The rigging of this ringing of this well. It just seemed such a shame when we came here. Then we went to columbia, the president ial palace, every piece of furniture has some link with the past. I thought the white house should be like that. Ladies, we are committed, and as citizens of the world, we promised to do all possible. Starting next monday with in a lady edith roosevelt. Few moments, a conversation with dick cheney and his daughter. That, a forum on the digital revolution. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow will consider authorization for military force. That will be live starting at 2 30 eastern. Join the conversation on facebook. The statehouse dome is one of , but it iconic symbols not the first dome to cover the building. Completed, it had a small kubla. Couple up. Pola. P afterhan two Years Congress was in annapolis, construction begins on a new dome. It takes about 12 years to it is the largest all wooden dome. It is truly an architectural masterpiece. 1912 the statehouse is used as a lookout. Documentationdous of William Barney going to the statehouse and observing troop akinents akin fourth fourth. Back and forth. Sundayook at annapolis at 5 00 on cspan three. The conversation now with former vicet the cheney president dick cheney and his wife. It is at the Freedom Conference and was just under an hour and a half. Well, we are delighted to be here tonight. I have watched the development of the organization of bill and tony thompson. I probably would not have gotten elected to congress in 1978 if theyll and tony had not helped me get cheyenne. You may or may not agree with the outcome, but it was all liberal. It has been a privilege to have the opportunity to spend time with my daughter. As i finished up my time in the white house, i decided to write a book, and it is nice to have your oldest child interested in your old war stories. I notice she has the book in her lap. I have no idea what is planned. I am not sure where this is going. What it is all good, all good. Im delighted to be here tonight and have the opportunity to spend the time with all of you, and with that, i will introduce my daughter, liz cheney, who is seeking political office, but this is not a political event, all right . Not working. Is there a way to turn off their . All right. I am guessing we will have the opportunity [no audio] hello . Move the mike up. Its ringing. Talk into it. Thank you. I think the nsa is not operating these microphones, clearly. Or maybe barack obama is. That is a good point. It is wonderful to be here tonight, wonderful to be here with the Steamboat Institute. It is long past time that the Aspen Institute got a dose of truth and reality and facts. We are thrilled to be part of that effort here tonight. We thought we would do a couple of things, talk about current events, but the most important current event in our lives, in our family, has been the fact that my dad was blessed, we were all blessed because my dad was the recipient of a new heart a little over a year ago. And his story he talks about his campaign for office when he was elected, and 1978, when he was running the first time, was also the first time he had a heart attack. I have been going back for reasons you can imagine, looking at old clippings for political campaigns in wyoming, and came across one where my dad was asked about his heart attack in 1978, after he had the attack and decided he was wanting to stay in the race. He was interviewed, and the porter said to him, are you concerned that having had a heart attack it might hurt your ability to get elected . He said, no, nobody has ever tried the heart attack shtick before. I wanted to talk about his book called heart, and it talks about his challenge in dealing with and overcoming Heart Disease. I want to start tonight as the you to talk about that, you are this most famous cardiac patient in the country and maybe in the world, and you accomplished great things while you doubt with the challenge of Heart Disease. A be you could talk about how you dealt with it and in particular, what i think is interesting is the mental attitude you always had about the disease and not letting it pull you back. Well, thank you liz. Most of you know i dealt with a few heart problems along the way, in the midst of my career, and after i finally obtained a heart transplant 16 months ago, my cardiologist came to me, john reiner, and he suggested that there was a book that he and i might do together. If you look back at the historical record, between 1968 and 2008 we reduced the incidence of death by her disease by 60 in this country. The fact that i am here tonight at all, that i survived, through that time, and he described at one point to me as the only heart patient he still had a live who had a heart attack back in the 1970s. We had the experience a couple years ago, what happened was i had lived and dealt with this in its various forms from 1978, through congress, Vice President , and so forth. Then i went into end stage Heart Failure after i left the white house. They worked on me one night and put in a pump to supplement my heart. That got me through the transplant 16 months ago, and it is nothing short of a miracle. It is an interesting story, the way john told her, and i got a phone call one day for the transplant from the cleveland clinic, and they were going to put on a conference on innovation in cardiology and care of Heart Disease, and they said, we have all the suppliers, makers of the device, so forth, we have a lot of the docs coming, but we decided we needed patient. Somebody said, lets get cheney. Up to that point i have not had a transplant yet. This gave us the idea that you can tell the story of that 40 year miracle, really, of what has happened with respect to our ability to deal with Heart Disease in