were critically wounded by gunshot wounds. was forever changed. a well-liked administrator was wounded. >> never in my mind did i think that there was a gun in my let alone that someone had just been shot and killed.
devastated, ere scared. long gone were the days when school was considered a safe haven. were told it was an isolated incident, that it would never happen again. later e we are 25 years with massacres such as columbine, virginia tech, and the newtown shooting. so, you have to ask the question -- what is the solution? national affairs columnist explains -- country.ly divided a large chunk of the country instrumentcus on the for the evil deeds, the gun. and other people who want to focus on the criminally insane the criminal minds that are horrific incidents. >> what is the answer? a lot of lso believe gun owners would believe that k-47s belong in the hands of
soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. data base e national of the mentally ill. a third fering choice -- fortify our schools. designs to chools' match the dangerous times we live in. and nally,mplement metal detectors. these solutions may not eradicate weapons invading our schools, but at least we would know that we took step, we took the extra mile to prevent it from happening. an international business leader, an high schoolteacher land of egypt. >> also overseas, and i've seen countries such as egypt, saudi arabia, france, over europe, asically, the fence is a break fence. t's one gate or two gates, all
the security people there. they know who's coming in, who's going out. do extremely important to that. >> school resource officer -- safety, redesign the schools to make it harder to get to the schools or harder access. gone, if you want to make it easier to recover, all of the students come in from to.e areas the schools, there's 20, 30 different ways to the school. there's no way to cover all of eas, not the way it's designed right now. >> by far the largest security right now classroom doors. many school doors only include a lock on the outside. situation, a cy teacher would have to leave the classroom, venture out into the then lock the door. kindergarten teachers don't have to worry about their doors that often simply because they don't have any. currently hool i'm working at, we don't have doors on our classroom, so if there
into aeason for us to go lockdown, i wouldn't have a way f preventing an intruder to come into my classroom. one way that we could boost our we're at n the school now is by adding the doors to the classrooms. pod doors, for our pod. we have doors on them. some way to lock them in a crisis or a situation that pods.uld feel safer in our >> my final point was not necessarily my own idea. rather, i was inspired. >> my senior year, we were given a writing assignment. and the goal was to write urselves a letter and talk about where we thought we would be ten years from now. s a 17-year-old, soon to be 8-year-old senior, i thought for sure ten years from the time the tragedy took place that we would have metal detectors. >> metal detectors in schools?
it's treme as it sounds, not that bad of an idea. to an it safer to go airport? hy is it safer to go to a courthouse. but somewhere where children are day red to go every single is not safe. recently vice president joe biden made a statement that i issue. elates to this >> we met with a young man who's here today. goddard is here. where are you, collin. he was one of the survivors of tech massacre. >> when i asked collin about hat he thought we should be doing, he said i'm not here because of what happened to me. i'm here because of what happened to me keeps happening to other people. something to do about it. kindergarten, you learn abcs
s, we need to go back to the basics when decisions were wereased on politics, they based on protecting our future. people will always find guns, that i will find weapons. we need to guard ourselves against them and we need to do it now. we should have done it 25 years ago. it's been two decades since the no shootings and we have excuse. dedicated to mr. richard allen of lives that s have been lost in school shootings. >> congratulations to all of the winners in this year's student cam competition. videos, go winning to student cam.org. >> tomorrow on washington look ahead at gun and registration legislation in congress. and the executive director for national consortium for the study of terrorism and the responses to terrorism. projects on cution the treatment of detainees an torture by the united
states. k hington journal live at a.m. eastern on c-span. >> today chuck hagel is begin a week-long middle east trip with a visit to saudi arabia, egypt, and the united arab emrates. the staff e and chairperson briefed the armed syria's committee on civil war and stability in the region. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> chuck hagel, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. martin dempsey. for an update on the situation in syria. from syria ging continue to grow worse by the day. he death toll grows and is nearly 75,000 according to the latest reports.
he refugee and internally displaced populations are growing rapidly with estimates lags ir combined pop yule in the millions. the internal battle between extremist elements of the opposition is not moving in the right direction. and the security of syria's chemical weapons stock pile can deteriorate. in addition, president assad and increasingly small inner ircle are resorting to the use of scud missiles, air strike, other capabilities more and more. the employment of proxy militias kill his fellow citizens -- his fell 4r0e syrians. sad's syrian operations are enabled by two international and russia. iran's financial and material upport have been critical to helping has sad's military to remain operable and russia's
syria's more advanced toitary weaponry is critical ha asad's continuing ability to project power to areas of the he no longer controls. syria's political and military opposition have introduced their set of problems. internal disagreements have prevented them from unifying political and military chains of command. his is made their efforts fragmented at best. secretary kerry is, again, with the opposition to try yet again to bring them together. these efforts are also complicated by the increasingly al-nusra front and al uses the hoot that vacuum in stir yeah to spread the influence. he growing presence is of a concernf encountering the spread we s to be a priority as move forward. the president has been cautious
capabilities of the national security me.itecture -- excuse ontributing to the humanitary efforts to provide relief to the syrian people. time has come the for the united states to ntensify the military pressure on assad. mccain and i wrote the president urging him to consider efforts including the creation of turkey a safe inside their border that patriot yment of or batteries along that border in protect the safe zone and vetted in the opposition in syria. the committee will be interested in hearing from the witnesses on
the feasibility of some of those p proposals as well as the arab the gulf cooperation council to authorize its members states to takeng civilianeps to protect life. any and all of these actions would send the critical message that it is time for him to go. we are assured that the to rtment is postured full range of contingencies in syria. efforts that they have directed the ape cescment of the ptions available and the potential effects and consequences of exercising any options.of those senator mccain? >> well thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank the secretary and general dempsey for your patience. i know that this has turned into a very long day for them and
i'm sure they may feel that their time could be spent.sefully but we thank you for -- for being here. issue which is an s now taken on proportions which are becoming more and more possible threat and stability in region as well as the continued slaughter of thousands thousands of innocent people. for example, a human rights released last week reports suggest that more than civilians have been killed syria since s in july of 2012. be numbers begin to overwhelming. over 1 million refugees, 80,000 people d
killed. neighboring country, articularly lebanon and jordan are being overwhelmed by the they f refugees which simply are despite their best that, of the h ch a . hcr is having not only damaging effect on our ability iscare for the refugees, but also having a destabilizing effect on the governments of both of those countries. o this is notan just issue that has though do with syria. iran o has though do with and their continued supplying of weap materiel and personnel. with the o has to do russians continuing to buy weapons and the russians veto in the
security efforts in attempt to actions in the assad regime. i won't go on very long but i witnesses and colleagues that over two years ago when a couple of young graffiti and ome were taken by bashar's secret tortured and -- that ignited a fire not unlike that tunisia with the burning himself to death. since then we have seen all of nonintervention that the opponents of intervention said would happen if we intervened. in other words, the conflict has spread, bashar assad has refused to leave. torture, murder, and rape continues at an accelerated pace. urrounding nations are either destabilize or in the case of iran, heavily engaged.
and, of course, in -- i'll save y comments about the chemical weapons for the question and answer period because obviously very, very very, serious issue of the utmost i'm sure that the president of the united states has stated is his concern and i witnesses have. so, i guess in summary, i say to leaders ontinguished has to nse, how much happen before -- how many people killed. air strikes? murders.mass how many weapons from iran and russia have to flow in. destabilize do the other surrounding countries have to be we shouldrealize that do more than what we are
doing.tly it's very interesting. i've been around too many in the view of many. i've never seen an entire national security team recommend was rse of action as recommended by then secretary of state, then secretary of defense. of the joint chiefs of staff. now director of national course ofce to take a armsn which was to provide to the resistance and it was overruled somewhere in the white house. so secretarying ale, i'm aware discussed some of the really fulmen yue that you have issues that you are confronting. but not sure there's another issue that thousands of people, pouring every night into refugee camps and people are being slaughtered as we speak. i hope that you will gain as
informed assessment of the situation as you can. policy decision that you could recommend to the united states.e i'm not saying you should -- obviously i would like to see course the same decision that the other members of the national security team did. but whatever i would like for a decision as to what course of action you would recommend to the president of united states and what would be necessary from your to how to most successfully achieve that goal. of the understand all issue that you have to face. you were talked about most of of the morning. but i think this is a just tarian issue that simply is unacceptable to continue on the path that it's on. i'm sorry for the long statement, mr. chairman, but i thank you for allowing me to speak. >> thank you very much, senator
ccain. thank you for your efforts in this regard. they've been long standing and consistent. and ve been very important i hope they will create a response response. ecretary hagel, let me start with you. both have n and i discussed this issue today. i would like to make a brief layout some of the general parameters on what we're doing. think the would chairman has a short statement and we'll get into whatever you want to talk about. fine, thank d be you. >> first, the policy of the united states government is to allies and partners. as you both know and as well as
opposition to provide humanitarian resistance across region. the it's to hasten the end of iolence, to bring about a political transition that would authorities, restore stability. a safe haven for extremists and necessary actions to secure syria's chemical and weapons.al the best outcome for syria in we'll all i think agree is a transition. the role of the department of support broader u.s. diplomatic efforts while ensuring that the u.s. military fully prepared to protect america's interests and meet our security commitments to the region. in pursuit of a negotiated political solution in syria, working to ent is mobilize the international community, further isolate the regime, and to support the moderate syrian opposition.
