Transcripts For CSPAN American Perspectives 20091227

how government really works and get out of this notion of the blame game and saying it's all someone else's fault. >> you're listening to the commonwealth club of california radio program and our guest today is william eggers, author and commentator, who is discussing when government works and when it doesn't. . . in terms of iraq, we fell into a number of the traps that we talk about in the book. certainly, one of those traps was a syndrome. when the decision was made to go win and we were looking at reconstruction, what they feel to do was -- there are a lot of people in the state department and elsewhere who had a lot of knowledge and had been looking at this as part of a democracy in iraq project for many years and actually argue about all the things that could go wrong, all of the different problems and possibilities. a lot of these administration did not want to hear that. they did not want to hear contrary voices. they were shut out of the process. one guy named tom workearrick ws infamously kicked off the team by rumsfeld. that was a big problem. they did more war-gaming in terms of congestion pricing than we did at the aftermath of a iraq. if they fell into the overconfidence trap. a lot of those problems -- we learned a lot of lessons from iraq, from an execution standpoint. with the surge, we have another thing called the evaluation phase. your reevaluating your initiatives and seeing if it were not. in this case, they did a really good job at 3 evaluating what was working or not working in iraq -- at reevaluating what was working are not working in iraq. you had terrific generals and other soldiers who were basically using this method. they decided to adopt this over a lot of opposition. with the surge, you also have a positive story of having overcome a lot of the straps that they fell into originally. >> this is such a short question with such a huge possibility of dancers. maybe you can highlight an answer. how can health care reform be effectively implemented? >> i will try to keep it really short. what this illustrates is actually one of the big issues, one of the conundrums we face today. for health care reform to happen, two things need to occur. first, you need to get the bill passed congress. secondly, you need to have a plan that will work in the real world. in some cases -- in many cases, those two things and at contradicting each other. what happens with a lot of legislative bills, to basically get enough support and it different legislators on board, you end up having to add a lot to it and change the design around and put a and a lot of extra things into the bill that you may not have wanted in terms of a pure design. i think that is one of the issues we're facing right now with health care. it is outside of that started right now and they're trying to get it through and trying to get the number of boats. but though big question is whether this will actually work in the real world. that is the most important question. you don't have success just by having a bill passed. over time, it will love be implemented until 200014-2015, likely. -- 2014-2015, likely. they will do pilot projects. they will try to be agile and learn from them. they have innovation centers that they have talked about. one of the things that we do not know is how we lot of this is going to work in the real world. with welfare reform, one thing we did know is that we had tried it a lot in many states before it was passed in 1994. >> that is a great answer. i applaud you for it. i question that could take -- this is an interesting one. what do you see government doing to better work with industry? let me add my own tail to it. both small business and big business. >> again, when you look at most of these big initiatives today, they are not just a government- alone, there are involving contractors, industry, and contractors. i think we have had some great examples o. james webb was the head of nasa who helped us get to them and when president kennedy announced this. he had to find a way to work with industry. there were a lot of defense contractors and space companies and everything else and had to figure out how to call the mall together to do this. one of the -- and had to figure out how to cobble them all together to do this. one of the things that he had to do was find a low-cost bit in the end. that is kind of frightening. there is the argument dover we should privatize or not privatize. with almost all of these initiatives, you have partnerships with the public sector and the private sector. there will have to work much more closely together. whether it is infrastructure here in california, where the public sector alone does not really build much of the infrastructure, they will need to do a lot more in terms of partnerships. but certainly, in the health care in also. >> i hate to see this program and. but really have time for one last question. what is your judgment on al gore's reinventing government program of the late 1990's? >> it was actually based off eight texas performance review, which is a program which i had the opportunity to manage for several years. it had a lot of wonderful aspects to it. they tried to really create innovation in a lot of federal agencies. they have awards that they would give for people with innovation. a lot of time and attention went into that, at least the first couple of years. one of the overall issues with it is that it did not actually end up radically restructuring or reforming the federal government. one of the reasons is that this stuff is not very sexy, the things we have talked about. they lose interest after the first couple of years and then they move on to something else. interest wanes in the debate in these programs. i believe that this is absolutely critical. it is the most important kind of government issue we have today. when you think about calif end ornia and where the state is at and the problems it has had, the next government should have this notion of making government better. i just hope it becomes part of the campaign debate. >> something we do not always do. i want to thank the audience for all the wonderful questions submitted. a special thank you goes up to author eggers. we thank our audience is here and on radio, television and the internet. tonight's program has been part of the commonwealth club american values series, underwritten by the ~ family foundation. i am joe epstein. this meeting is adjourned. [gavel] [applause] >> mr. eggers will sign books right here. and next, a discussion on u.s. muslim relations. after that, in a house hearing and how the internet is being used by terrorist groups to spread their message. later, excerpts from our documentary "the supreme court, home to america's highest court." also, remarks from drew days and maureen mahoney. >> tomorrow, national institutes of health director dr. francis column about stem cell research. the future of gm technology -- the future of genome technology. newsmakers airs sundays at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> now available, c-span's book "abraham lincoln, great american historians on our 16th president." it is a unique perspective on lincoln. from 56 scholars, journalists, and directors. abraham lincoln, in hardcover at your favorite bookseller and now in digital audio to listen to any time available where digital audio downloads are sold. >> next, a discussion on u.s.- muslim relations and the israeli-palestinian peace process. this is just over an hour. >> i am going to briefly introduced the panelists. i will try to leave about 15 minutes at the end for questions. we are being web cast. we will be taking questions from the floor in written format and it online, you can submit them. if they meet with my approval, i will ask lem. let me -- i will ask them. let me introduce our panelists. i will give you the abbreviated version. it would take most of the session just to go through each of these distinguished panelists biographies. jonathan morgan sterstern has worked in the past for the u.s. instituted peace and is a captain in the marine reserves. he did active tours in bosnia and two tours in iraq. we also have to more wtamara wi. she has added one book and has authored a forthcoming work on democracy in the arab world. it has come out. leila al marayati was a member of the u.s. delegation to the u.s. conference on women in beijing. she also served as a member of the u.s. commission on international religious freedom. she is the chairperson of candor usa which focuses on children's needs -- of ca kinder usa which focuses on children's needs. she is also. gb why and -- she is also an ob/gyn. later, aslam abdullah will join us. i am going to start off, basically -- the panelists labeled improving u.s.-muslim relations. i looked at that question and said, doesn't even make sense? we can speak of improving u.s.- turkish relations, u.s.-iranian relations, but can we talk about u.s.-muslim relations? who in the muslim world away tried to lead to? are we turn to lead to the government or the massive public opinion? -- are we trying to relate to the garment or the mass of public opinion? >> a few years ago, i was working as a low ranking marine. one of the senior marines had proposed something about a terrorist incident. i said, extremist muslims -- i understand in the discussion we had earlier about how do you label al qaeda and their ilk. i said extremist muslims would probably say this about the event. the senior marine said muslims or extreme muslims? our turkish allies that we just came back from serving in bosnia and the bosnians and the co-starkosavars would probably e extreme muslims. the idea of relating to the muslim world as a monolithic group does not hold. the way we interact with our allies, the turkish military, which is one of our closest allies around the world, is clearly something we have to deal with in a very different way than have the u.s. military learns to deal with its relationship with iraqis on the ground in iraq and afghans on the ground in afghanistan and wherever we are in the world. the marine corps does a lot of training exercises with the senegalese, a great percentage of which are muslim. obviously, dealing with muslim communities everywhere is a different dynamic based on the people you are interacting with. so the idea of dealing with the muslim world as a whole is not something that the dod, for the most part, thinks of. -- thinks of as a monolithic entity. >> speaking from a state to permit perspective, we also do not speak in terms of the -- speaking from a state department perspective, we also do not speak in terms of the muslim community. it is reaching out to communities of muslims who exist in a diversity of environments. it's is really -- i think we are well past the point where we are talking about monolithic conceptions either of the muslim world or islam. what we're trying to do know, in building a new kind of partnership, is reach well beyond government and talk about citizens, talk about communities, all in a variety contexts and reset to the diversity of those communities to get a sense of what their different perspectives are, what they're different needs are, and with different kinds of partnerships we can build. >> it is encouraging to hear that from both of you. that is something we have been arguing for a long time about how the muslim world is not monolithic. what applies in the northern states of nigeria is very different from what applies in iran. when you talk about something as important as sharia, you cannot talk about it in general terms. it is different in pakistan or parts of africa, for example. the problem we have is that there are still elements of american society that want to little islam that way, want to refer to a slam as a religion that endorses honor killings. it talks about it in that general sense, for what reason, you can only speculate. it creates a certain hysteria and paranoia, the tub of which may have voted the swiss to vote against minarets. it is good to know that this is happening for the people who are making decisions in our government, on the ground. but we're still faced with this in terms of our society and what we, as muslims, have to deal with. a great part of that comes from the media as well. >> aslam abdullah has joined us. you can read his bible in in its entirety. he is the editor of the muslim observer newspaper. he is the trustee of the american federation of muslims of indian origin. he is the author of 11 books and over 700 papers and articles. he is a very prolific writer, obviously. he has spoken often on national and local media. he is the former vice chairman of impact. he has a longstanding connection with impact. i want to welcome to the panel. we just had remarks about the framework of the discussion, whether it makes sense to speak in terms of the u.s.