this entry through my story and my case history. And most of the things that saved my life over the last 35, 40 years were not even around when i had the first heart attack in 1978. The treatment then is what Dwight Eisenhower got 23 years before in 1955 when he had a heart attack in colorado. So what we do with Jonathan Reiner writing as the physician, i write as the patient, and we tell the story of all those developments, including the historical background to where stents and deferred relators come from, and transplant surgery, the whole body of technology and development of medicine of cholesterollowering drugs, etc. We tell that story to my case. Also lay it against the background against mic, and public service. I was uniquely blessed in many respects. Obviously you can never express enough ready to for a donor or the donors family. You can not talk about what i went through and how i survived it without talking about liz and her sister mary and their moern,ith whom i will celebrate my 49th wedding anniversary next week. When you go through everything we went through as a family and the only way to go through it is as a family, if at all possible. I wake up every morning with a big smile on my face thankful for a new day i never expected to see. The book is bought by simon schuster. It is called heart an american medical odyssey. It is not political. It has a thing to do with politics. I suppose you could say all of my critics who said i never had a heart may want to have that proposition challenged now, that i have proof that i do have, but it has been an important part of my life. You do not talk about it when it is going on. Evil were not interested in me as Vice President , secretary of defense, if i had a bad heart. They wanted somebody to do the job. Because of the great support that i had from my family, from friends all over america who prayed for me, and who were there when i need support and help, made it possible for me to live a very full and active and otherwise normal life in spite of the fact that for regarding five years i was a cardiac patient, you had everything done to him that you could do to a heart patient. I am grateful to be here tonight, grateful for all of the support that the people have provided over the years, including many in this room tonight, and grateful to be here with my daughter and my first child and hopefully my that remains to be seen. I will leave it at that. You are supposed to tell a story. Oh, yes. She has the script. She never gives me the script. Liz has got five of our grandchildren. Kate is the oldest, the sophomore down at Colorado College starting this fall, but the youngest is my namesake, richard, and after i had the transplant, the rule is you cannot sit in the front seat of the car because they do not want you to get hit with an airbag, hard on the plumbing, and instead of sitting in the backseat with might grandson richard, and he said, did you get a new heart, grandpa . I said, yes, i did. He started asking questions. I did the best i did to explain the process and so forth, and how it all came about. He listened very carefully for about five or 10 minutes and the nature he said, yeah, i had one of those when i swallowed the quarter. My other favorite richard story he was in kindergarten, came home from school one day, and he told his mom, he said, mom, tomorrow i have to stand up in front of the whole class and tell what is special about me, why i am special. She said, what are you going to say . He said, i have two choices. I could say my grandpa was Vice President of the United States. She said, yes, that is a good answer. What is the other one . He said, i could tell them i got my cat at the dump. And you can guess which one he used. I will now tell a richard story. This was not in the script. The other thing in our lives obviously, caring for my dad has brought the family together. We are a family very much, politics has brought us together, and the chance to Campaign Together as a family when my sister and i were young and we traveled wyoming with my mom and dad and grandparents, it brought us together and gave us a chance as kids to see how democracy works, to understand how important that process is, and it is a process that i am now going to go through with my own kids. People have asked me, you have five kids. How is it that you are able to run for office with five kids . What of the things i know for sure is the exposure that i had, the chance i had as a little girl to see what democracy looks like was an invaluable lesson for me. It is a lesson that i am really honored now to be able to share with my own kids. And so, the latest event we did together was the wyoming state fair parade in douglas, wyoming, last weekend. We had my kids and my cousins kids, so we had a gaggle of kids walking into parade with baskets full of candy. My Campaign Manager decided that it would be important for the prayed again or us to brief the kids, because when youre out there tossing candy, it can get dangerous. She brought them all together and she said, now we will talk about the roles of being in a parade, the rules of throwing candy in a parade. Rule number one, and my older son raises hand, said, do not check the candy heart. She said, that is right, that is an important rule. What is rule number two . One of my cousins little girl said, do not throw it in faces. My manager said that is right, do not throw that faces. She said rule number three, and richard raised his hand, and he said, no farting. That is a good life lesson. In addition to the life lessons that you learn in a campaign, we want to talk about Current Affairs and about what is happening and about the concerns i know that Steamboat Institute has and about the concerns that people across this nation have about the direction of the country. And