the united states has the syrian opposition coalition, the soc, as the legitimate representative the syrian people and committed to providing $117 nonlethal assistance, including communications can and equipment. state department and usaid technical assistance to the opposition which includes raining for over 1500 syrian leaders and activists in over 100 local councils. is to strengthen the groups that share the visiontional community's for syria's future and minimize the influence of extremists. directed the a national security team to increase nonlethal assistance to oth the s.o.c. and the supreme military council, the smc. we are working now to assess how we allocate and deliver that additional assistance. he department of state and the usaid would support from other u.s. government agencies are
alleviate the humanitarian crisis in syria and 1 million re than syrian refugees that have fled to neighboring countries. debt in the united states has spread to humanitarian assistance including emergency care, supplies, food, and shelter. the largesttates is single aid to the syrian people. the united states is leading the effort to make sure that the other countries make good on the $1.5 billion in commitments for the pledging conference in syria held in kuwait earlier this year. we're working through diplomatic and military channels to russia and china to do more to help resolve this crisis. conveyed the message in recent calls with both my ussian and chinese counterparts. internationally, the united states has worked with eu, the league, and over 50 countries to build a robust
anctions regime to bring about an end to the conflict. these sapgss are having an on the assad regime's ability to assess the international to access the international financial committee and raise foreign currency revenue. in support of u.s. government efforts to respond to the crisis, the department of the has expanded security consultations with key allies region and s in the in europe. ensure that the u.s. military is region. in the and engage in robust military lanning for a range of contingencies. u.s. military leaders are in regular communications with allied military leaders. ver the past year, we've synchronized the defense planning with canada, the united king b dom, and france. following the trip to egypt and jordan, on saturday, i will travel to the region and meet leaders in israel, jordan, saudi arabia, egypt, and
uae. secretary kerry will be in turkey this weekend disssing sya with the turkish government and other key partners. the national security advisor eturned from russia where he discussed syria with russian leaders and chairman dempsey ill be in china this week discussing syria with chinese leaders. last december, the department of missiledeployed patriot batteries to southern turkey for he protection of our nato allies. since last year, a small team of u.s. military ex-permits has een working in jordan in planning related to chemical a spill nd preventing over violence across jordan's borders. ast week i ordered the deployment of a u.s. army element to enhance this effort amann. these personnel will work longside the armed forces to prepare for a number of scenarios. due to the cooperative threat
program, the department of defense personnel are working rtners closely with syria's neighbors to help them encounter the of the weapons. the department of defense is funding over $70 million for in jordan, including providing training and equipment chemicalt and stop any weapons transfers ape long the border with syria and developing capacity to identify and secure chemical weapons assets. obama made clear if assad knows under the command, chemical weapon, there will be consequences and they'll be ble.accountable the department of defense has in place to respond to the full of chemical weapons scenarios. the u.s. military is constantly and adjusting tactical military planning to account for rapidly shifting situation on the ground and prepare for contingencies, not only
those associated with the chemical weapons, but also with spillover of violence across syria's borders that could threaten allies and partners. while i cannot discuss it in pen session, the reality is this is a complex and difficult situation as everyone on this committee knowles. killing of innocents by the tragic.egime is regime is in power. he opposition has not yet sufficiently organized itself militarily. or to think e obligation through any direct military action in syria.
andould hinder humanitarian reliefperationmbhe united states in significant, uncertain military commitment. unilateral military action could train other key international partnerships. as no international or regional supporting armed intervention now exists. military intervention could have unintended consequence of bringing the united states to a proxy war.nflict or military intervention is always n option, should be an option, but an option of last resort. the best outcome for the syrian negotiate a political transition as opposed to assad's syria. said that, the responsibility of the department of defense is to protect security and to provide the president for a full range options for any contingency. the united states military is prepared to respond at the president's direction. we'll continue to meet security
the region and support efforts to achieve political security to the crisis. i'll ask if general dempsey has remarks. >> thank you, general? general, i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the syria.ing situation in it remains tragic and dangerous for he people of syria and the region. i know you're familiar with testimony by numerous officials come up to capitol hill across government from the last everal weeks who have come to discuss this subject with you. aisle focus the brief military remarks on the issue of syria in power and how it could relate to syria. our focus has been on preparedness. we deployed patriot missiles to prepare turkey. we're sharing information and planning with our close partners as secretary
hagel said. conducted our own internal planning for a wide variety and we'reof contingencies and well postured in the region for any contingenciecontingencies. the responsibility has and always will be to provide the secretary of defense and the president of the united with options. some options involve the use of military force. he decision to use force, especially lethal force, is not one that any of us takes lightly. have a ing options, we responsibility to align the use outcome.to the responsibility to articulate risk. options may not be feasible in terms of time or opportunity compromising our security elsewhere. so before we take action, we have to be prepared for what the use of force, especially in circumstances ethnic and religious
dominate is not to prevent outcomes. his is not an attempt to avoid intervention and conflict, but to emphasize that unintended are the rule with military interventions. in cases where a direct threat homeland is unclear and where it's assessed to be pa uture rather than an imminent threat, we should act in exon sert with the allies and partners to shape the outcome the burden.r that said, i would note that the armed forces of if united states nearly anything asked of it provided we have the support of the american people to the resources necessary accomplish the mission. thank you for your support of america's sons and daughters in and i look forward to your questions. both very much. let me have a first round this afternoon. laid out retary, you the policy of the administration
in their own statement. hastened the end of the policy, , bring about a a transition to a post-assad authority. working in your judgment? my judgment, mr. chairman, i start with this as i have noted ismy statement, this at best a complicated situation. all understand that. the chairman's comments about dynamics ineligious play. of the edictability region itself. >> at the end of your is it your judgment working.r policy is
it achieved the objective. we continue to look for other ways to do other this. and continue to deepen our elationships with our allies and coalitions. general, are there any additional military pressures assad that placed on should be gment undertaken with all of the risks? >> as i sit here today, senator, not see that the introduction of military force outcome that the we seek. and that outcome, i'm deeply concerned. sectarian conflict that i don't think should be left unaddressed, let me be clear about that. but the introduction of military power right now could -- possibility ofhe making the situation worse. s it possible -- should we
if turkey that the were able to create a safe zone along the a syrian-turkish border, first of all, do you think we should it if they were willing to do that? options thatof the e have produced is, in fact, support of both turkey and jordan for the establishment of zones, if tarian safe you will. might that option include the movement of the turkish border, the movement of patriot missiles to protect zone?afe >> it would have to include some kind of no-fly zone to protect the safe zone. i'm not sure that the use of the patriot in that way, i'm quite sure that the use of the patriot way would not accomplish the task, but could be a part of
the - couldn't accomplish task in isolation. but could be part of task. ishing the >> why else would we need it? >> in general to protect the to have someu have the ground beyond it. range.illery 90% of the casualties in syria are inflicted by artillery. so to do this in a correct way, expand the safe zone to include however many fathers out behind that, you would have control to ensure the it.llery to protect the scuts produce a different kind of problem. here are things we can do to deal with that as well. >> and would you support that? i don't know if that he's called introduction of military force. i guess it is, even though we're not talking about the american troops.