-muslim relations foor muslim nations. >> thank you very much. i am sorry that i am late. the notion that the u.s. shooting did with the muslim world precisely because of 9/11 or what happened after that is probably not very well founded in history because there was a relationship with the muslim world that is over two hundred years old. we have had a least 56 times one in military. we have had at least three major wars in the region with states for independence with tripoli, algiers, and morocco. the memories of those kinds of relationships are not very, what you call, a cordial and very heavy in the minds of those people who are part of the foreign-policy apparatus. what has also happened in the last 25 years or so, in terms of their relationship with the muslim world, we have been seen as a country that is not very respectful to human life in the muslim world. almost 12,000 americans have been killed since 1983. but 280,000 muslims have lost their lives due to intervention in those countries. it was written that the muslims in the united states [unintelligible] one of the journalists stationed in the least says that, if the united states stopped killing muslims, the relationship between the two countries would improve. we have a lot of tensions, but a lot of potential also that is despite the fact that all of these things better happening, the united states was the only country that intervene in bosnia and causseaux. -- and casa okosavo. what the best we can describe it is that our foreign policy does not make any rational understanding when it comes to moslem arabs and the middle east. -- muslim arabs and the middle east. >> let me just follow up on what your saying. -- what you are saying. one line of argument is that the united states, by engaging in certain wars, obviously afghanistan and iraq for the big ones right now, that this has impacted the opinion of the united states throughout the majority of moslem countries throughout the world in a negative way. during the bush administration, we saw the opinions of the united states sank quite low in public opinion polling. on the flip side, the united states could argue or those that support american policy could argue that you're not taking into account that the united states did intervene on behalf of muslims and bosnia and xhosa votkosavo and kuwait. then there was the earthquake in pakistan. there was the tidal wave and the rescue efforts in indonesia. certainly, the united states was viewed favorably by those who benefited from that. to throw back at you in that sense, it is -- is it too narrow to just the united states by the worst things that have happened when the best things that have happened or is there a way to tackle these things into account? >> that is why i mention that it is rather confusing when it comes to the middle east. if you go back to the early 1950's, we find that the united states was split on the issue of recognition of the state of israel, for instance. the state department was opposed and president truman was advocating the recognition of the state. before 1956, we were opposed to support it even through arms. we did not enter into negotiations or treaties. even in the administration of john f. kennedy, we had a problem with the the state of israel. relations were not always very cordial. in terms of the united states relationship with the muslim world, despite the fact that the muslim world accounts for 80% of jobs, we basically have a $500 billion export with the muslim world that accounts for those jobs in this country. even from the perspective of the domestic issues and the domestic politics, it in terms of treating a rational policy with the muslim world, why should we have a rational policy with the muslim world? i think what we should ask is if we should have a rational foreign policy? >> let me move the discussion a little forward. >> i think the idea of a rational policy, as you seem to be ascribing, would not necessarily take into account both different developments through history or, like what we were talking about, the broad array of possibilities, whether it is iraq or to indonesia. if you look at what is going on in sedan, it might change over time as well. one issue that was not mentioned, and we did not take action in darfur, but that is an issue that president bush did speak out about. there were few other leaders around the world that did mention that. just because we do not necessarily do the exact same thing across all countries, our interests in one area in terms of economics may be more important where in other areas of our security interest may be more important. we have to have a balance of different interests at different times in different places with different communities in different countries. >> we understand that. as americans, we know that our government went to be pragmatic. but when you look at added to the broad, even when we said that muslims are not monolithic, as a group, they do share sentiments that are important for the united states. inconsistency and a sense that what is the criteria that you use to decide when you will intervene and not, if you say human rights and democracy in one instance and not another and there is this underlying sentiment that that is not it, that it is oil or some other thing. there is a lack of transparency and not being straightforward with the people who clearly can see how things are. this is why the u.s. keeps tripping itself up. one of the more sensitive issue s is israel-palestine th. the u.s. was basically silent during the attack on lebanon and so forth. there is this sense of what are the standards? is there a double standard that undermines our authority as the federal government that people across the world has to take stock with a? it is a reality that affects. [applause] >> i appreciate what you're saying. this administration, beginning with a the president visiting and a stumble and continue his speech in which a visiting istanbul and continuing his speech in other places -- this administration, beginning with the president visiting istanbul and continuing to speak in cairo, there were a lot of the issues that caused tension over the past years. to speak frankly about issues on which we agree and the issues on which there are differences, to recognize that small slum communities are diverse, that they exist in a variety of different places, that in different communities have different issues that are most important to them, different priorities with respect to the united states, and we want to pursue relationships that go beyond the high politics, the things that are at the top of the news everyday, and that will understand people often think about first when they think about the united states. we are engaged on those issues. president obama has been engaged since day one. he is trying to preserve peace in the middle east, trying to get the parties back to negotiation so that we can have a two-state solution. at the same time, to take this relationship beyond high politics, beyond self- interest and ticket people-to- people and get to local concerns. and do it in a way that is meaningful and has some meat on the bone. [applause] >> let me follow up on your comments. i was struck by some polling done throughout the muslim world, the muslim-majority countries, and compare the numbers we are generating now under obama and the numbers that were visible under the last few years with the primary ministration. there have been obviously large dramatic jumps. the numbers are looking a lot better. from the government policy standpoint, is this a goal of the administration, to increase the popularity of the united states with the population of these countries or is it something that is not all that important in terms of it for a possible? and do you think that the change in these numbers is due to the actual substancand substantive s between obama and bush or is it more stylistic changes? i am trying to get you to go of a message and get too fired from the state department. [laughter] >> of course, we all wish to be liked. but we spend a lot of time talking about indicators for success and how do we know if we are following up on the president's words in cairo in a way that is meaningful. how do we know if we are actually putting meat on the bone, as i said. if we took public opinion as our main indicator, we would be making a mistake. public opinion can be affected by a variety of factors, only some of which we have any control over. public opinion, as we know from our experience in this country, can be cyclical. we have to go beyond that kind of superficial and care. we are really trying to the local. the program that i manage at the state department is, granted, just in the middle east, from morocco to iraq and the gulf, it is a program that is working to go local, to bring u.s. foreign assistance to the local level. about half of the projects we do our proposed by a local ngo's and we provide small grants to local groups to do work that they see as the priority for their community. that is just a small example of the kind of substance that we are putting behind this idea of a new kind of partnership. i do not think it is just tone. think we're trying to put a lot of substance behind it. i think we want to make it visible to average citizens, not just on their tv screens, but on the streets of their towns. [applause] >> coming from the department of defense, obviously, the kind of relationship is gone to be much more security context. in the aftermath of the president's announcement of the refinement of the afghanistan- pakistan strategy, i believe turkey was among the nato allies that collectively announced that they are going to be contributing additional 7000 troops, with the possibility of increasing to 10,000 troops more, in the effort in afghanistan. i was just looking at the poll numbers. because he spent some of his childhood there, indonesia has a significant large majority support for the president. public opinion does matter. it would be more difficult to get that kind of support from our allies, especially country like turkey, if the president did not have that kind of increased support around the world. that is a very tangible sign. it is not even a sign kerrey is a very tangible fact that public -- is not even a sign. it is a very tangible fact that public opinion matters. >> in terms of a policy that he wants. >> yes. it is an increase in our ability to keep our country secure. there has been intelligence collaboration in other parts of the world specifically because governments feel more comfortable being seen as close with the united states than under the previous administration. that is a very tangible reality that helps keep our country secure. >> the polls depends on who is conducting an who is answering. also, the perceptions in the muslim world will change when the policy changes. on the one hand, we are supporting this much. on the one hand, we are supporting violators of human rights who center everything into have no regard for human life and human dignity. on the other hand, we want to give the image that we defended democracy and defend human rights. certainly, the people of the streets are not dumb. they understand, basically, what is happening. we cannot have a rational understanding of foreign policy without that. we have to understand the values of the state department that says it will stand for democracy and security. but when it comes to the actual supporting, we're the first ones who supported. we are the ones [unintelligible] we have to be careful in terms of where we stand. the state department and the department of defense has not been able to hire people who could understand the culture, the language, and the people of the muslim world. we do not have more than two hundred language experts for the muslim countries. we do not have a substantial study of any moslem country that could give us an accurate understanding. -- any moslem countrmuslim cound give us an accurate understanding. policy is based on medieval writings ended discriminatory riding of the muslim world -- and a discriminatory writing of the muslim world. a bridge has not been built that would give muslims the confidence. it would benefit the country and the democracy and human rights and things that we swear by our constitution. [applause] >> having experience turned to do humanitarian work in the gaza strip, where a mosque is considered a terrorist -- where hamas is considered a terrorist organization, it is a small area. it is 1.5 million people. it is not a huge country were " you have more impact if you were -- where you have more impact if you were providing literacy programs. because of the high politics, it makes it more difficult for the local efforts to really have the impact any major way that the united states may be looking for ther. there is a huge gap. >> i am going to move along. on the one hand, there are points being made about what the united states is doing in a positive sense and trying to build a better understanding of the muslim world and trying to do with the longstanding issues that are going on and trying to improve on a high politics will end a low politics level. there are also serious concerns about the underlying motivators of american foreign policy. the gap between our ideals and the reality, the gap between what the united states foreign- policy may be at its best and what it may be at its worst. i think this raises one issue, something that is quite the fodder for political science classrooms for university students. what is the legitimate basis of foreign policy? should it be national interest or allegiance to a higher set of foreignmoral principles or a combination of both? i don't think we need to answer that question here. but i do want to get at that topic. we can do it this way. there clearly issues in foreign policy -- there are clearly issues in foreign policy, issues that are of great importance to the unit's states. there are issues tof interest to muslim americans and others. consider the most important issues of one's of another nuclear attack -- of avoiding another nuclear attack. and to make sure that there is security of the world's energy and oil supplies. one of the issues that is of great concern for muslims is justice for the palestinians. those issues are of more importance to muslim communities. to what extent are the goals or issues that are important to the united states and the issues that are important to maslin communities so divergent -- two moslem committees so divergent that there is no overlap and -- to muslim communities so divergent that there is no overlap to create solutions? >> i am a political scientists. having taught in those college classrooms, as a political scientist, i can tell you how we conceive of our national interest. it comes from the valleys. we have our national values. our policy is derived from our interests. there is a hierarchy. on top of it is values. there has been a lot of discussion over the course of this conference about the values inherent in america's civic culture and the ways in which muslims in america interact with those values. i do not have to go on about that. i think that the values that are in the center of american identity