we are not here to do a political event, but it is very much those are concerns that made me decide to run for office this time around. I believe that we are living very clearly at this moment through a critical point in our nations history. You can look back at other nations and at our own, in other times, and see when it was that countries came to a fork in the road, when they came to a turning point. You can think about Winston Churchill and his election as Prime Minister in britain in 1940. The extent to which people around him said you got to seek terms with adolph hitler, that if you do not surrender, you will be destroyed. He refused, he refused to capitulate. He knew the odds were against him, but he saved civilization and freedom by doing that. You can look at Margaret Thatcher when she was able in 1979 to safer country from the ravages of socialism. She said im going to turn this nation around, against all odds. In our own nation, Ronald Reagan provided that same example of a president who came to office and who saved us from the malaise of the jimmy carter era. I think many times in history when you look back, you have the ability to see those moments. You do not always know them when youre living through them. We know right now as we sit here tonight that we are living through one of those moments, and it is a moment that we have all we have got to make a decision what are we going to do . Are we going to let this president to his country down a path which could lead to instruction, or are we going to stand and fight and defend our freedom . And i know that you think of this like i do, when you think of it in terms of the blessing that we have, this nation that we live in, the legacy that we have inherited, the unbelievable miracle of our fan think, when for the first time in the history of the world, the Founding Fathers said this nation will have its people be the sovereign. It never happened before. And it is an unbelievable blessing that we get to live in a nation where we are free and where men and women have died for our right to be free. But that fact imposes an incredible obligation and duty on every Single Person in this room, every single american across this country, and that is a duty to defend that freedom and to defend that freedom against both external enemies, against terrorism, against threats to our National Security, but also to defend it against president s like this radical man in the oval office today who believes that the government is the answer to every problem, does not believe we are an exceptional nation, who is that we ought to control at least 1 6 of our economy who said that the private sector is the enemy. I think we have the opportunity today, the opportunity over the next year, frankly, to be in a position where we send a very strong message to washington and that is a message that we are not going on to get along anymore, we are not content with business as usual, we are taking back our freedom, taking back our values, and we are going to fight to defend what every one of us knows this country was built on. And before i get the mike back to my dad, do not lose hope. It can be really easy, particularly if you listen to the Mainstream Media, to think that somehow conservatives are a minority, that we are powerless, to think that we ought to just be discouraged about 2012 and give up the fight and sit down and be quiet. If you start to lose hope, think about this the president of the United States used the irs, ive used the power of his office, to go after political opponents, conservatives, republicans, members of the tea party. He had the irs people asking what people said in their prayers. That is unamerican. It tells you something about our power. The president would not bother the to use the irs to go out after us if he was not afraid of every single one of us. Wherever you live, you have the opportunity to cast a vote, work for an important cause, to work for an important organization, dedicate yourselves over the course of the next year to making sure that 2014 will be critical for us, critical for taking back the nation, and it is going to be a moment when everybody around the country can hear especially from those of us in the Rocky Mountain west, that we are not going to stand for it one minute longer. One of the questions i get a lot and then i will ask my dad, because i would like to hear his view, the media in particular likes to talk about how the Republican Party is in disarray. We are facing these huge challenges, but we have got this abuse going on inside our party. I would like to hear you talk of about the introspectives on it, as somebody who has obviously participated in politics and policy for a long time and who has seen our party and the Democratic Party does through times of change. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on where the party is today and what we have got to do to take back the white house in 2016. After the obviously i was not happy about the outcome in 2008, but president bush and i have had our eight years, we had worn out our welcome in some quarters, although we are looking better and better every day. It was easy after not easy, but it happens to a lot of people, to be down after the 2008 election, and we lost, but then we went through i can remember that morning on january 20 of 2009, when we swore in the new president , there is a certain ritual that goes with that that i have always been fascinated by. There have been five republican president s since eisenhower. I have worked with four of them. I worked with a fifth as part of the congressional leadership. I have been intrigued why that transfer of power. I can remember when president ford lost in 1976. One of my jobs as chief of staff was to read his cap concession statement over the telephone