e're talking about the introduction of a capability along the border or near the order to accomplish the protection of that zone if turkey decided it were willing to do it. to n't know if you want label that the introduction of military power. it is, but it eems not inside of syria. are you -- do you think we ought to consider doing that? not, is there any military pressure that we could might attract assad's attention? the could back up, because question about would i support the use of military power -- i that it should be -- should be predicated by the produce.we're trying to and i clearly, ending the suffering is a legitimate and outcome.t preventing the failure of the of syria, defending the ensuring that syria doesn't become a safe
haven for groups like al al-air filiated groups, al-sham and others. know before we establish the safe zone is that really want to understand what we were willing to do, either by partners when it escalated. because it will escalate. again, this is not a reason not it, senator, but rather to understand the end of the journey before you take the first step. >> we can agree with that. can you reach the conclusion as to what the next steps would be? what the impact of such a 3r0 tektive zone is? are you in the process of thinking that through? looking at the extent possible and the discussions inside of our government, both the intelligence community and with the state department colleagues.
words don't want to put in your mouth, but might you conclude in the near future that steps might be appropriate? i can't predict that senator, at this point. >> i tell you, the work is just don't know where it's going. > secretary, what's the status of our thinking about al-nussera. our judgment, is it part now of al qaeda or not? e've gotten different statements depending on whether it's the -- the al-nussera folks inside of syria or whether it's al qaeda and iraq. assessment? >> you understand you have general clapper coming up here tomorrow. he can give you a clear assessment of that. but -- -- hat's the >> what 's the question? it's my sense that it's a -- very clear and as you orce in syria
have seen through open sources. they have made an effort to themselves with al qaeda qaeda. it is a very effective terrorist group. up the issue of iraq fromflights over carrying equipment to assa assad. you made efforts in the department of defense personnel programs are r jordan, closely with turkey, and iraq to encounter nuclear weapons. so if iraq is threatened by syria's chemical weapons, yet, used tor space is being protect assad, have you taken
in a very firmaq way? kerry,ou know, secretary ecently had met with president maliki. and the answer is yes. e are engaged in active discushions, the iraqis. ccain?ator m >> general dempsey, when you and thattary panetta testified both of you recommended the supply of weapons to the motivated -- at what -- what led you to that recommendation? theell, at the time, the -- recommendation was based on -- like we had a clear enough understanding of the moderate opposition. and we felt as though it was in the long term interest of syria that the n state institutions wouldn't fail and that the time was proper at that
way. t to intervene that >> is it proper now to provide them with weapon s? if i tell you the truth, could -- it's actually more con using on the opposition side today than it was six months ago. there are more weapons in syria. the decision ade then to supply them with weapons, it would have been less complicated than now? >> that's a potential solution -- a potential conclusion, yes, sir. >> i don't know about potential. now let me -- let me get this straight. so now you think the situation provide the x to resistance with weapons? you've changeled your recommendation? asked , i haven't been for a recommendation yet. asking for your opinion. military judgment is that ow that we've seen the al-nussera and
motably and the photograph fls flowing to syria and those groups. > does that mean you don't think we should supply the resistance with weapons, the right people? clearly identify the right people, i would it.port >> i would remind you, a year last march, you and panetta said the fall assad is inevitable. of course they're coming in from all over the arab world. that's what we said would happen. that's what we said would happen. oes it astonish you that jihadists from all over the middle east are pouring into syria? never saw it as inevitable. >> i will get your ceremony.
it's not a matter of whether, it's a matter of when. >> that's true. i thought for sometime that whether assad fell there would from ontinuing insurgency that point forward because of the ay they treated opposition. >> and because they continue to get the flow of arms from russia and from iran. you're aware of general ma 'tis' bashar fell, it would be the greatest in 25 years. >> i am. both testified that a fair amount of the assad's perational aircraft could be destroyed on the ground using standoff weaponry. aware of that? >> i am and we've done the analysis. >> not as if we're going to have to take out all of the syrian defense systems. all i can say, secretary hagel,
is military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian operations. that's so out of touch with the on ities of the situation the ground and syria, it's almost laughable. reason why we're not getting ensuringn, they're not the aid could go in. unilateral military action could strain other key international partnerships as no international or regional consensus. there's no consensus, you will trip, plk, that they want american leadership. visit the refugee camps and met with the opposition, i angry andill, they're bitter. we are breeding a generation of will as was
articulated to me by a teacher the refugee camps, the children will take revenge on the people who refused to help them. every day goes by. the situation gets worse. on. -- the slaughter goes we we sit by and say, well, intervened, itwe reliefinder humanitarian operations. operations. it's hard to understand. it's hard to understand what is doing istration when at that time every member of the national security team recommended sending arms. according to what i understand you're saying, general dempsey, now maybe it's complicated. of course, it's more complicated than the day it started when a othersf young people and rose up against bashar assad. and i would argue that every day by, there are more and more of these extremists coming in and making it more and more
complicated. i guess you'd believe we have the capability, general dempsey, o secure the chemical weapons stocks? other said in the session, sir. we've simply got the ability. on the ould depend environment, hostile to collaborative. but we've got the planning done. it were a hostile environment, it would be an intervention. if assad fell and left the of the me illar american policy for now well would we have to put troops on the ground to weapons ose chemical caches? >> we would -- if we had opposition, n the now, you remember now, the opposition has said publicly hey do not want foreign intervention inside the borders of syria.
we have all of this a planning done. do you have confidence they could secure it? >> they've been moving it and the number of sites quite numerous. i'm sure that you understand when i talk to these people that they appreciate the jackets. meanwhile, the iranians are weapons and people that they have trained in iran the torture rs and while the ns go on united states says, well -- let's see. ecretary hagel's statement, military intervention could have the unintented consequence of bringing into the united states regional war. i'm glad that you are not in kosovo.during bosnia and thank you, mr. chairman.
thank you, senator mccain. senator king? a specific question. what is israel's position in should do.what we action? urging greater what's their position on this discussing?e're had a discussion hat would revolve around this question on what they may or may us to do.ling i spoke to our counterparts. be there discussing this issue. recommendations, conversations their senior leaders have had with our senior leaders on a position on syria, i don't know. out, senator, the that question hints at
real challenge that we've got, this issue. which is there are multiple players. has a bit of a different concern with the situation. o if you're turkey, you're worried about the safe haven for the kurdish pkk. you're jordan, your concern is the flow of refugees and as jihadists.bed them, if you're israel, you have a sense that the chemical weapons turned on ually be them. the heavier defense weapons of d get in the hands lebanese hezbollah. a sense that these jihadists could turn on them. if you're iran, you want your to prevail. if you're some of the gulf selected they have groups where they believe will their form of government and islam. this is what makes this
ituation as complex as any on the planet. simple solution to that kind of complexity. >> as compared to libya, for instance? place. mpared to any >> i couldn't help but thinking talking having a colloquy with senator mccain, my favorite quotes from mark twain is history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. ou have long experience with the use of our force. and i take it from what you're to ng that there's no way predict where this would lead. there's no way to say, okay, e're just going to do a little air power. we're going to do a no-fly zone. question comes one after another. is that your concern?