and farm policy are values that we share and values that are shared by communities around the world. again i think these are unique to america. i do not think the aspiration to be an active participant in your community and in your government to determine your future is something unique to americans. that is a value that is shared around the world. the human rights that we enjoy in the united states, that we seek to defend it in our courts when we feel they are in france, those of the same rights that iranians are demanding from their government. we are calling for the iranian government to defend and protect those rights. secretary clinton has come out and said very clearly that we are going to pursue our values and their common interests and our common values with communities around the world through partnerships, through the power of our example, and through the empowerment of people. that partnership is going to exist at a lot of different levels. sometimes it will be government- to-government partnerships. we will have partnerships to protect those values. we are in the process of building a new, broader, long- term partnership with the government of pakistan that is now a democratic government so that we can pursue security and stability for the piquet -- for the pakistani people who have been some of the most victimized by terrorism over the last two years, indeed just this week. we seek to pursue our values through our policies. we do not just operate at the level of high politics as we do that. there are a variety of things we do in our dialogue with government and with the and permit the people to try to pursue those values. -- and with the empowerment of people to try to pursue those values. the things that are in common with muslims around the world are evident. we can manifest that commonality to our policies and programs. [applause] >> i think there is no disconnect between the values of muslims and the constitutional values that every american citizen fights for. the issue is how those values are projected in the political world. as a student of american foreign policy, basically, there is a disconnect between our values and what we have been doing. in terms of supporting regimes that have been detrimental to healthy political growth, we have tried to interfere in certain parts of the world understanding the implications. this is where the problem is. if we really believe in those values that we all believe in, then, definitely, we must have some subscription proof for what we do. that has not been the case in the last 60 years. we need a clear-cut understanding. many times we have made blunders in certain parts of the muslim world -- iran, for instance. we were afraid of the democratic development of iranian society. what do we do? we intervened. we interfered. we basically annihilated the democratic process that was going on and that led to the emergence of the democratic society in iran and other parts of the world. the same thing happened in egypt and saudi arabia. democratic movements were developing and growing, but we did not pay attention to that. we did not allow those regimes to suppress. >> i want to as this year's question on this. -- i want to ask a serious question on this. i hear a lot of muslims criticize alliances with dictatorships in the muslim world. do you think the united states should reorient its philosophy toward neutrality for those countries or should the united states actively tried to undermine dictatorships in the muslim world and promote democratic change? where do you come down on this? do you think the u.s. should not interfere at all or do so to promote democracy? >> there is a libertarian point of view. that will never happen. we will always have form policy. we need to look at the growth and the history and the movement of the history. it is not on the side of despot's. it is not on the side of those were human rights violators. we do not understand that muslim world. >> jonathan? i want to get you in here. >> i think i agree with the notion that, very often, we do not completely understand it a specific place or what specifically is going on. again, i served on the ground in iraq in the marine corps. during my first tour, 2004-2005, it was evident that we really did not entirely understand the dynamics going on. the palace from earlier today -- a panelist from earlier today had noticeed that one of the sir linings in the last several years is the american-iraqi [unintelligible] you have literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young american men and women, from across the entire country, who have been interacting on a daily business with young iraqi and afghan muslim men for years. that kind of cultural exchange and mutual understanding -- a lot of times, walking alone and having it to others back, literally bleeding and fighting and dying and surviving together, allows them to build an understanding that is otherwise absolutely impossible. i think there are cultural awareness as a country of muslim communities has grown and is growing. part of the reason we are here is to acknowledge the troubles we have had in afghanistan and iraq. the department of defense does need to -- i do not want to share reach out. muslim americans are part and parcel of the department of defense's, a catholic, jewish, presbyterian americans, but to get a greater expertise of the averment that we have to understand so that we can have greater success. a definite -- it desperately needs improvement. please help us improve. that is kind of what i am saying. [applause] >> i agree that these are benefits that we could have imagined for kids who came to the united states that did not even have a passport to travel otherwise. it is unfortunate that that cultural exchange has to happen in a context of war. i know that you agree with that. if we put all our efforts and energy into supporting jobs and have projects overseas that promote development, clean water, literacy, economic empowerment, we could accomplish the same thing with young kids that need jobs. they might just go somewhere else where we outsource our jobs to, but people are still living in the streets and are suffering. that would take a mental shift. we take advantage of the situation as is, for better or for worse. that is where we r.e.m.. -- that is where we are right now. it is a shame that we could not have accomplished that in some other way. [applause] >> of course. i am just saying that that is a small silver lining of the current situation. >> i am glad that you raised that. i think there's not a very strong sense in the u.s., much less in muslim communities abroad, about what the united states is doing to pursue precisely the goals that you just described as aspirations. since the car a speech in june, we have set up a slew of -- since the cairo speech in june, we have set up a slew of initiatives. there will be an entrepreneurship summit. it will bring an entrepreneur is from muslim countries around the world to the sea to engage with their counterparts in the public sector and private sector in the u.s. to promote investment and skills development. we upscaled exchange programs. we will send signs on boys, including prominent arab- americans among them, although not exclusively by any means. there will the two countries around the middle east and beyond -- they will go to countries around the middle east and beyond. there has been a desire to partner more on science and technology issues. there just has not been enough effort by the united states to engage on those issues. we are trying to scale that up and our science diplomacy. we have launched a new project that secretary clinton spoke about when she visited morocco last month, civil society to. . -- civil society 2.0. she comes from civil society work. she wants to put their time behind the empowerment of civic groups in communities around the world. . we do not only want to be engaged at the level of high politics and diplomacy and we do not only want to be engaged in the business of doing business. we want to be engaged with an ally that is seeking to build a better future and to be a force of good in their own communities. we are working to build those partnerships. we have put resources behind it, but we are scaling up now. >> [applause] -- [applause] >> i wanted to spend time here taking questions. there were several questions that touch on the theme of the palestinian conflict. as most of the audience is aware, the obama administration came in and took -- came into washington with a tuesday solution and they put significant pressure on the israeli prime minister to verbally and knowledge that as a goal. there has been a disagreement with the israelis over the settlements. at this point, we are at a bit of an impasse. i think the administration was hoping to get negotiations going quite rapidly, but so far we have a standstill. i would like to get your input. also, the other analysts -- panelists can speak as to which we wish to go. to what extent is solving the israeli-palestinian issue and a more global sense? is this something that has a huge impact or is this something that is a conflict that does not fundamentally change the way that the u.s. and muslim countries will be relating to each other. >> what did talk about the diplomatic side of things. what the impact will be, if we get to conflict resolution, which i hope that we do, i think that will be an impact. people will have to decide for themselves how to judge that. we are not at an impasse. it is tough. if it was not tough, it would have been done by now. i can tell you that senator mitchell's office is run across all from my office. i see, every day, the level of activity that is taking place. senator mitchell is not a man that believes in impasse. he is a patient, determined, committed principled mediator. he is working every day with the whole region. the president's vision is a vision of a two-stage solution. but it also includes peace between israel and syria and the broader relationship between israel and the arab states. he is continuing to work with both sides, trying to improve the atmosphere that can get us back to negotiations to persuade both sides that we've made no pre conditions -- no preconditions. we can get a continuous, viable palestinian state so that we can get with the two -- did what the two sides need. -- should get what the two sides need. we are engaged in humanitarian assistance. what it is true that usaid is not maintain a presence in gaza, but there is a lot that we are doing to bring students and others to the west bank so that they can continue to interact with their fellow palestinians. there will also engage in programs. by no means are we hands-off in terms of trying to help the people of gaza. we are also engaged in the work of trying to shape the opinion environment so that leaders -- i don't have to tell you that domestic politics are really difficult. we need to create an atmosphere where leaders feel that they have more flexibility to take the tough decisions that they need to take. we are to be there every day. senator mitchell talks about his experience in northern ireland. the way that he describes it is that for two years, both sides kept saying no. he said that he did not take the first note or the sec memo or the ninth no -- the first note, or the sec no or the nine no -- the first no, the sec that no, or the ninth no -- the second no, or the ninth no. >> the way everybody looks the other way to allow these tunnels to exist so that the sheep cost $450 for one family. this is egypt on the one side and this is his role on the other side. -- israel on the other side. you have been doing what they can to keep that under control. -- you have been doing what they can to keep that under control. -- you have them doing what they can to keep that under control. there is raw sewage in the streets when it was not there six years ago. we never comment on that. if you're doing a behind closed doors, we do not know about it. this crisis is a man-made -- is man-made. i do think that it is critical and i think it would go very far not just to solve this problem, but to give the people a sense of justice and recognition that they have endured for the past 60 years. it needs to go much farther than it has and we need to stop talking about israel and palestinians -- and palace -- israelis and palestinians as if they are different because they are not. when you talk about their partners and bringing people over, they are under occupation. the do not have control over 85% of their lives. we also know that americans side with politics and interest groups and the only last comment i would say is that some of us are excluded from sitting at the table because we're labeled certain ways. when you look at it, the issue that we are targeted for is our position in support of the palestinian people. i would hope that in both the state department and the department of defense, there is a willingness to look beyond labels that others might put on us to be able to say that these people belong at the table. that is how we get excluded from even being part of the conversation which makes it harder to solve those problems. [applause] >> the department of defense, as an institution, is not involved deeply. that is a diplomatic wrangle. if the president says that we need your support, then obviously, we give it. we're not the diplomatic corps, we are security support. >> i think it is a complex issue. in 1947, when the issue of the occupation of israel came, we have the same kind of complex issue. president truman acted decisively. if the president of united states is political will and supports the values that this stands for, tomorrow, there will be a palestinian state. [applause] there is a lack of support and and there are double standards. this can be demonstrated partly because of the domestic politics. much of what they have been doing is the culmination of the religious -- in order for jesus to come, the last administration about that. -- bought that. to say that we're