to jimmy carter, because president ford had lost his voice. He had been working so hard in this closing weeks of the campaign, his voice was gone. All he could do was a bear whisperer. He called me into the oval office. We drafted a telegram, and then he told me to get governor carter on the phone, which i did. He introduced me and then i had to read that statement. That was a real armor. That was about as low as you could get when i think about my political career. As i look back over it now and think about it, those particular days, but a lot of my experience is that out of adversity rises opportunity. I look forward to the next election, and all the elections coming up. Were going to have to earn it, build the organization. And push forth the program that the American People will believe in and will support. And its our right as americans to go do that. By golly, thats what were going to do. [applause] there is a lot of concern and discussion in the political debate these days that focuses a lot on domestic affairs. For good legitimate reasons. I am perhaps even more concerned or at least as concerned about whats going on internationally as i am about what barack obama and his administration are doing domestically. Why do i say that . Well, one of the most memorable days in my life was 9 11. I was in my office, with my speech writer, and the word came down there had been an attack in new york, and shortly after that, the door to my office burst open. One of my secret Service Agents came in. He was sitting down in the chair, and he said, sir, were leaving now. He didnt ask. He didnt say, would you come along with me. He said were leaving now. He grabbed my belt and propelled me, literally, out the door and into emergency operations, the bunker underneath the white house. We got partway down there and got into a tunnel. He told me the reason they evacuated me was because there was a hijacked aircraft that was reported by dulles headed toward crown at a very high rate of speed. Turns out that was american flight 77 that went into the pentagon. But what emerged out of that whole day, obviously, was not a terrorist act. It was not a Law Enforcement problem. It wasnt a matter of us sending out the f. B. I. To go find the bad guys and bring them to trial and lock them up. It was an act of war. It was worse than pearl harbor. It killed more americans than pearl harbor did. It took place in washington, d. C. It blew a hole in the pentagon. And if it had not been for those passengers on united flight 93, they would have taken out the white house and the pentagon. Thats about as bazz as it gets. One of the key decisions we made in the bush administration, and we made it basically that night and the next morning after the day was over with, and the president was back and addressed e country, lynn and i were evacuated on white house helicopters after camp david at a secure and undisclosed location. We wanted to make sure the president and i were not in the same location. We wanted to preserve the continuity of government. One of the things we were careful about was not to be in a situation where an attack could take us both out. I had an opportunity to set up there most of that night and watch the reruns on television the events that happened on that day. As im sure many people in the country did. We had to say, how do we make sure that never happens again. The key decision was to say, that was an act of war. Because then we were justified in marshalling all of our resources, including our military manpower, our intelligence capabilities, and using the powers of the president under article 2 of the constitution as the commanderinchief. And thats what we did. During the course of that, we put in place a terrorist Surveillance Program thats now referred to as the n. S. A. Program. Basically what it did, though, it allowed us, and im confident that the program we put in place obviously i havent been involved in the classified stuff at the white house, but the program we put in place, alexander said stopped over 50 attacks on our on the United States and our friends overseas over the last 10 or 12 years. We put in place the enhancement terrorist ininterrogation. We put in place water boarding. Some believe it was torture. I dont believe it was torture. K. F. M. May have felt like it was torture. But the fact was, the enhanced ininterrogation program, signed off on by the justice department, it wasnt torture no matter what anybody said, it was a good legitimate program that let us develop the intelligence we had to have to keep america safe for seven and a half yeards. And it worked. The record speaks for itself. The c. I. A. Put out a classified report in 2004. We captured k. F. M. In the spring of 2003 in karache. He ultimately was subject to enhanced ininterrogation. A report was published, classified by the c. I. A. And scently i asked, and it has been declassified. Although it still has parts of it redacted. Khalid line on it is, sheik mohammed, preeminent Osama Bin Laden. Thats the preeminent source we had about where their Training Camps were located, what their training plans were for the future. Before that point we didnt know that. The way we kept the country wa safe was to get that tps. And according to the agency itself, the way we did that was by subjecting him because he was subt more than anybody else, to enhanced interrogation techniques. Why do i tell you all that history . This administration doesnt get it. They just dont. And obama made a speech here not too long ago. It was at National Defense university, about three months ago in may, and basically said, ok, now were turning back to the pre9 11 days. Were not at war anymore. Ere going back to pre9 11, and its just a Law Enforcement problem and well blow up the to blow hen they try something up. I think