>> yes, i want to understand the that we believe we are trying to encourage. because that has to happen outside of syria. once i understand the outcome, i can take the tool box i've got and i can probably provide an three. or two or but in the absence of understanding what we want syria to -- i mean, we've said we want a transactional government that's representative in nature and all parties coming -- but show me how that happens. >> everybody wants that. >> right. arms.the question of in afghanistan we armed an government gainst a that wasn't in our interest and they used the arms against us 10 years later. you can't tell where the arms are going to end up, isn't that correct? >> it is, sir. that's why the issue of arming on the surface of it seems to be
-- is clean is anything anything but. s this -- i mean, look, you've -- you have landed on the face in that issue in particular, arming the opposition. >> we want to arm the good guys, if only we could tell for sure who they are. think this case presents one issues in difficult american foreign policy. when do we get involved in an atrocity going on within someone else's country. that's a very tough question. would we have intervened in germany in 1938 if we knew what was going on. i think we all like to say we we d have and if we could, would have stopped it. it presupposes and the
implication is we have a right do that anywhere in the world if there's an atrocity going on. that a u reflect on little bit? >> thank you, senator. defined one t significant kpant issue -- of militaryal basis intervention in the country. certainly every nation has a themselves in t their own history of self-defense. but to answer your question, you of the dimensions of his that you laid out, as did amplify on psey who cuts back ations and on the quell, when do we do this. what basis? we canthere a frame work follow? y answer is you start with the realities. these are both imperfect
different situations. out, i dempsey laid think, rather clearly some of he dimensions of each of the countries in that region. self-interest. you have others who have self-interest in this, whether or tribal or historic or national. all of try to assess then is our t objective? how much costs are you willing to bear? always be a cost. in the opening comments, you alk about if you get involved however way it is in a military a ervention, there will be cost to that. could be a deep cost, very high cost. approach in my sense of these things you better always ask the end game questions -- where is this going? where is it likely to end? end?how is it likely to
zpan, -- iraq and the senate, i was in at the time both of those began distinguish the colleagues sitting in front of me were. i don't recall any time that one came to testify in front of the united states congress that this would be an >> someone in the administration was fired. >> thought was right. 12 years later, we are still in afghanistan. a higher number than anybody would have predicted. eight years in iraq. whether that was the right thing or the wrong thing is a different issue. you have to play this thing out a little better.
if the president asks for a recommendation on any of those, yes, we will be prepared, but we have to factor into that, at what cost will this be for men and women having to fight in that war. talk always easy to policy. it may be the smart thing to do, but you better be damn sure before you get into something. once you are into it, there is not any backing out. whether there is a no-fly zone, once you are in, you can not online ditch. unwind it. .enator mccain's -- there could be more bloodshed.
there could be more of a humanitarian disaster. >> the other folks on the other side, russia or iran, we are in, they will get in any major way. we have a significant conflict. >> that is another element. there is no consensus. libya, some of these other countries, there was a consensus. we had some kind of a consensus. we do not have a consensus. it makes it even more complicated. that goes into it -- that gets us into legal issues. the consensus of what we should do. there is no consensus. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you, senator. ago,neral dempsey, a year there was a discussion about the
introduction of arms and you were much more tuned into the specifics. was assaultn was it weapons, and individual weapons. >> yes. hasn the subsequent year, the opposition received significant number of small arms from sources other than the united states? >> it has. not beenck of arms has an issue in terms of the conflicts on the ground? >> there is no shortage of arms and syria. >> what is the problem? ago, theident a year surprising durability of bashar
al-assad, but also the continued in coherence of the opposition. is that a fair statement? >> yes. is to try tos been build a coherent inclusive opposition as the key strategic element in resolving this situation. is that a fair judgment? with is more important now a coalescing of these extremist the moderate opposition becomes more important. >> there is another aspect of this issue as the level of conflict, it is not supplying the opposition, it is interdicting support for the regime. the chairmen mentioned iraq,
that support is coming from iran. increase in the arms we provide, the assumption would be that would be matched unless we took pro-active steps by further exploit -- escalation. >> i am not sure i understood the connection. is already public reporting that the iranians and others have a vested interest in the success of the regime. they are providing support. both sideslooking at of the conflict, supply and one -- may havehe other no effect. it goes diplomatically to our relationship with iraq, it is
supporting money, arms, political support for the regina. is that a fair point? >> yes. they did for the regime. is that a fair point? >> yes. >> talking about a safe area, somebody has to be able to publicly state their were in control of the grounds. , jordan andountries turkey, are more interested in having a safe area outside their borders to they do not have this influx. >> that means even if they do not take actions immediately, when they declare that the safe area, to stop mechanized vehicles, they would physically have to patrol the ground, either through air strikes or
artillery strikes or introducing force on the ground. >> that is correct. the safe zone is only safe if you ensure its safety. you have to control the train. >> -- the terrain. >> that would require, given the predisposition of the turks and the jordanians, declaring some sort of syrian territory to be controlled by another country. >> i think that is right. >> we tried to search for analogies. provide an arrangement with the kurds in iraq after 91, but it strikes me that we had defeated the government, we had opposed conditions on them -- post conditions on them. there was no need to provide --
we had an operation to ensure what the iraqis would agree to. is that a fair recollection? >> yes, sir, oedipus. >> you have to continue to plan for every. yes, sir, it is. >> you have to continue to plan for every contingency. the plan has to be very thorough, resources have to be considered. what we have learned to our forrin is we have to hope the vast and plan for the worst. the worst could include eight serious engagement of u.s. forces, which is hard to reverse. it is extraordinarily expensive. have you put in the numbers to the situation in which we were
asked, a modest troop level to support our allies? figure, but in each of these options, we understand the resources required. aircraft, munitions, manpower. if we are asked to do something in syria, it will require supplemental, no question. >> any comments that you might have? >> your dialogue with the somemen starts to get to of the dynamics that have to be thought through. we look at these plans every day. planning staff, that our commanders, we are constantly
refining bad based on the realities some of those issues have been brought up today. the different issues, the point you started with this key component of all of this. coherent opposition. days toa very difficult start from. -- base to start from. when the intent is to help in some way, provide arms to someone, it is easy to say, the anti-assad forces. who exactly are we talking about? i know we have the military coalition group. clearopinion, it is not ,o make any conclusions
conclusive adjustments to a policy recommendation. this is what we should do. >> i have used two terms, coherent and inclusive. general density suggested, should there be an immediate collapse of the government, there is the potential for civil strife, as the opposition is coherent and embraces the three major traditions in the country. in other contexts, in libya, there were tribal rivalries, but there was not a traditional distinction in other areas. that is an elusive objective. thank you very much. >> it is important to mention that you'll hear some folks say,
we have to act now or we risk this becoming a sectarian conflict. i want you -- i want to give you my view. it is a sectarian conflict. how do regional partners resolve so that when it collapses, it is not turn into a leaden non-like experience. lebanon-like led the n experience. >> let's have a second round, maybe five minutes. i do not think anyone would disagree about the need to have an end game idea. what are the effects of our or if we use act
some additional military pressure? to act alongides that border, that we would be supportive of turkey. having a very important allies in the region. i think we also, is it fair to say, to figure out the consequences of any actions and we have to figure out the consequences of not acting. >> i agree with that. what we have been doing with the israelis, with the turks, and with the jordanians is trying to help them lower the risk of spillover effects. that as in the category of inaction. >> how many refugees are there? >> the numbers are a bit elusive, it could be as many as a million. some of the move into camps and some of them moved into homes.
it could be a million. >> is there a destabilizing impact? >> very well could be prepared to gainey and are concerned about having this change their debt -- very well could be. the jordanians are concerned about having this change their demographic. >> is this a consequence of not acting? >> it is a consequence -- >> could that be a consequence of not acting? the refugees continue into jordan and they become more state -- the stabilized. >> you can argue both sides on almost any of these issues. >> it is important that both sides be argued. the only thing you have argued today is that we have to look for the consequences of actions. what we have not heard from you, and i do not know if it is your job, to look at the consequences
of not acting. it is our job to look of the consequences of both sides. would you agree with that? >> i do not think we are guilty of not acting. i am here talking about military power. the other instruments of national power are being applied. we can judge how well or not well they are being applied. achieved a policy goal yet. our policy achieved goals there. we have not achieved them yet, i think you would agree. --it has never been our goal you said if the president asks for a recommendation, does this mean there has been no
recommendations from either of you to the president on this question yet? >> on military power? >> additional military pressure? >> we of that national security staff meetings, at which we have been asked to brief the options. we have not been asked for a recommendation. >> i have not been asked by the president. i want to go back to point you made, which i noted in my testimony for a very specific reason. we do not have broader responsibilities, but my main responsibility as secretary of is security of this country. on not first.ways that has to fold into our national security objectives.
it is to support that policy. i want to get back to that because i think your comments and observations, at least from my perspective, was important. >> you talk about a lack of a consensus. that is true. i do not know there was a consensus in bosnia. i am trying to remember if there was a consensus in bosnia. do not forget that there was a nato consensus. >> that is correct. >> there is not a nato consensus on syria. apparently, there is among the gulf cooperation council, they have decided to remove bashar al-assad from his seat and give that to the opposition. is that accurate?