concerned, no, we are not showing that kind of concern for human dignity that we would otherwise show to any other life that that life happened to be palestinian. >> i don't want to minimize in any way the passion of your views. i accept the passion with which to speak on the subject. but i have to question the idea that this administration has not demonstrated decisive, passionate commitment to this issue. senator mitchell was appointed on the second day of this administration. secretary clinton's first trip overseas was in ramallah to discuss this issue. this has been an everyday concern of this administration. we are working to support the creation of a palestinian state diplomatically. we are working to support it during our development. we are helping the palestinian authority build up a strong, non-partisan, accountable security force that can protect the palestinian people and we work with the israelis so that when those palestinian forces are trained and capable, the israelis give them room to do their work. we do this every day. president truman recognized israel when it declared its independence. but had he not done that, would that have prevented israel's creation? this president got into office and said that he wanted to state solution. israeli settlement activity must end. does that mean that he can snapped his fingers and make it happen? president truman could not do an, president obama cannot do it. we're doing what we can do. >> we can do more in terms of recognizing the humanity of the palestinians for 60 years. the world has allowed the entire population to suffer the worst kind of imprisonment in human history. we cannot be because of social and religious factors. honesty demands that we police recognize the humanity and the right of the palestinian people to live as a dignified people. none of these things ever came forward. rather, we stopped those relief agencies under the political threat that it originated from the state of israel. relief agencies to support the palestinians. those people that supported those relief agencies were branded as terrorists and branded as unpatriotic. who are those people to call as unpatriotic? we defend america the same way as you defend. >> let me have led away in on this and then we will wrap this up. >> i would save we have experienced a difficult time for us. we look at american foreign policy and see a huge change. as you are saying, this administration is doing something different. it will take some time and hopefully obama will have eight years because it will take at least that long. it is not something that you can do quickly. but you have to take into account the trauma of what we have witnessed over time. our own experiences as american muslims, with a pack -- whether palestinian or what, we have really affected our community. we should give this administration credit for what it is doing. that is true. but we have lived through lot so far. the 60 years that i've visited refugee camps in lebanon, these are palestinians from 1948. their lives are no better than when they first got there. this is a longstanding history. and you are right, he cannot step -- snap his fingers. what can be done when there is that will in washington, that is what we are asking for. that is the sentiment that you feel. this population really has suffered so much for such a long time. [applause] >> i would like to thank you all for attending. i hope you enjoyed the panel. i would like to thank all the panelists. what i take from this discussion is a deep admiration and a deep love of the united states and its best. that is something that we all agree on. i think there is disappointment at times when the nation does not live up to its values and it is those areas where there is clearly room for criticism. what we would like to see, and i would encourage everyone to carry through on these policies, these kind of policies that have improved the standing in the world. hopefully we will see it to state solution and see palestine born before this president's term is over. thank you. [applause] >> tomorrow, on washington journal, a discussion on u.s. foreign policy but barbara seligmann and jonathan broder. after that, a look at president obama's achievements after his first year in office. that is live a 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tomorrow, on "newsmakers," dr. francis collins on the latest developments in stem cell research. and how nih may be affected by the bill making its way through congress. newsmakers airs sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span treated -- on c-span. monday, an update by blair 1 levin. >> and now, a house subcommittee on how cyberspace is being used by terrorist groups to spread their message. the subcommittee on terrorism and unconventional threats is chaired by adam smith of washington. it is about one hour 5 minutes. >> what some. i appreciate everyone being here this afternoon. i think we have about an hour block to go through. i will make a few opening remarks and then turn it over to questions. i really appreciate the doctors being with us. several of us on the committee have been briefed a couple of times of what has been going on in cyberspace in regards to al qaeda. it is a very extensive part of the battlefield but i think that too few people on our side are aware of. al qaeda is on the internet, aggressively recruiting and trying to radicalize people and spreading their message and they're viable -- their violent papal message. -- hateful message. it is my belief that they have occupied that message space without a sufficient counter from us. the analogy that occurred to me was to be in a close political campaign and only your opponent is on television. anybody who has ever run for office knows how badly that can be. al qaeda and like-minded groups are out there spreading their message and being fairly effective at spreading it and we are not there. we are letting them occupied a very critical space in the battle for ideas. we will hear a little more about how they do that and what we are doing and what more we could be doing to counter that. spreading our message and undermine an al qaeda on the internet. -- undermining out qaeda on the internet i will turn it over to our ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also have a statement to enter into the record. i would like to go ahead and start the hearing. >> we have dr. jerrick braitman, who is the author. he has testified previously he is an expert on radical islam. he did some work at west point on that issue and i look forward to hearing his thoughts. >> it is an honor and privilege to be here today. i would like to keep my thoughts very informal and chat about what i have been happy -- been up to. there was a 3 minute video that showed the lord of the rings. the video showed the fellowship of the rings. it showed the good guys as them and the good guy as me. so, am i scared about this? >> no, this is guy that is typical of a group of enthusiasts that use the internet to outlet their anger and frustration. most of them will never go out and do anything, but it is the one or two out of these thousands or hundreds that do. it is identifying how you know which one will become the next person to take this to the next level? this is something that i have been struggling with. another thing is the most sophisticated pro-al qaeda journal. it is produced openly by a guy who lives with his parents in charlotte, north carolina. this is one of the most sophisticated journals because it shows the least amount of dissidents. the support group has caught up. they used to be way behind in terms of sophistication. now, i think they are there. there is a bad that we do not know who he is. on my website, i tactician pretty vigorously as as an aside, he sounds like the kind of guy who lives in his mom's basement. he sent me a letter by way of my web site and out of all the attacks the only thing he keyed in on is that i had attacked him for living in his parents' basis. he demanded that i'm post a retraction. i found that this guy was using a t-shirt company where you can make your own t-shirts and sell them. he was creating pro al qaeda t- shirts -- pro-al qaeda t-shirts to be funny, and a t-shirt that said he did not live in his mom's basement. i have been trying to pope these guys with sticks. that is what knocks them on the defensive. we found this in 2007--- to said that he is using my own words against me without embellishing them and then he is publishing them. this hurts. the third time, he did a bit of a david letterman joke about how many mistakes i had made in it 1/2 page biography of him. these guys have their sense of humor -- a sense of humor. when your funny, it gets more attention than 6000 page report. which they also do the trick still call this methodology the power of truth. they say that the power of truth is not their truth, it is our true. but we have seen over the past few years, the biggest trend is that al qaeda has transformed from a terrorist organization that uses the media into a media organization that uses terrorism. they do this because it makes strategic sense when you are in battle. he can use the media as a forced and fire. it is this curious interplay between people self radicalizing online, finding some operational coordination and then being redeployed. that is something we have not cracked. the fact is, these guys are very aggressive online. the english-speaking supporters online understand al qaeda just as much as the arabic speakers do. it is a buffet out there. you can get anything you want. if your visa is the logical texts, you cannot only just read them, you can write them. there are tens of thousands of videos online. one trend is that i have been noticing, is about to creates a second world for them what i found was that places like youtube, they have created an internal subculture of the more i spend time looking at this, is a separate world. the guys that are on youtube are not the same as the other guys. there is to participate in more ways than ever before. i think that over the past few years, we have done less thinking in and done less support for understanding our enemy off and they have done more. i think that the problem is that we think we have got it and now we have to go kill and capture these guys. for them, is not something to get, it is the process. for them, it will happen. i think we need to take a different perspective. that is where the power of academia comes in. that is where i think it will help win the long term. >> if i may, i think that is the critical piece of what this committee is trying to focus on. identifying who they are i think that to a broader battle is more troubling. it is the long term message. we're fighting an ideology. when we are out there trying to stop this, this is a message war. it is wherever messages to be derived and right now, we are considerably behind in fighting the battle. this is an ongoing struggle. i hate to say pepsi verses coke, but this is a long term branding issue -- pepsi vs coke, but this is a long-term branding issue. i will to comment on that after we get the doctors testimony. please go ahead. >> mr. chairman, distinguished members, i think you for allowing me to be here today. i will keep my if remarks normal and conversational. a lot to put the internet and perspective. the injured matt is not a series of training camps. if -- the internet is not a series of training camps. it is an attempt to propagate ideology. it is spread across large geographic differences. jerrick makes this great point. and just as there are varied pathways, i think there are very pathways to get out. is becoming more and more accepted that people in need of violent groups. it might be helpful to think about this as a scale of their radical vision. i think there is as common interception that before it radicalized. from my experience, i think we can say that it is a little bit backwards. people get interested in something and then recruited and then the radicalize them. i think that this most recent of the five youths from virginia in pakistan goes to explain this. if i think i would like to turn it and talked about what the saudis dio. they claim that there are about 17,000 web sites that propagate islamist extremas and. we definitely see that there is a linkage between this and the rise in violence. in the internet has become a repository for muster of disinformation. this is to be available in hard copy and now it is available online. authorities have cracked down on the internet. people may meet on line, but then they will meet face to face to address this disparity, the saudis have come up with a program. is a non-governmental association basically -- association. basically they are scholars and go on line to collect information they do this to better understand the thinking and the ideology. part of this is infiltrating websites and were from the inside. -- edward from the inside. in -- and work from the inside. religious scholars will try to draw you out and explain -- and get you to explain your belief in islam. they try to show people that there is a different way of what they may be thinking it if you go on-line to look for answers about religion and you listen to these guys, you go off on the wrong track. one of the fascinating things is that they will then take the back-and-forth dialogue and publish it on line so others can read it. this might take place in a direct back and forth, but there is a multiplying effect when they put it on their website for other people to read. there are also different documents and studies that exclaimed -- that explain radicalism. there are other things that we could get into. one of the fascinating things about this program is that it has its international film -- appeal. a number of countries expressed interest in this program. i was in saudi arabia in october and i was told that the algerians and saudis developed a similar type program. there are other programs that are not internet best but radio based -- internet based, but radio