thats dead wrong. I think it is an absolute total misreading of where we find ourselves today. As i look at that part of the world, now north africa, a good part of the middle east, not just afghanistan where they launched 9 11 from, but also yemen. Of course the major struggle underway in egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood having taken hold there. They spawned all these other groups, by the way. Egyptian jihad, Muslim Brotherhood founded back in the 1920s, and out of that has come most of the major islamist organizations. But they are out there. All you have to do, if you have any question about it, look at benghazi and libya. All across the middle east, and clearly in areas such as pakistan, iran we see obviously significant elements of radical islamist belief and action and activity. They have much larger geographic base from which to operate now that they can use as sanctuary and safe harbor than they ever had on 9 11. We have a major problem with gard to the prifferings proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam hussein had twice had Nuclear Programs underway. In 1981, israel took it out. We took it out in 1991. Ut it gave them the capability start it up again. When we shut douch the nuclear saw t, cad if i qadaffi what we did with saddam, he shut his down. He didnt want to have happen to him what happened to Saddam Hussein. In the end, he got worse, and he qadaffi, we n we went after akukahn. They were selling weapons to the iraqis, to the North Koreans. We shot down his black market operation. We took out three major sources of proliferation. That in and of itself was reason enough for us to go do what we did to Saddam Hussein in iraq. The threat has not gone away. You may remember it was discovered in the spring of 2007 , and this is a few months after north korea set off their First Nuclear test, that the north korean North Koreans that the North Koreans had built a Nuclear Reactor capable of building plutonium in the syrian desert. Syria is a mess today. Everybody is worried about chemical weapons. Imagine what would have happened if the israelis didnt take out that Nuclear Reactor in 2007 . I wanted to take it out. Unfortunately i lost the argument. The israelis went ahead and did it for us. We also heard that senior pakistanis officials were bribed to acquire the latest stateoftheart technology for enriching uranium. And we know from a scientist that went and saw it that the North Koreans now have stateoftheart technology to produce uranium. They have already proven to be firstclass proliferators. This administration in the midst of all that first of all claims there is no problem. We have Osama Bin Laden. There is no terrorist threat in benghazi. That turned out to be a blatant lie. They are still covering it up. You look at their recognition of the threat out there. It is basically nonexistent. In the week that obama went to israel and met with netanyahu and they talked about the Iranian Nuclear threat from iran shortly after they announced we were cutting our naval Aircraft Carrier battle groups from two down to one. Cut our naval forces there in half. Dont cross that red line and at the same time, pulled a carrier out. The truman was scheduled to deploy to replace it, and it is still locked up, tied up at the dock in norfolk. They are cutting the Defense Budget by huge amounts. One of the great things we have in Ronald Reagan was a man that understood what was needed in terms of our National Security. The first call i made after desert storm was over with when i was defense secretary was to Ronald Reagan in california. I thanked him. What i said, frankly, was mr. President , i want to thank you 600 toilet seats you bought. He said, darn it, they didnt cost 600 and then he got the joke. Our capacity to win in desert in no small part to the choices he made 10 years previously. We have pilots in the air force that dont get to fly anymore. Oftentimes squadrons are grounded. Our rule was a squadron needed to get 30 hours a month. We have a lot of them not flying, so they are leaving. What we are doing with the inaction, we are crippling the capabilities that a future president will have 10, 15, 20 years from now. Because thats how long it takes to build quality military forces. It is not like getting a highway contract and tomorrow is pouring concrete. It takes years to get a really first rate top notch n. C. O. In the marine corps or any of the other services to develop the technologies we need, to build the tanks and provide for the training and proficiency that our troops demonstrated so tremendously in desert storm. That capability will not be there after barack obama gets through his eight years in the white house. One of our major priorities have to be to recognize the threats still exist. It doesnt matter what he says. They are still covering up benghazi. They still dont want to admit that there is a major threat out there, and he could care less about the quality and the state of our military capabilities. So i think not only are there a lot of good reasons to be concerned about where he wants to take the country domestically with obama care and so forth, abuses like the i. R. S. , but i am deeply, deeply worried about what kind of National Security posture we will have, how good our word will be around the world, our capacity to deal with threats. I mean, if you cant even mount a rescue operation from siganela, an hour away from benghazi, and four of our people are being killed by alqaeda terrorists in libya, what does that say for the next time when you have a big problem to team with and hundreds of thousands of lives at stake . I still think the biggest threat we face is the threat of terrorists armed with something deadlier than Airline Tickets and boxcars. And we have to be able to defeat that