>> they are finding that some of those -- some of the opposition forces, i do not know if there is a formal gcc position. >> in terms of who represents syria at the gcc, i have read there is such a decision. that would be some evidence of a regional consensus. i am not saying it is compelling, overwhelming. >> i am not sure it is regional. it is more within the opposition would then syria. it is syrian opposition, the soc. i am not sure they represent any countries there. >> we will double check. that was my understanding.
there has been a report that the areish, perhaps the french, considering additional support to the opposition, military support, it is that accurate? >> i am not aware of that, although we have been conducting integrated planning with them as are close natal allies. i have not heard -- are closed nato allies. >> they are not more forward leaning than we are? out, beg the established before the action -- the outcome be established before the auction. >> -- auction. >> i do have some additional questions. can you tell us what's your understanding is as to whether or not syria has used chemical
weapons? agencies areigence going into more detail on what we know and what we do not know. when general clapper is before you tomorrow, i am sure he will get into that. i suspect some of this will have to be done in closed session. has saidary kerry given the current conditions on the ground and syria, the president is unlikely to leave voluntarily. you agree with that assessment? >> i do. >> it is only additional pressure on him, the physical pressure, that will drive him out? >> i suspect that is the pressure that doesn't. -- does it.
>> general, you talked about the opposition having arms and there has been a flow of arms to the wassition and your answer there is no shortage of arms in syria. the arms the opposition has are not of comparable effectiveness, are they, too what assad has? >> not at the top end. the opposition does not have aircraft, although they have captured some. they do not have missiles and rockets, but their small arms are comparable. >> would you say this is an even fight militarily? >> there is a risk that this conflict has become still make
-- stalemate. >> the arms the opposition has re equally -- to what assad brings to bear? >> not at the top event. -- top end. >> he has greater capability? >> yes. thatwant to go back to flights thatpply are going to syria over iraqi airspace. that troubles me a great deal. in your opening statement, you made reference to the fact that we're working with iraq in terms of their concern about chemical weapons inside of syria. i do not know how bad jives with their unwillingness to stop
those flights -- how that jibes with their unwillingness to stop those flights. of thoseot approve flights and they are not happening. do we believe that? flights are getting into syria. >> over iraqi airspace? >> coming from iran. >> over iraqi airspace? >> i suspect that is right. we are talking to the rockies about that. -- the iraqis about that. out that weoint have been talking to the iraqis about this for about two years. it is well known that the iranians are supplying them with weapons. honestly, what you do not say
that we know that because it is in the public demand. i do not understand. -- is in the public domain. i do not understand. lebanon and jordan are less stable than they were because of the strains on their country. >> their stability are both affected by the conflict in syria. destabilization obviously is of great concern to israel. >> it is. in particular, the chemical weapons and height and air defense weapons. high-end air defense weapons. would those systems have the
capability to take out scud missiles? have the geometry. it is like an umbrella, but you can tip it forward. >> do you have any evidence, or is it not clear, where are we in the scenarios to whether assad has used chemical weapons or not? >> that question came up just before you came in. he may have to take you to closed session to answer that question. we have seen open source reporting. i cannot say more than that in this session. >> it seems to me that sense the president has made it clear that this is a red line, that would be the last act that he might
hisorm in order to avert overthrow. by the way, i know you are concerned, general, about the , thdrawal of bashar al-assad connected to hezbollah. that is one of the scenarios that seems to me of consent -- of significant concern. are you worried about that scenario? >> i consider that the most likely scenario. >> the conflict drags on for quite a period of time. >> i want to apologize for my emotion about this issue. perfect --ng on is horrific. i worry about what happens now
and what happens in the future in a country that is clearly becoming more and more divided, more and more casualties, more and more destabilization of the neighboring nations. i hope you will not only look at it from the humanitarian side, which a lot of us are deeply fromonal about, but also the aspect of national security. the scenario you and i just talked about transpires if the extremist bashar al-assad decides to use the chemical weapons, if the jihadists gains the ascendancy in syria, obviously, they would want to destabilize both lebanon and jordan.
be thealls, it would greatest blow to the iranians in 25 years. the centrifuges are spending. there is a great deal at stake here. i have the belief that the american people would not tolerate boots on the ground. there are a number of ways we could be of assistance working with countries already assistance. mr. secretary, i hope he will give it a high priority, your deliberations and conclusions about the situation given the human toll that is being enacted every day that this goes on. you to the witnesses.
would you like to say anything in response? >> i assure you that i consider it and understand the human suffering and tragedy that is syria. i spent a good deal of my adult life trying to figure out the middle east. this one is the toughest of all. we are putting our shoulder to it in terms of planning and we will be prepared. >> senator mccain, thank you. you that i am committed to working with you to try to find some way we can do more responsibly. i can also tell you that yesterday, german dempsey and i'm not with the president -- chairman dempsey and i met with the president, not about this hearing,
i know that you have seen him recently, about the issue. i cannot speak for him, nor what i try, but i can tell you that he is concerned about it for the same reasons, senator, that you are and we all are. we are committed to trying to find the best way out of this for everybody. >> i think you for that and i am very appreciative of it, and i promise you that you can count on the cooperation and assistance and support of these two old geezers. thank you. >> he is speaking for himself in terms of the old geezer reference. i wanted to clarify a point and summarize. -- hey reference in terms made reference to the forces.
at the moment, at least, they are in the distinct minority, is that not true, in terms of the anti-assad forces numerically? is that accurate? >> i would think it is. my reference was to reemphasize what the chairman was saying about the different forces of foot. recall, theret are a lot of very good people, free syrians who want a future for the country. that is not to be under played nor understated nor under appreciated, but my reference was to all of the different groups who are in this opposition crowd. >> we sure do not want them to grow any further. >> we do not. >> the al qaeda, the jihadist. the other thing, all of the factors that have been mentioned, the last was
humanitarian, but you mentioned also of course the impact of these events on our friends and allies in the region, including jordan and israel and turkey. iran, whether or not their support for syria can succeed is perhaps as critical an issue as any thing. i don't think we have ever really fully understood what took thepen if iraq course that it took in terms of iran being strengthened. we see a number of areas, iran getting stronger, particularly in terms of their missile and nuclear systems, and i think if they succeed here in blocking a
isoval of assad that that just another strengthening element in terms of iran, which is to be avoided as much as any of these negative factors. i want to again thank -- you have any questions? i want to thank senator mccain for his determination on this. i have joined with him in pressing for additional, looking for additional ways to put military pressure on assad, sending a message of inevitability, a message of determination, and i think for many reasons the sooner the better. again, we have had a long day and we're very grateful for allowing the scheduling the way has been done. >> thank you. >> we will stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
defense minister. then he will head to riyadh, saudi arabia, cairo, egypt, wrapping up his visit with the united arab emirates. the u.s. preparing a military aid package of up to $130 million for syrian opposition forces. according to support, that could include body armor, armored vehicles, night vision goggles, and communications equipment. secretary of state john kerry is traveling to istanbul to meet with the syrian opposition leader and a full meeting of foreign ministers involved in the friends of syria group. yesterday, secretary of state mexican foreign secretary josé antonio meade held a press conference at the state department.
they offered their condolences to the people of boston. >> good morning, everybody. before we begin, i want to just say that as a father and grandfather, my thoughts are of course in my hometown right now, boston, where events are still unfolding and the entire city is on lockdown. we are continuing to learn every moment about the attack on monday and the pursuit of justice following it. it is fair to say that this entire week we have been in a pretty direct confrontation with evil. i want to congratulate and thank all of the law enforcement authorities for the extraordinary job that they have been doing on behalf of our citizens. havee past few days, we seen the best and the worst of human behavior. it is the best that all of us really want to focus on.