based. i will be happy to answer more questions about this. when we are looking forward about ways to move forward, it is important to have partners. part of this is in power in local voices. they will speak out against political violence. in the american governments, there are probably topic -- caveat about. but looking forward, it will be important to not only follow the suggestions and recommendations that the doctor made, but it is important from a counter message. . it will highlight the flaws in the arguments. when we're talking about an organization that is based on -- a movement that is based on ideology and grievances, it is important to engage in those issues carried this is a moral movement. i think it can be very powerful. with that, i like to say thank you again and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you both, very much. we will live here to the five minute role. two series of questions. the first area is what are we doing it? this can come from a lot of different areas. there could be different sites but how well are we doing? how involved are we? if for getting the quality of what we're doing, or we engaged in trying to get our own message out? one of the obvious approaches would do what they have done and take their word they use them against but how active are we and what should we be doing more readily? >> that is a complicated question. anecdotally, i think that the thing that the united states government has said or done, all qaeda will find a way to spin it against us. for all qaeda it tends to react more -- most defensively is actually against research reports against them. we can get to the recent revisions. he published a scholarly text where he went after him pretty aggressively this is the barking dog metric. he not only made to videos, but he wrote a book about it. he is one of the most important thinkers and al qaeda. all of these other guys mentioned this. no matter how much they come out and get something, it is an indicator of how vulnerable they feel about something. their most reactionary when being gauged their ideas and ideology. in terms of the programs, one would assume that the united states government is doing everything from the overt to the classified level. i have no ability to assess their impact. the state department did have one program or they try to push america and how happy the muslims in the west were. it was seen universally as an abject failure. these are people who are looking for conspiracy and a way to reject the premise. that is why research and academic scholarship comes off because it is subjective. there is a crazy admiration that they have from one color to another that is where we could make the most impact and that of were we are funding bill least -- from one to have from one scholar to another. -- they have up from one scholar to another. that is where we could make the most impact. >>they are reading it and reactg to it. they are forced to react to it. i will turn over. >> i think this is an excellent question. it is important to be engaged in these issues of ideas. i am incredibly surprised that a year's after this conflict began, there is no program to understand these ideas. the doctor makes this point to listen to the academics and outsiders. i think it would be helpful to have a system that would promote this scholarship. that way, you will come up with the answer to the questions that you do not know yet. the other thing is that there's a spectrum of where people get engaged. >> you would say that in regards to putting things on the internet, the state department tries to explain to them how great it is to be a muslim in america, which i think is an abject failure as well. if you could rate on a scale of one-10th, where does it rank, radicalization. is it an effective place for them to go to become radicalized? another that is a pretty wide open question. what do you think? >> i will take the first part of the question first. >> the state department have one program -- the state department had one program and it took on people when 1-1. that is much more effective because it is candid and honest there is an authenticity issue here that tends to screw up a lot of our message in. in terms of -- i would say that the internet is not a sufficient place to radical was somebody, but it is certainly a contributing and exacerbating factor. four other people, it reinforces that which they already know and so it is case to case. >> is it more of a meat-up place? >> in some cases, -- it is it -- is it more of a me uet up place? >> it was the human touch that was necessary. it is not so was sufficient. " i think that is a really important point. i think the internet plays a key part in propagating this ideology and as a consumer, i think that is where you can become an absorbed. programs to address the policies are important. i think that those need to be funded. a lot of this stuff can i come from the american government. anything that does come from the american government will be doubted and questioned and argued against. i think that this is to come in other ways. there are a number of thinkers who have spoken out against violence. we do not need to reinvent the wheel. we could think of ways to propagate that and promote it. >> thank you, mr. marshall? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much for your testimony brok. >> there are a number of reports and studies that have come out and say -- one can doubt that said 700 and another said 1200 people have recanted. i think it is difficult to get an accurate message. we send an awful lot of information. this has not gotten enough attention. this is up and we should look. >> i think these are the early days. any efforts to combat extremist ideology would be supported encouraged. we know what has come out of saudi arabia in the past. you have organizations and religious scholars that are saying we do not want this represented this way. this is directed at the security and stability of the state. how this affects outside of the country -- like >> in your opening statement, you mentioned counter measures -- countermeasures. why not used the term counter messaging? one issue of for that as a hesitation. >> of law about this. there is another to advance. doing that is one to generate skepticism and doubt. i do not think it will accomplish what it is that we want to do. >> you have a pre approaches -- you have appropriate approaches? there is actually a better deal over here. is that what you're saying? >> from an american government pointed you, i don't think you would want this to look like it has the fingerprints of the american military or the american government on it. there has been a lot of work to identify publications that are written in arabic. figuring out ways to get those on lines of people will read them is a good place to start. >> but, you also the focus of this chat rooms and you're interested interrupting the conversation with some thoughts for least subjecting some thoughts. and you did make reference to this idea that they are not new ideas. is it worth while to consider having an organization of some sort? obviously, funding would have to come from the united states. perhaps some indirect funding as well. it would have people who watch these chat rooms and when a subject comes up, interjects. >> i think that is a great idea. when we think about how to engage, how they engage with violence or militancy tells you a lot. you're not trying to reach the people who already made up their minds. you're welcome for answers. -- you're looking for answers. i would think that part of that is -- like what he did say that he thought the state department program had -- was affected. >> allen like to see hamlet tiered multi approach level. >> -- i would like to see a multi tiered -- a tiered multi approach -- multi approach level. >> at that point, it is a matter to strategic planning. there are a lot of pieces to a lot of different names. this kind of work in this kind of didn't. again, i would come back to a campaign analogy. it is one where your watch and in view of your tv and radio and you're watching a day in and day out. the internet does not cost much. are you missing something? are there chat sites that went by year to the extent that she got that covered, what is the right message? >> you're worried about having somebody on this, but what they used just said is really unhelpful. you have to have the right people in place to counter that mrs. bucs i certainly agree with that. one of the reason that al qaeda was able to do this is because it is the same reason they could do a lot of other things. they do not require much to get them to do these things that includes spending time on the internet. if we could find people that are similarly motivated, we would not have to pay them. there were just do it. how much time do you think would be involved and how sophisticated do these people need to be? assuming there is a master plan that does contemplate, we want people in these chat rooms. what are those kind of people went to cost? >> it sounds as if you have defined a typical grad student. so, i think there is an army of us out there, but what they have done is created something between a salon and a war room. they put these on line and those conversations are public and open -- on-line in those conversations are public and open. i cannot go in and respond openly like that. when i publish something, they read it and then it posted to their website. i think that's something that would be useful is if we replicated their reproached -- their perch -- dare approach. i do not think it would cost a lot of money -- and their approach -- their appr oach. we have the resources. >> you had mentioned earlier that to radical was somebody is more hands-on. to stop somebody from being radical was, i would imagine that it is not as hands-on. would that be accurate? >> what we see from other programs in other parts of the world is that it often is a personal interaction. i think that instead of thinking about this as someone giving up their beliefs, you do not want people to be violent. this might be something more of a behavior modification. i think that we see people that leave militant groups or terrorist organizations. you often leave for various reasons. you could have personal reasons for stepping away from active participation in violence. you may be a support or encourage her, but this might become an academic argument as we look at this spectrum of how you engage. >> there are some countries and other parts of the world. do they have programs that are successful failures? what is out there that we can learn from? >> tuesday's rehabilitation programs spreading. just about every strategy has a disengagement element somewhere or other. you see these programs in libya and egypt and saudi arabia. kuwait is for to start doing something like this. jordan, syria, southeast asia, singapore, malaysia, bangladesh, these are all over. i think that there are things that you can learn. this is replacing a social network. >> is there a country out there that we could look to and say that they've had moderate success? in terms of the face to face disengagement, the saudis have done this a long list. singapore often gets talked about as a very successful program, but it has dealt with 60 people, by which are clear. this is a very specific program, but the libyans just tried to do something to disengage these guys. the egyptians did this with the islamic group to disengage them. there are things that we can look at. there is very low don this -- there is very little done on this. >> how great is the threat here? great britain seems to be a growing threat in the united states. . . >> if you have more people thinking bad thoughts, it is more likely someone will do something about that. as we uncover these plots, it is hard, because the complaints that are released cannot always tell you if there is jihadist motivation or personal or a combination. nidal hasan, we know he was having interaction. we don't know the content of those. they were dismissed as innocuous. what if he was talking about concepts that most of us know, but if you know it, you know it is the court doctrine of al qaeda. iyou might see it and you say, that is not too bad, but it basically means, if you are not with us, you are against us and it is the premise on which everything that al qaeda is founded. we'd get more granular in terms of knowing threats when we see them and knowing what are not threats when we see them. but i think it is a bad situation right now. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to follow up on jim marshall's question, the war room that you were proposing, how would you make sure that it was visited? >> well, they are already visiting us separately. i think if you bring us, whatever the people who did this for a living -- i say "us" because there are very few of us and the field has shrunk. it seems like a fairly hot topic at the moment. >> i was looking for that team academic cancer. -- i was looking for that keene academic answer. >> we're not populating the field with grad students. there are no apartments dedicated to al qaeda study. the legacy of vietnam makes them hesitant to engage with caa or dod in an overt way. i was told i would be blacklisted from most universities in terms of difficulty position. that is just the sense that one gets. there is a cultural disconnect, i think, between that. i think because the content would be based in primary source analysis of the adversaries message, we know that adversary, to use that speak, will be there and tried to see what we know about them and try to respond to it. the more that we force them to react to us, the less they are thinking those thoughts. case in point, every time his mentor says something, he is a neurotic about responding. these guys are all like that. they want to make sure that they did not miss out on any arguments made against them and they need to try to make sure that they have a better argument. i think we need to leverage that to our advantage. >> the theory seems to be if we build it, they will come, and they are sufficiently neurotic that they will respond and this will not be dismissed as some lame western -- no disparages against voice of america, but boring western programming? >> that is a fair assessment, yes. >> help me understand why so few muslim clerics denounced muslim on muslim violence. why is there no more talk about that? it is a pretty hierarchical religion and there are serious religious figures and universities and a mosques, but yet it seems to be almost a code of silence. whereas a danish cartoon will spark riots halfway around the world, and other seemingly minor things like a swiss vote on architecture codes, and yet there can be a market bombing in which 150 moslems are killed by muslims and there is almost no response. >> i think that is a great question. i am not sure i have a satisfactory answer. i think in part -- >> are the muslim clerics not online? >> i think more of them are online, but at the same time, christian religious leaders always speak out against all violence, and i think in recent years we see more and more muslim scholars, sheiks speaking out against this. i think some of these others issues, the cartoons, feed into other grievances which may not always have to do with religion. i think a lot of other ways to release tension within society, i think there are a lot of problems and the arab and muslim world, and they're not always tied directly to religion. over the last couple years, we have seen a number of scholars come out and say that violence is not acceptable, destroying the idea behind this movement, but it is something that is happening slowly. i am sorry that is not probably the comprehensive answer that you want it. >> i appreciate your insight. when tom friedman wrote his column today, i thought it would make this hearing topic more interesting. as a recording device, if they are able to attract u.s. citizens, it seems to be happening more and more. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to follow up on what works in terms of u.s. government activity. i think it would be a mistake to look at it and say the u.s. government is not credible with the target audience. so therefore we should be very distant and keep hands off. i think it is true that the u.s. government is not credible with the target audience, but even within that lack of credibility there are things we can do. just openly engaging in the discussion, countering arguments out there, even if you have a little bit of a bias, the arguments still has weight. i think it is fascinating, and i and a stand why they would want to respond. we all intellectually have that, even if it is someone we cannot stand, we have respect that if they say something that makes us look bad, you just cannot help yourself sometimes if you consider yourself to be at all intellectual. you are more likely to go, that is a load of crap, and here is why. it in terms of insight, i think the united states government can fact play an effective role that we are not playing right now in the online competition we're talking about. we have to be smart about it. not everything we do works, but we have to learn some lessons that you talked about today and we have to be more engaged in organized than we are now. towards that end, to questions -- two questions. he talked about the state department efforts, happy muslims in the medicine is going to disney world and so forth. i am curious as to why that did not work. i can kind of gas, because what would appeal to muslims outside of the u.s., sort of, look, they're all making a lot of money, it is not a materialistic approach. if you are presented and muslims are great and fine and look all the things they have, that would have worked against the soviet union, not this context. on the other hand, if you were presenting a message that said you are free to practice your religion and you showed muslims living as muslims and the west, freely and openly, i could see that as more effective. i'm curious on that. also have a question about a department of defense program called minerva which is trying to fund academic research. i would like my first question first. >> i will take a quick shot. i think the target demographic, those people who bought into this, maybe not the militant side but the ideological, alter conservatism, if you are a muslim, you cannot live fully lit -- freely in the west. they have already subscribe to that belief and there is very little to change that. the west is apparently restrictive on your belief to practice your religion and continuously temps you. bibby chris can talk more about that. -- maybe chris can talk more about that. i think the argument fails on its promise. plus, when you have military forces in the two of their countries, it does not matter. everything they say about how great life is is irrelevant. >> i think a lot of it is perception. you probably do not need to connect people to freedom or democracy or affluence. the points that you raise are good. i think a lot of the grievances that get identified in the muslim world have to do with policies. when those programs are going on, how many people were being harassed at tsa, how many people were not getting visas, things that we are trying to encourage. >> we are all being harassed at tsa. >> but every time i come back from saudi arabia, this is an issue. this is part of it. it is popular to talk about the policies that feed into these grievances. i think we can engage on some of those issues and say why these policies happen and correct misunderstandings. >> could you talked briefly about the department of defense minerva program, which was talking about growing the academic and intellectuals. is that effective or not? >> my response to minerva is it attempted to address one of the foremost -- and i quote one of the foremost experts on soviet policy, in the united states, in my testimony. i had the chance to talk to him about this. the problem with minerva is it is the same academics who are already being funded by the u.s. government, whereas in the cold war we had expanded it to hundreds of thousands of academic students. minerva identified a small group of people who are already on the time, i guess. it just reinforced that. it did not create a new generation or cross discipline and a way that is robust. but it was just more of the same. i think it is important, but it did not accomplish the fundamental thing that it was trying to. >> the idea behind minerva is great, enhancing academic research. i am surprised when there is a program to fund baptist exploitation. i don't know what that is going to do down the road. i think there are other programs that probably should have got money. maybe these were not the best issues for the department of defense to focus its resources on. >> i also think we should look into the issue that the academic institutions and our country are now distant from the dod and cia. there is that problem. i know we had this when we were trying to do the human terrain teams, part of the problem was we were going after archaeologists, sociologists, and in the academic world, there were quite a few chose not to participate because the perception of participating in part of america's perceived militant policies. i would like to get to mr. marshall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> on the one hand, the witnesses have been talking about intercepting jihadists who are on the internet sort of looking for guidance and being there at the right time to interject the right observation. you could do with a number of different ways. it could be an open and honest, hey, this is how it works, or it could be the right, of people who could interject the great quotes and passages. that is intercepting the budding jihadists. and then the concept that perhaps a war room, properly funded staff, could engage leadership, militant jihadist leadership in such a way that is attractive, and they spend a lot of time poking holes and ideology instead of recruiting and executing a tax. in both instances, you said war room. how'd you get people to come to the war room? compel them, send out a worldwide edict? you must pay attention to what we're doing on this website? it occurs to me that al-jazeera is missing a huge opportunity to grow its market share. i don't know why al-jazeera does not organize a chat room, and organize it in a very effective way so that if you go to that chat room, if you are a novice, you can get to the right place where you can see and engage in conversations that are handled by al-jazeera. if you are an expert, you can go find what you want to be chatting about or talking about. i am no internet expert. i am all thumbs when it comes to that sort of things. i did not chat, at least on the internet, but you see some places, "new york times," if an article comes out that is at all interesting, within a few days there have been five or 600 bloggers who have commented on the article, and i found it very helpful to read the article and then read what people are saying about the article. so some credible entity, credible in the arab world, not to us, and the arab world, i think al-jazeera is interested in market share and credibility and would want to manage that in a credible way, and i also think al-jazeera is a place that people go to. if that was to go to place for chats, you would not get caught off when you wanted to go on the al-jazeera site and advance your ideas or the war room would not or the individuals. what do you think? >> i think the point about intercepting the budding jihadist is a great point, and i think it is probably useful, in addition to taking away a negative, we also need to give a positive. for those religiously inclined, there has to be a positive way to exercise their faith. that is what we see in these disengagement programs. >> if i could quickly interrupt, the ballroom concept -- the war room concept really does not do that. that is more state department, one on one kind of stuff. >> i love this idea of the al- jazeera chat room. i am a big fan of the experiential learning, and i think a great way to would be to bring editors and journalists and reporters from the arab world, spend time with "the new york times" comment section. i think al-jazeera is one of the best things to happen to arab media and we need to encourage more professional exchanges. that would be great. >> i will concentrate on the war room idea. i published an open letter in arabic and english on a number of forms. most of the forms immediately erased it and said i was a zionist crusader dog and i would burn in hell for all eternity. >> and your view of that prediction? >> some of the other forms, they went after me. i got a nice complement for one of the hard core guys on the arab form. he said he seems to know the ideology better than we do ourselves. he will have to respond to it in some ways. i think that is the premise of the war room. we do not have to mandate people to come there, but they are already doing their that show that we know them as well as they know themselves. i think would be enticing to them, those on the fence, and the community that we are no dummies at this, we can take them on on their own terrain. >> we have a quorum call at the moment, 10 minutes left to go. that gives us a few minutes left to debate. i don't feel a need to --well, let's not say this into an open mike. it is possible the conversation will be more important than registering our presence on the floor, so we will keep going. i don't have too much more i want to say. jim, do you? sorry. we will probably be able to make it. i think this discussion has been very helpful and it is great. it is sort of like looking at a big problem, figure out what works, what does not work, learning ideas and people of that experience, i think my greatest concern in this whole process is that this is not going on at the level in the united states government that it needs to be going on. there needs to be, whether it is nsa, state department, some group of folks who are focused on this in much the same way post 9/11. pre 9/11, we were very focused on bin laden and al qaeda. we were not as committed to it as we were after 9/11, but those groups of people right now, every single day, all day long, are thinking about where top al qaeda targets are, what they're up to, and they're getting ideas and plans and modifying them and putting key players in that conversation. the same is not happening on the messaging, on the ideological struggle. you guys are great. there are only two of you and you cannot have the full resources of the u.s. government behind you. we will look for ways to try to push that within the administration to say that we need that war room that you are talking about, however you want to compose it, whatever ideas come out of it. i'm sure it will develop bad ideas, they always do, but you will learn from it, get better, figure out what works, what form you have to be on. that is what i think we really need to do. did either of you have any closing comments? >> in 2007, september, the guy i called the next bin laden, not very familiar to people, although i think he is than the most important, thoughtful, he makes bin laden look like a kindergartner in terms of this thinking intellectually. he was asked in an open interview with an out at outlet how the united states could defeat al qaeda it ideologically. he said it is easy, i have a six-point strategy. he said, you probably cannot to give that to them. he said, no, it is ok, they're not smart enough to implemented. they're doing things on the margin, but cannot do it because they are inept and stupid. second, because i am laying it out, i am inoculating our movement from their ability to do this, so it becomes irrelevant. he went through each of these points, what he says we could do. a lot of the things we have raised here, they are happening in a very one of kind of way. this is the intellectual bravado al qaeda feels they have. they could give this a strategy, and it