like everyone, we are going to keep watching. we will await word from the law enforcement officers before commenting further. it's a huge pleasure for me and an important moment to welcome one of our most important partners, our close neighbor and our friend, and i want to welcome my friend, the secretary. one of the first calls i made when i became secretary of state was to josé. we share an alma mater together. he was a graduate student, i was an undergraduate. whatever we don't say right today, you can blame it on them. muchviously share much more than alma mater. both of us are privileged to represent our extraordinary countries. we share a remarkable friendship and very strong partnership that is growing
stronger all the time. for generations we have lived side-by-side as families and neighbors, sharing geography and common interests and hopes and dreams. the foreign secretary and i share a firm commitment to the unique components of our relationship and we share a common vision for what we can achieve through even greater cooperation and partnership. we share a friendship and an open line of communication, starting with the earliest conversations that i had when i assumed this office. closeend to remain in contact with each other. we talked about that today. we have a lot of things to continue to cooperate on. we want to increase the economic growth of both of our countries, expand economic opportunity for people, and we want to provide greater security for the people of the united
states and mexico. our countries share one of the most successful and interconnected economic partnerships in the world. it is based on mutual respect and shared responsibility. bilateral trade amounted to nearly $500 billion last year. that's more than four times what it was only 20 years ago. high-level economic delegations have already been meeting, and we are exploring ways to strengthen our existing partnership, avenues for increased economic cooperation. i'm convinced we're going to find them. the people of the united states are also intently focused on the immigration debate. let me know that the two countries have made significant progress in building and strengthening our security over the last 10 years. almost one billion people
legally cross the u.s.-mexico border every single day. more than 1.2 5 billion in trade passes between our countries every single day. you can't do that without major cooperation, but also without providing major opportunities for both of our countries. the foreign secretary and i agree that if we are going to sustain these gains, we have to expand educational opportunities for our young people. already thousands of mexicans and americans students study in each other's countries. we are developing cross- cultural understanding and 21st- century skills that make north america's platform for economic growth stand out from countries all around the world. president obama's 100,000 strong in the americas
initiative will create even more opportunity for students over the course of the next years. finally, we know we have a responsibility to continue to address our security challenges. we're going to continue to affect close security cooperation, respect for human and civil rights. we understand those are deeply enshrined in both u.s. and mexican constitutions. we know that citizen security is critical to the people of both of our countries. it's really good to welcome you here to washington. i look forward to our conversation. i know president obama is very much looking forward to his trip to mexico in may and meeting with the president. there we will be able to solidify some of the things we're talking about today. welcome to washington. thank you for the extraordinary
partnership that we share. >> thank you, sir. and morning, ladies gentlemen. allow me to express once again the solidarity of the people and government of mexico with united states, with the horrific incidents that took place last monday in boston. we stand beside you and have you in our hearts and prayers. i also want to submit condolences to those affected by the explosion in the town of west, in texas. bostonto commend the police department for heroic action. we have just concluded a very productive meeting. we have touched upon a bilateral agenda, educational investment, infrastructure,
security. we talked about the importance of security cooperation. we welcome the introduction of the immigration reform bill in the u.s. senate. we welcome the fact of constructive cooperation. mexico and united states have a very strong relationship. it would create more than $1 million per minute. mexico is the most important export market for 22 of the 50
united states. mexico and the u.s. exports to mexico more than it does to china and japan combined. the u.s. exports to mexico more than it does to any european country as a group, and i think it is success. it is something that we have built upon. we can look at it with a north american perspective and find common answers to global problems. i can think of no better partner to work with than secretary kerry, whose personal leadership of some of the world's best being recognized, from security to climate change, to democratization of human rights. i spoke about our bilateral
projects. we are very grateful for that relationship and the work we will do together. in a couple of weeks, we will receive president obama in mexico. we are honored by his decision to travel to our country. this will be the second face- to-face conversation in just over five months, a testament to the commitment to advance our economic agenda, deep in the ties between societies, ensure the security of our citizens. thank you again, secretary kerry. thank you all for your attention. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> we will take to questions.
>> what is the boston attack say about the threat to the u.s. posed by chechen extremists? have you been in touch with russia or any other country on the matter? wouldn't the russians see this as a validation of their arguments on chechnya, and maybe even syra regarding terrorism? stateole did the specifically play in the investigation into the bombings? lawt this point, enforcement officers are carrying out an ongoing investigation. they are at critical stages here. it would be entirely inappropriate for me to be commenting on the tick tock around the larger issues outside of it. the fbi will lay out the details of contacts and information at the appropriate moment. the important thing right now
is, as a president is said, we're going to find those responsible and bring them to justice. we are part of the way there. the president intends to finish that job. this,ldn't an event like if it has any connection to chechnya or separatists in southern russia, wouldn't this strengthen -- >> i'm not going to get into the hypothetical. let's wait and see what the fbi details at the appropriate time. the one thing i will say is, terror is terror. this underscores the importance of all of us in remaining vigilant and cooperating together. terror anywhere in the world against any country is unacceptable. it strengthens my resolve and sense that we are on the right
track, but there is more that we can do. president obama has made this a critical component of his foreign-policy. >> secretary, has been interest expressed in broadening cooperation with the u.s. the on the border. what kinds of new initiatives or programs can we expect along the road? after the 9/11 attacks, secretary kerry, some countries in latin america saw that the relationship with them was put in the back burner for several years. do you anticipate this event in boston could derail your intends to reach out to the region? >> we have agreed to enlarge
our agenda. we are going to be talking about initiatives that have to do with high-level engagement. we will be talking and we will find a mechanism to continue to talk in terms of education and research innovation. those issues and the structure around them will be set in the agendas and talks set by president obama. >> the answer is profoundly, yes. i intend to, personally. i had intended to try to travel to the region next week, but because of the events of this week and because of some other things happening, i've had to postpone that temporarily. i will be getting to the region very shortly. president obama is traveling to the region. verydent obama feels strongly and has asked me to focus on how we can strengthen our economic partnerships in
latin america and central america. i intend to do that. we talked today. the beginning of our conversation, very first thing out of my mouth was, we don't want to define his relationship with mexico or other countries in the context of security or counter narcotics traffic. we want to define a much larger in the context of our citizens economic needs and our capacity to do more on the economic frontier. goingnvinced that we're to grow that relationship. in terms of jobs, we talked about ways to link up with the transatlantic investment trade and partnership program. in the long run, it may be possible to find ways to strengthen both of us through those kinds of initiatives. course, mexico is a partner in the trans-pacific
partnership. we are growing this relationship, we will continue to grow it, and at the knees to be the defining relationship, in connection with democracy and human rights. thank you very much. thank you all very, very much. appreciate it. >> when secretary clariant concludes his meeting in istanbul, he will travel to brussels, belgium, for the u.n. and nato foreign ministers' meeting. he also plans to see the russian foreign minister on the sidelines at the meetings. secretary kerry is scheduled to be in europe through wednesday. >> over the last four years, i am a little worried about this administration. and that as part of a long-term trend i have outlined in the book. it is using more and more state
power to impose a particular world view, a world view i called liberalism. and we will go to a definition of that so we do not use terms loosely. but as a christian, i am worried when a state agency wants to mandate that catholic institutions of have to pay for abortions and their insurance programs and i am worried when the supreme court starts ticking up things like gay marriage. i am worried about things i see at the universities. i see more and more the state imposing a particular kind of agenda, and it is really a world view. this is bigger than politics. it is bigger than a republican, democrat, it is a world view. that is what i am investigating. on liberalismiker as the state religion and the de-christianize asian of
america, part of "book tv" on cspan 2. ist: catherine lotrionte here to talk to us about cyber security and privacy. she is a former council to white house intelligence advisory board and currently a georgetown university professor and cyber project founder. welcome to the program. guest: good morning. thank you. host: first off, talk to us about the boston -- the suspected boston bomber, the second one is reported to have used social media, facebook, and twitter to talk to friends of his after the bombing. what protections, if the government was trying to track him down through his use of social media, what protections do the current laws offer to his friends from being prosecuted for being associated with this guy just for using social media?
guest: for the use of social media itself, there's no crime of doing that. informations the that the government is given show that had somebody is cooperating with him or conspiring, assisting him and avoiding being brought to justice they could be brought to court for obstruction of justice or conspirators to the crime. so the social media use itself not being a crime, nobody would be held responsible for the use of it just because they were on -- a friend of his on facebook itself. passedhis week the house a cyber security bill that would establish a framework to provide private companies and the federal government to share information relating to computer related threats. some oppose this cyber intelligence sharing and protection act also known as cispa. over concerns of privacy and president obama has threatened to veto this bill.
so talk to us about the details of it and what it is that is raising concern on both sides of the aisle, i guess. guest: the side that the debate is really as you said about the level of privacy protections granted within the bill. president's executive order that he issued recently. and the bill itself actually is meant to improve encourage the private sector and the federal government to share some critical information on cyber threat. so cyber threat information as the bill describes it where companies would be free to provide whichever federal agency they felt most comfortable with, and this is part of the privacy advocates' concerns, it doesn't limit the sharing of the information for instance only within civilian agency like d.h.s. hast's a private company information on using their cyber security systems they
determine and find what they have -- what the bill calls cyber threat information. eyreed under the bill to provide it to any government agency they feel most comfortable with. so for instance if they have a longstanding relationship with the military, they are free to provide that information to the military agencies. or with the national security agency. now, the privacy advocates are concerned that this -- and the president's own executive on the other hand limited sharing only with d.h.s. so there's this debate as to whether that information private companies provide should be only given to a civilian government agency versus a military or an intelligence agency. host: so let's say for example d.h.s., the department of homeland security is looking into my background and a
potential cyber threat that i pose. and in doing so they find some information electronically that i haven't been up front with my taxes. this would prevent d.h.s. from say sharing that information with the internal revenue service? guest: the private companies in sharing information, the biggest concern is -- individuals are concerned that their private information within the cyber networks or systems would be held by private companies but then provided to the government, that this private information would not be stripped by the companies first. in the president's executive order, the onus would be on the privacy advocates. companiesthe private to strip any private information that might be caught
up within the context of cyber threat information. first one has to understand the definition of cyber threat. it is unlikely but not impossible that your private tax information, your e-mail content would be part of that information that is a cyber threat information that would be given to the government. is there a possibility that it would be lumped in with that? yes. so whose responsibility is it to minimize and get rid of your private information? the bill does not allow the government to use the information that it receives from the private company for anything other than a few select crimes which is outlined in the bill. for example, cyber crime. for the protection of minor children, so if there is molestation or pornography involved, that information can be used to stop those crimes, or
if someone's life is at risk. what you mention for tax evasion or drug use, that is not allowed within this bill for the government to use that information for those purposes. even beyond that concern, people are concerned about the government just having possession of the private information. if we want the government not to have private information that might be lumped in with the cyber threat information, who should be getting rid of it? the companies, when they want to share with the government, they do not want that added burden of having to scrub all that threat information for any pii that might be in there. at the moment it does not put the onus on the company, but would allow the information go to the government, and have the government get rid of any possible private information that arrives. with we're talking
catherine lotrionte about cybersecurity and privacy. she is a professor at georgetown university, cyber project founder. to's also a former counsel the white house foreign intelligence advisory board. if you want to get involved in our conversation, please give us a call. the numbers are in your screen. you can also send us messages via social media, twitter@c- span wj. we also still take an e-mail or two. why does the government need this information from private companies like comes to cybersecurity?
guest: there are certain things that the government have the capability of collecting themselves. they have a sense of the breadth and the depth of the threat that is being faced now. the number of private entities, banks, news media outlets, "new york times" under cyber attacks -- what the government has determined is that a key to the success in stopping these attacks is that we need to have as much information about the threat is possible. the private sector and the government from whole different set of information -- sometimes it is the same. the companies, they are seeing the threats as they materialize on their own network. the government does not see that. the government has indicated
that in order for us to prevent these pretty aggressive cyber attacks from continuing, one key fundamental way to get the problem is to increase the information sharing. the private sector has information on their own network that the government does not have that if the government did have, the government would do a better job of protecting the system and vice versa. the executive order that the president came down with emphasized critical infrastructure only, so it was more narrowly focused. the president was focused more on the government giving its information to the private sector. informationtion of put together should give us a better picture of the threat, the landscape of who the adversaries are, and what they're after and how they're going about technically getting that information. host: the rogers you referred
to is representative mike rogers of the house intelligence committee, who is deceased on twitter after saying, opposition to a cybersecurity bill came from 14-year-olds in the basement. first up, a call on our line for independents. caller: hello. on the cybersecurity, i think if you're going to become a u.s. citizen, like the people from 9/11 and the people but in boston bombings -- if you want to be a u.s. citizen, you should have one of these cameras strapped to your forehead so people can keep an eye on you 24/7. how many people see the news?
it only showed it once after 9/11. a couple of the people that was in the airplanes got their citizenship in the mail to where they used to live. host: your thoughts are a little scattered and have nothing to do with our topic right. were going to move onto bill on our line for democrats. caller: i think there needs to be a degree of surveillance, be it electronics, visual -- my biggest concern is that there are no apparent quality systems behind all of the equipment to make sure that the equipment
information is being used according to whatever rules or regulations were put in place. like a quality system that says that it checks to see that information is being used according to the rules. it appears that there is no protections behind the information it gathers to make sure it is not abused. it will be abused if you are not checking the quality of how people handle it. thank you. host: catherine lotrionte, explain who monitors how the information that is gathered by the government with regard to cybersecurity, who monitors how that information is used right now and how would that change if cispa becomes law?
guest: right now each agency has their own oversight and liability mechanisms, and inspector general who is responsible for monitoring all of the programs. in this case, where the new legislation is not creating any new surveillance or collection program -- it prohibits the u.s. government from doing anything beyond what is already authorized to do -- it does build in the bill as well as the president's executive order, that oversight and accountability. we caller correctly said, definitely need a system that is checking. orderesident's executive calls upon the chief information officer to be responsible for managing, monitoring, making sure that all
the agencies that may receive data from the private sector are actually in compliance with what they are supposed to be doing, using the data properly, sharing it anyway they are supposed to be sharing it. both in the bill an executive order, is the accountability and oversight. aboutwere talking cybersecurity and privacy in terms of the cyber intelligence sharing and protection act, also known as cispa. here are some of the details of the bill, provided by representative mike rogers.
host: joining us to talk about that is jeff in columbia, missouri, on our line for republicans. caller: this is jeff wesley. it's about time they're doing something about this. this has gone too long. i myself have been under these cyber threats for 20 years, where they have gone through the respiratory, mind control, and everything else. host: who is doing that, jeff? guest: i have no evidence, witnesses, or proof because it is all done wirelessly. i think it's coming out of the white house. host: catherine lotrionte, if someone like jeff feels like
they are being investigated for cybersecurity violations, what sort of recourse do they have? who do they go to? guest: here is one of the challenges if you are in that position. it is difficult for any individual to actually know whether their information has been provided to the government through the system. through the mandatory reporting and oversight within the executive branch and congress, there would be investigations of anything that would go beyond their authority or violations of the law. for instance, what if a private company gave under the authorization of the bill, gave information that was part of what they deemed to be in good faith to be cyber threat information to a federal government agency. theret information also,
was private information that the government received. the government, under the bill, is required to tell that company that they provided them in accurately with private information of a citizen. what most individuals will find not satisfying enough is that the individual user themselves is not told by the government. it is up to the company whether they tell their customer that private information. the recourse is limited. if you are under a criminal investigation for cyber crime and the government obtained this information through the legislation, the bill allows the government to use information about cyber crime, children, so if there is child pornography or
molestation. -- or if a life is in danger. other than those crimes, if your private information was in error given to the government, the bill allows for this to be free from the freedom of information act provisions, which means it will be difficult for an individual to know if private information was accidentally handed over by a company to the government. host: next up is maryland on our line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal." guest: i thought it was time for a reminder from one of our forefathers. they reminded us if you give up liberty to seek security, you're not going to have liberty or security.
it seems that in our eagerness under the bush patriot act that this cyber collection of information which pretty much gives up our liberties to privacy, seeking security, that we could be coming to the point where we don't have security or liberty if we keep it up. host: catherine lotrionte. guest: a very important message to recall. i truly believe as well as those who put the legislation and the president's executive order together that we do not want to give up our liberties in order to seek greater security. one myth or misperception of the bill is that it somehow allows the federal government to have border or new surveillance powers. it does not.