was probably the most sophisticated strategy i have seen. >> would you mind sharing that in writing with us? we may not be able to implement it and it may not be effective, but -- >> the first point he said is promoting guys who used to be really senior and al qaeda. when he comes out and writes a book, it really hurts them. he says it really hurts us when things like this occur. second is exploiting our mistakes. al qaeda has a history of shooting themselves in the foot. simply pointing that out, he says continuously doing this, beating the drum. >> the mistakes include bombing the wedding party in jordan, some things they were doing in iraq. that is something i think we always make a mistake. it is sort of like the great argument we have, but after a while we get tired of it. i can always tell a really good campaign when they just keep pounding and pounding and pounding the same point, to the point you are sick of it, but it is a great argument, i never let it go. and the specific examples that are the most painful. >> number 3, he said it anytime a mainstream islamic cleric who has respect it rulings rules against us, it hurts us. that is very problematic. the more mainstream muslims come out against them, that hurts. dividing and conquering their movement, turning the muslim brotherhood against al qaeda, against -- showing because any insurgency needs to bleed into the populace. they need to erase those distinctions. the more that we can read those shades of gray, the harder it is for them to accomplish that. no. 5 is neutralizing the guiding lights of al qaeda, the top clerics. any time you take them down, shut them up, by whatever means one thinks is a poor. , that hurts them because they have a disproportionate impact to advance the movement. finally, identify superficial disputes and make as emblematic of methodological falls within al qaeda. this is the work that academics are doing. he is not saying make anything up, fabricate anything. he says it is all out there. the justices to be turned against us in the right way. >> kind of interesting to 6 part plan has nothing to do with most of the things we are doing. >> i think that is a good point to close on. >> i think you highlighted this key point, errors in this organization, the mistakes that get made. this notion of loyalty which is a really important key. also, the idea of is in individual response not only to stop wrong but do good. highlighting that does not happen all the time. every time a mentally disabled person is recruited to be a suicide bomber, i think if you look at what the saudis did, they drove a wedge between the extremists and their population and say they're not part of you. why you want this guy in your neighborhood, why do you want your son to associate with them when they are engaged in immoral activities? this is a movement based on an improving morality. we are totally not engaging in that at all. >> thank you. this has been fascinating and helpful and i plan to keep in touch with both of you. thank you for taking the time. with that, we are injured. -- with that, we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow, a discussion on u.s. foreign policy with barbara slavin and jonathan broder. also a discussion of president obama's first year in office stephen hess and tom thomasson. that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. damage in the mid-1990s, newsweek named him one of the most 50 was influential people to watch in cyberspace. since then, he has created black planet.com, created a charter school in brooklyn, and he talks on what is ahead on c-span's q &a. >> president obama address the sacrifices made by troops overseas. they are followed by duncan hunter with the republican spots. with the republican response. this is about 10 minutes. >> hello, everyone, and merry christmas. as you and your families gather to celebrate the holidays, we want to take a moment to send greetings from our family, from may, michelle, malia, sasha, and from bo. >> this is our first christmas and the white house and we're so grateful for this extraordinary area. not far from here in the blue room is the official white house christmas tree. it is an 18-foot tall douglas fir from west virginia, decorated with hundreds of ornaments decorated by people all of the country, each a reminder of the traditions we cherish as americans and the blessings we are thankful for this holiday season. >> that is right, especially as we continue to recover from the extraordinary recession which has left some americans. and, parents without jobs who are struggling to put presents under the christmas tree, people who have had their homes for closed. in these tough times, there is still so much to celebrate this christmas. a message of peace and brotherhood, that continues to inspire more than two dozen years after jesus' birth, the bonds of community and country, the character and courage of our men and women in uniform who are far from home for the holidays, away from their families, risking their lives to protect cars. to all of our soldiers, sailors, marines, air force, coast guard, i have no greater honor than serving as your commander in chief. i have been awed by your selflessness, eagerness to serve. i have been energized by your dedication to duty, from baghdad to the korean peninsula. michelle and i have been moved by your determination. when it warriors at walter reed and bethesda fighting back to get back your companies, and i've been humbled by family and p streets of me the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. the caskets coming home at dover, the quiet solitude of arlington. after years of multiple ports of duty, as you carry on our mission, your service, readiness to make the same sacrifice, is an inspiration to us and every single american. >> and so are your families. as first lady, one of my greatest privileges is to visit with military families across the country. i have met military spouses doing the parenting of two, keeping household together, juggling play dates and soccer games, helping with homework, everything they can to make the kids feel o.k. even as they try to hide their own fears and worries. i have met kids who want to know when mama's coming home, grandparents and relatives who stepped in to care for wounded warriors and folks trying to carry on after losing the person they love the most in the world. and through it all, these families somehow still find the time and energy to serve their communities as well, coaching little league, running the pta, raising money to help those less fortunate than they are, and more. but even the strong military families can use a hand, especially during the holidays. if you are near a military base, reach out through your work place, school, church. there are some new ways to help. with child care, errands, or just a home cooked meal. even if you do not know a military family nearby, your family can still held by donating or volunteering at organizations that support military families. >> you can also reach out directly to the forces around the world. kids can make a car that will bring a small to americans far from home. adults consent a care package or prepaid phone card that makes the toward just a little bit easier. every american to do something to support the troops, even if it is just as simple as saying thank you. a former ways to let the troops know that you care, go to www.whitehouse.gov. to all our service members far from home, iraq, a remote outpost in afghanistan, know that you are in our thoughts and prayers this holiday season and every holiday season and know that we're doing everything in our power to make sure that you succeed in your mission and come home safe your families. >> and to all americans, from our family to yours, merry christmas. >> merry christmas, everybody. am i am congressman duncan hunter, i represent the 52nd area of california. this holiday season, i hope that we all all four banks and prayers to our armed service members will spend their holidays away from home on the frontlines of iraq and afghanistan at bases around the world. i understand the sacrifices they are making. shortly after the terrorist attacks of the tambor 11, to dozen one, i quit my job to join the marine corps -- shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, i quit my job to join the marine corps. just last month, i had an opportunity to visit with our troops in afghanistan. i know that we all wish everyone could be home for the holidays, but this is not a time for sadness or regret. lots of home remind us of why we serve, because we're proud to be americans, because we want to pass on to our children the blessings of liberty that we inherited from our forefathers, and because nothing matters more to us than protecting our homes and families. our hope is as a result of this determination and sacrifice, we will never again see our cities and citizens under attack. i hope we also take a moment to share to reflect on those suffering here at home. for too many families, this will be a difficult christmas. one in 10 americans are unemployed, nearly 6 million citizens looking for work for more than six months, the most on record. all year long, republicans have offered common-sense solutions put more money back into the pockets of hard-working families and to up small businesses create more jobs. we have also outlined a plan to lower health-care premiums but up to 10% and with proposed an energy strategy to create more energy jobs ease the strain of budgets and help the environment. these cannot raise taxes, grow government, or add to the already skyrocketing debt burden placed and our kids -- placed on our kids and grandkids. out of work families are right to be asking, where are the jobs? republicans believe our top priority when it comes to the economy should be simple -- first, do no harm. let's resolve it in the new year to end misguided efforts to create new laws that will cost more jobs, whether it is the cap and trade national energy tax, the government takeover of health care, or more tax increases. working together, we can make the next holiday season even brighter for all americans. thank you, and happy holidays, and god bless america. >> tomorrow, national institutes of health director dr. francis collins of the latest developments of stem cell research, technology, and how nih might be affected by the health care bill. he's interviewed by reporters from usa today. newsmakers airs sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> there is less than a month left to enter the 2010 s studentcam contest. 50 cows knowledge and prizes. top prize $5,000. just create a five-minute to eight-minute video. it must show varying points of view. enter before midnight, january 20. winning entries will be shown on c-span. it don't wait another minute. go to studentcam.org for contest rules and info. >> this is america and the courts. next, encore presentations from c-span were specials. first, covering the court. >> by and large, the people that cover us like their work. as you indicate, they know our traditions and they do a very good job. the news cycle, the interest, the attention span being what it is, they have 24 or 48 hours to make the point. we write for a different time dimension than that. it is not just the result, it is what the principle is. the press does a very good job of reporting what we do. it is a little more difficult to report why we did it. i can understand that problem, because they have that 24 or 48 hour news cycle. so they have a tough job. >> this is the supreme court pressroom. on a day when several opinions have been released from the bench. in this program, we hear from two journalists who regularly write about the institution. lyle denison has covered the court for over 50 years, and joan has written about the highest court since 1989. >> i think all of us appreciate the law and enjoy it. it draws a lot of us who have gone to graduate school and on to law school. we sometimes do not want to break out of the school year cycle. the supreme court is the most mysterious branch to the public. they do their work in a marble building where cameras are not allowed. they are not recognizable generally to the average person on the street. they speak to the public through their opinions. in some ways, they are very public. anything they do that will matter in your life will be down in black and white in a court opinion. yet they themselves will not be publicly announcing that before a camera. there is a real mystery to the supreme court. also, it is the law, and the law can be complicated to many people. that gives it an element of, what are they doing up there? everything is based on precedent, so their current rulings are based on rulings from years, decades, even centuries ago. that gives it a more mysterious aura than the other two branches of government. >> when you go in for a big case, one with high visibility, where the stakes are really large, where you can feel the tectonic plates of the constitution actually beginning to shift, then you would be british if he did not have an awareness are hot -- you would be brutish if you did not have a high sensitivity to the importance of that moment. there are only about 110 who have served on the supreme court. the place is one where continuity is very important. history really does influence the way the court works. >> they take tradition very seriously in the supreme court. as fancy as it gets is when william rehnquist put those four gold stripes on each of his sleeves or wind justice o'connor and justice ginsberg wore a fancy color with their black robes. that was daring. this is a place endued with tradition. they don't like to break the decorum or what was done in the past. >> we sometimes kid that the quill pens they give to the oral advocates are exactly how they write their opinions. there are some justices who still write out their opinion in longhand and on legal pads rather than on computers. the whole thing is set by a tradition. oral arguments go for a specific hour. each side