it does not allow the federal government to conduct any type of surveillance. this was important because it foreignimilar to the intelligence surveillance act. in this case, we are talking about sharing cyber threat information. there is no new collection authority. clearly, i think you're getting at a concern that it does allow private companies to voluntarily hand over threat information to the government. the object here is to keep that threat information such that it does not include your private information. that is certainly not what the bill is about. this is not about counterterrorism, about a fourth amendment debate, about
surveillance. it is about information that has already been collected by the government, about specific cyber threats. if we could only share that information as a way to protect -- hearings on the hill where a debate with the privacy advocates of voicing their and congress working hard to make sure that they work those concerns into the language of the bill. if you look at the language of the bill, you will see how they did that. host: the eff is what? guest: electronic frontier foundation. caller: it's been nice hearing your speaker there. my comment or question is, i
don't really trust the government with my cyber or personal information. what happened to freedom of assembly? you're going to be watched by video cameras. you can't send an e-mail, facebook, anything, without having somebody in washington review it. why would we trust people in washington to do anything, whether they are congressman or the bureaucracy, when they did all the stock trading on information they had, which morally they shouldn't have done? it's sort of like, fool me once. they fooled us twice. they get the information, i guarantee you it will not stay sacred. guest: we want to build and
oversight and accountability in any kind of legislation. is time when the government getting information, from the private sector or individuals. this type of information is not the information -- these are not cameras, pictures of people, e-mail content. these are zeros and 1's. this is computer malicious malware, cyber threat information, these cti's that the bill is discussing. it is not that the government would have authority to read my e-mail, your e-mail. the companies are looking at their own networks and seeing attacks coming in, where there is destructive or disruptive nature attacks to these companies.
nobody is free from the attacks. the idea is that we need to look at the malicious code to learn more and combine information the government has about the adversaries with the private sector. the intent behind the legislation was not to take pictures, certainly not to read the private e-mails of individuals. host: next up is leroy. caller: the first is a quote andlady gave about liberty freedom. that was benjamin franklin. my gripe is that these cameras that are implanted on the corners of the right turn only roads in jersey are run by private corporations. they are making a killing on the fines that are dished out to the people who slide through
those right-hand turns a second too soon. host: thanks for the heads up on ben franklin, but we're talking about cyber security and not cameras. caller: ok, i'm sorry. host: we're going to move onto richard. cyber: i work in the security field. inordinate an concern over privacy when in fact the purpose of this legislation is to have a public-private partnership to protect national security information, to protect protect private corporations, and to have some guidelines for that cooperation so that we don't lose our competitive edge in the world market. talkps your guest could more about that aspect.
we desperately need a coordinated effort and we're getting hit very hard by hackers, especially from china, in state-sponsored attacks. guest: the level of the thread is exactly why the bill was proposed. presidenttly why the signed his executive order. in the past number of years, but most recently since last september, the united states private sector as well as government entities have been under quite aggressive cyber attacks. congressman rogers has been very vocal about this in speaking not only on the hill, but in other forms, about the threat the united states has been under. theoffice of the dni under counterintelligence expert came out with a report about espionage. congressman rogers came out
with a report discussing a chinese company and concerns about that. clearly, the reason why we have this bill, the country as a whole and our senior policymakers and leaders recognized the threat. it is a serious one. from the security of our government databases and systems, to the integrity of information we have in the government, to the operability of our banks to stay online. we could spend a lot of time discussing the threat. the reason why we are talking about the bill, and the executive order, is because of recognition of the significance of the threat. i appreciate the caller's understanding. there are a good number of people, including congressman rogers and others, who also think about that threat daily. if i can quote him, he usually says what keeps them up at
night is the thought of the cyber attacks. general you have seen clapper, the director of national intelligence testify on the hill about the extent of the attacks. this is one approach to try to solve that problem, share information. the president's executive order as distinguished from the bill, it is more narrowly focused. this bill allows all companies to voluntarily give information to the federal government. host: the status of the bill? guest: it has passed the house and is on its way to the senate. gochanges are made, it will
back to the house for consideration. the president has announced as the bill came out of the house as it is written now, he would most likely veto it. there have been changes courts -- geared towards privacy concerns. that is a possibility tweaks are made to it so that the senate and the president can live with that. willpeople believe this make our information and economy quite safer. aest: catherine lotrionte is professor at georgetown university and has been talking to us about cyber security and privacy. thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you. >> tomorrow on washington ahead to a gunk
and immigration legislation. then the executive director of the national consortium for the study of terrorism and responses to terrorism. and the constitution project on the treatment of detainees and the use of torture by the united states. live atton journal," 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this week, both weekly addresses focused on the boston marathon bombings. at first, president obama, then the republican address from senator tim scott of south carolina. >> on monday, an act of terror when did dozens and killed three innocent people at the boston marathon. but in the days since, the world has witnessed one sure and steadfast truth -- americans refuse to be terrorized. ultimately, that is what we will remember from this week. that is what will remain. as stories of heroism and
kindness, resolve and resilience, generosity and love. the brave first responders, police officers and firefighters, emt's and national guard who ran towards danger to help jobless absence. the race volunteers, spectators, and exhausted runners to rushed to help, including veterans who did not expect to see such scenes of the streets of america. it be determined doctors and nurses at some of the world's best hospitals, who toiled day and night to save lives. the big hearted people of boston, residents, priests, shopkeepers who carried victims and their arms, delivered water and blankets, lined up to give blood, opened their homes up to total strangers. and the heroic federal agents and police officers who worked together through the week, often at risk. -- often at great risk to themselves, to keep our committee safe. as a country, we are eternally
grateful for the profound sacrifices they make to the line of duty, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice to defend the people they have sworn to protect. if anybody wants to know who we are, what america is, how we respond to evil in terror, that is it. selflessly, compassionate, and unafraid. through the days that would test even the sturdiest of souls, boston's spirit remains undaunted. america's spirit remains undimmed. our faith in each other, our love for this country, are common creed that cuts across whatever superficial differences we may have, that is what makes us strong. that is why we endure. in the days to come, we will remain vigilant as a nation and i have no doubt the city of boston and its surrounding communities will continue to respond in the same proud and her rope with a have this week. and their fellow americans will be right there with them every step of the way. may god bless the people of
boston and the united states of america. >> hi, i'm tim scott, a senator from south carolina. this week on patriot's day, a data celebrates our country's trade to freedom, a horrific tragedy occurred. the boston marathon bombing has left us all with a heavy heart and we prayed for the victims and their families. however, while the perpetrators of this act of terror " that could shake the confidence of the city, they have instead only strengthen the resolve of our nation. this became apparent immediately as first responders ran towards unknown dangers. these amazing americans, some of whom charged through fences and barricades, but their own lives on the line to help others. we are so thankful for these men and women who on a daily basis sacrifice for our nation. there are friends, family, our neighbors. join me in praying for them and the victims of this tragedy.
at the victims' families and their support systems. to those who would attack america or our citizens, let me say this -- there is no corner on earth, no hiding place in america that will keep us from finding you. the leaders of this country will do everything our power to bring justice for the family and the communities impacted. our freedom is our most precious possession. any effort to take away only strengthened our determination. this has crystallized how we respond to challenges. we will stand strong. we will stand united, and we will stand together for boston. you, and god bless america. illinois congressman luis gutierrez and chairman of the hispanic immigration task force
talks about developing a immigration bill in the house. 10 amakers" sunday at clock a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c- span. communicators" discusses cybersecurity and critical infrastructure like the electric grid and banks. then, focusing on the lives of jane pierce and harriet lane. later, that -- president obama, vice president biden, and deborah giffords late -- pay tribute to her congressional aide, gave zimmerman. >> this week on "the communicators," a look at cyber attacks and critical infrastructure. in the state of the union address president obama said our enemies are seeking the ability to set the touch up our grid, financial institutions, traffic control stwe have reprel
three of those industries. gentlemen, i want to start with an opening question for each of you. what are some of the attacks that have happened on your industry and how are you preventing them? we begin with tom kuhn of the edison electric institute, which represents several electric companies in the united states. everyfar -- we get pings day from various sources, but so far the major attacks we have had have been on customer information systems or things of that nature. they have not been attacks that keep me up at night, which are the ones that would do some damage to our critical infrastructure. >> how do you work to prevent this? >> we have technology, cyber technologies, prevention technologies. we spend a lot of time now on technologies.