gets 30 minutes. a white light goes on when there is only five minutes left and then a red light comes on. there are certain days they have their meetings. the court has its own rhythms. chief justice rehnquist especially did not like to have any of those disturbed. john roberts came on in 2005. he is a little more flexible on things and will let oral arguments go a little bit longer. his predecessor, chief justice rehnquist would often interrupt someone right when the red light went on, even in mid syllable. >> this is the chamber where brown forces -- where brown vs. board of education was decided. the most important decision in our history in defining presidential power was decided in that room by human beings sitting on that bench, after having listened to argument by others. the aura of this place is always present. it does not matter how badly a given loyd is doing. and there are some bad lawyers to appear before the supreme court that are just not up to the task. there is something about the feel of the place that tells you something really important is going on here. to my mind, it is very much difference from watching a debate on the floor of the house and senate, where you realize that what may be going on on the floor at any given moment really does not have anything to do with the legislative process. is someone making a speech about how important mother's day is or how we should honor a certain kind of animal hud's husbandry or something. everything that goes on in the supreme court is related to something important, and is part of the process that is working from beginning to end. it will result in a substantial outcome. >> i like a lot of the elements of covering the court. i like oral arguments and the give-and-take, how they respond to each other. i always describe it as one of the great field trips in washington d.c. since it is not televised, people do not know what is going to go on. the whole room is beautiful. the velvet and white marble and these two beautiful american blacks, and the justices come in in their robes. we have a very active bench these days, so those is a lot of give-and-take. -- there is a lot of give-and- take. it is intriguing to watch. sometimes you can get clues as to how they might rule, and sometimes a surprise you when they finally issued an opinion. it is not where they appeared to be heading whenever on the bench. >> i don't think television cameras should make any difference whatsoever. there is an ongoing debate, and i suppose it is never going to end, as to whether the presence of cameras in any court changes people. i suppose that debate was a reasonable debate a long time ago, but we have had so much experience now in state courts, particularly with cameras and the court room. it does not make any difference at all. even in the federal courts where they are experimenting with allowing cameras in. i think judges are sufficiently aware of the craft of judging, that having an observer in the process is not going to be different in terms of how it affects the process, whether or not the observer has a note pad, as i do, or a camera taking images of what the court does. that is a debatable point, i will concede that. i think judges who are aware of what they are supposed to be doing will not play to the cameras. i don't think lawyers will play to the cameras. a lawyer gets up in the supreme court, and a lawyer knows they have one task, that is to persuade five people. that is all it takes to win, five of the nine. if you get up there at the podium and you are playing to the cameras because of the audience out there, the chances are fairly good that you will lose the focus on the five that you are trying to persuade up in front of you. if you are sitting on that bench, if you are one of the nine sitting on the bench, and you are thinking about what the audience out there looking at the camera image is thinking, you are going to lose focus on what is happening in front of you. the dynamic of an oral argument is such that you have to participate to really make it work for you. the justices use oral argument very often to persuade each other. when properly understood, oral argument is an agenda setting function. what is discussed in that one hour of time is going to very heavily influenced the conversation that the justices are going to have when they retreat from the bench and go back into the conversation. has already started when they were on the bench. >> does it stop being a quota because it is somewhere between eight and 12, but it is a quota if it is 10? >> there is still the residual sense that somebody would react to it, that someone would ham it up. justice scalia has said that one of his reasons for opposing it is that he thinks someone would play to the cameras. among the nine justices who have been most recently sitting on the court, if anyone would play to the cameras, i suspect the one most likely to do so would be justice scalia. he is a bit of a thespian. >> justice scalia is the most fascinating justice. he came on to this court with a different approach to the law, tied to the original intentions of the man who drafted and ratify the constitution. for many years he was alone in his view, mostly speaking to people be on the marble walls. now he has nearly a majority on the court for his approach to the law. meanwhile, he is such an interesting figure, larger with live. between duck hunting and opera watching, he is someone people want to know more about. he is very much out there in oral arguments. he will say bold, blunt things and candid, blunt things when he is out speaking to students. he is close friends with ruth bader ginsburg. they are quite opposites on the law. she is quite liberal, he is quite conservative. they have very different manners from the bench. justice scalia is incredibly aggressive and the justice ginsberg will ask lots of questions and tends to pride herself on a certain tone of civility. they are very close pals. they go to the opera together. they celebrate new year's eve dinners together. they have deep respect for each other. when they were lower court judges and the d.c. circuit, they would swap opinions and ask each other for advice on some of the language in their opinions. other justices have formed a bridge clubs and travel together. it is a very human institution. remember, they are appointed for life, so there is an incentive for them to get along. all nine individuals very much value collegiality. they are appointed for life. they have to work together. the matter their differences on the law, they want to get along. there were most challenged in 2000 after bush vs. gore. that was probably the biggest challenge in recent years. the differences emerge in very strong statements in their written opinions and sometimes oral statements given from the bench. they all know there is an incentive to try to keep getting along, because they have to share that building for many more years. many of these justices come and stay for 20 years, 30 years, and there is an incentive to appreciate each other's company, a matter how much they differ on the law. in recent years, most of the justices who have been appointed have been easy going and of that a tone was set that encouraged collegiality, rather than undercut it. >> when you have decided a case, you have to move on. however much you may have resented the way your colleagues on the other side decided the case, there will be another tough case coming up right afterward. if the prevailing atmosphere in the court is one of collegiality, then you are able to have our real tussle over case, but then once it is decided, put it aside and move on. virtually everybody knows everybody else, and among the justices, it really depends on the pattern that the chief justice sits. if the chief justice once they really collegial court, he can do things that bring that about. she justice warren e. d. chief justice warren had a largely collegial court. it never seemed to end between justices black and frankfurter, but earl warren himself was a very warm person and rent a chord that was agreeable with each other. the court under warren burger was not a happy place. relationships between the justices tended to rapidly deteriorated. there was a lot of internal resentment, and the chief justice did not work very hard at trying to dispel that. the way he ran the court at times contributed to that internal dissension, because he would play favorites in the way he assigned opinions. he would sometimes cast his vote one way in order to have control over the assignment, and then change his vote later on. he ran the court in a way that contributed to the internal division. chief justice rehnquist, on the other hand, ran a very happy court, a very collegial court. remember that i am talking about a court in the rehnquist years that was very deeply divided among philosophical and ideological lines. at the same time, the chief justice, using that position which -- know where is it defined -- know where it is a defined that he should be the principal caretaker of the emotional state of the court -- nowhere is it defined. it is apparent that she justice roberts is trying very hard to follow the example of chief justice rehnquist in having a collegial court. he has a bit of a disadvantage because unlike rehnquist, he was not able to establish russian ships before he became chief justice. -- establish relationships. justice roberts did not have the opportunity. he is considerably younger than a lot of his colleagues, which makes it a little more challenging for him to establish the kind of leadership potential that i think he ultimately will have. people who have known john roberts for a long time say he is no more conservative than they thought he would be. he is more conservative than i thought he would be, but he also seems to be more agenda- driven than i expected him to be. the court under john roberts is an institution that i think is very bold about re-examining longstanding precedents. it is interesting, because a lot of the popular perception of him in the media is that he is the chief justice who wants the court to move in more incremental ways, to take smaller steps, if you will. there is that dimension to him. i think in some ways he genuinely does want to have a kind of minimalist jurisprudence. there are times when his conservative orientation, which is deep inside him, leads him to want to push the court to try to take really bold steps. >> the chief justice sets the tone in a couple of ways. the most important he has is to assign opinions. when the chief justice is on the winning side, he determines to write the opinion for the court. that is a very important role, because that opinion will speak for at least five justices, the majority. it will also guide lower courts and the public in terms of what the law of the land is. so that is the most important role. but the chief justice also has a ceremonial position. he sets the tone. he is the one who runs the private conferences with the other justices. he is a member of other boards in town. when it comes to the actual law of the land, his vote counts as much as the newest justice. >> judge sotomayor, are you prepared to take the oath? >> i am. >> please raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, sonya sotomayor, do solemnly swear -- >> and you just as does a couple of things for the court. obviously, on the law, that is what matters. a new justice can tip the ideological balance and change the votes in the case. that is the most substantive thing a new justice can do. it also changes the personal dynamics among the nine. imagine a group you have been a part of work someone who comes in. everyone rearranges slightly to accommodate that person's approach to the law. >> byron white used to say that each new just this changes the whole court. i think what he meant by that was that because it is a quart of nine very, very particular individuals, there is a dynamic that develops. the new justice can change the dynamic, can come in with a different attitude, a different approach. i remember justice harry blackmun said to me at one. , he was quite resentful about justice o'connor. he said that woman came here with an agenda, and she means to carry it out. he was unhappy with per because his perception was that a new justice should come into the court and not be very busy bridgette not be very visible -- should come into the court and not be very visible for a couple of years. i recall that before the end of november, she was falling opinions dissenting from the court's decisions. a dissent from a denial or review is kind of a bold thing to do, particularly if your brain you on the court. the new justice comes into the court -- if you are brand new on the court.

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,West Bank ,Istanbul ,Turkey ,Dover ,Kent ,United Kingdom ,Beijing ,China ,California ,United States ,Whitehouse ,District Of Columbia ,Syria ,Russia ,Algiers ,Alger ,Algeria ,Washington ,West Virginia ,Charlotte ,North Carolina ,Nigeria ,Egypt ,Morocco ,Ramallah ,West Bank General ,Libya ,West Point ,Virginia ,Switzerland ,Senegal ,Singapore ,New York ,Malaysia ,Texas ,Afghanistan ,Iran ,Indonesia ,Lebanon ,Gaza Strip ,Jordan ,Pakistan ,Cairo ,Al Qahirah ,Bangladesh ,Iraq ,Denmark ,Baghdad ,Israel ,Brooklyn ,Gaza ,Israel General ,Saudi Arabia ,France ,Kuwait ,Bosnia Herzegovina ,Bosnians ,Americans ,America ,Egyptians ,Turkish ,Senegalese ,Pakistani ,Iranians ,Iranian ,Israelis ,Iraqi ,British ,Swiss ,Israeli ,American ,Russian ,Algerians ,Iraqis ,Libyans ,Afghans ,Britain ,Saudis ,Soviet ,Danish ,Palestinian ,Adam Smith ,Jim Marshall ,Francis Collins ,Bibby Chris ,Sonya Sotomayor ,Joe Epstein ,John Roberts ,Tom Thomasson ,Aslam Abdullah ,James Webb ,Jonathan Morgan ,Abraham Lincoln ,David Letterman ,William Eggers ,William Rehnquist ,Earl Warren ,Lyle Denison ,Al Qaeda ,Ruth Bader Ginsburg ,Barbara Slavin ,Maureen Mahoney ,Malia Sasha ,Nidal Hasan ,Al Gore ,Jonathan Broder ,John F Kennedy ,Walter Reed ,Leila Al ,Harry Blackmun ,Tom Friedman ,