threat. [applause] im sure ive gone on longer than i was supposed to. I have a question. I want to go back to the n. S. A. Program. You said something important, which is that you could vouch for the program that was underway when you were in ffice. I think everyone in this room would agree that barack obama is no dick chainy. When you have a president that has shown a disregard for the law, whose shown himself willing to use the i. R. S. To go after political enemies, who has shown himself willing to disrart the constitution, to decide well, im not going to implement the ememployer mandate because it is inconvenient for me, even though it is the law, who has shown himself frankly completely irresponsible when it comes to protecting americans privacy, you have an awful lot of americans out there now, and in light of a lot of news stories were seeing, that say, well, the n. S. A. Made a mistake, and they listened to phone calls from washington, d. C. Because it has a 202 area code which is similar to the country code for egypt, was one of the latest reports. So there is a lot of concern out there. When you think of the threat that still exists and the fact you have we have to be able to defend ourselves both from the threat the president is posing to our freedom domestically, also from terrorists internationally, what do you do in a situation where you have a demand commanderinchief who has put a very Important Program wellsk in my view who made be undertaking a real abuse of power . If hes willing to do it in areas we can see, what makes you confident that hes not doing it n areas that we dont see . Well, the first thing you do is get yourself a new commanderinchief. I have some ideas about that. I know this is a difficult subject. There are a lot of people concerned about the n. S. A. L people, dont confla confuse the n. S. A. With the i. R. S. I believe the power and authority of the i. R. S. Has been misused to go after the opponents of the administration. O question in my mind. But it would be a terrible mistake to say since the i. R. S. Has abuse because because the i. R. S. Has been abused by the president and his people, that this will be abused. But there are not examples out there that the n. S. A. Has been abused. You dont have the evidence there that you have with the i. R. S. You have people that have been ininterrogated by the i. R. S. About their political beliefs. Officer alexander, one of the most exemplary officers i have known. I have forgotten his name. Hayden . Maiden and mcconnell. I eventually got him promoted to three stars. He ran the National Security agency on my watch when i was at defense. Mike hayden worked for me. When i worked for the secretary of defense. The secretary of defense controls a bigger part of the Defense Community than does the c. I. A. Director. Department rector of defense president , these were good men that helped safeguard the Civil Liberties of the American People. I said, we can understand better the threat if we can get additional authority. And that is, in fact, then what the president did. But with a caveat that he personally had to review it every 30 days and reauthorize it or it wasnt going forward. T was going to stop. The congs knowing about it, we had meetings. We included the majority and minority leader of the house, the minority and majority leader of the senate, and the chairman of the intelligence commite. Grou i had them go back to congress and say, do we need more authorization for this program . General em briefed hayden there that day, showed them what we were learning, and i went around the room and said, does anybody here believe we should terminate the program . Absolutely not. Everybody said keep doing it. Its the right thing. Then i went around the table and said, do you think we should come back to the congress and get more legislative authorization for this program. They were unanimous. Absolutely not. You bring it back to the congress, it will leak. Then you will tell the bad guys how it is we are reading their mail. That was the situation when we ere there. I had not been involved in classified meetings as i had some four years ago. I am confident given the intelligence swayings involved, i have never seen a situation where they violated for political reasons, as happened with the i. R. S. I dont know how they dealt with t i know how we dealt with it. We were scrupulous making sure that power and authority was never abused. Every once in a while, a big organization, im sure they have a problem with them. But there are safeguards building, too. We have to fight the courts. The surveillance fact courts that sign off on these programs. Before you dig in, you have to read the files. I know everyone is concerned about it, but the last thing i want to read is, obama might abuse the n. S. A. Authority and therefore we ought to shut it down. The last possible thing we ought to do. These are good folks doing the best they can to safeguard the you know, id like to have mr. Alexander to cover by mack any time. [applause] i think if you look back on abuse, you were also scrupulously careful not to have the head of the white house be the head of the i. R. S. We now know he had been there once. The president has been there 72 times. I think there is a real question about in a democracy under threat, you know, you have programs that you put in place o defend the nation. You end up with a commanderinchief to seems not concerned about defending the rule of law, americans privacy. T gives rise to concern. Oh, there has to be a difference between where we trusted you implicitly, because you guys had the program, and were going to throw the program out. Dont you think there is a legitimate question American People ought to be asking . You can say, the program is classified. But those of us who know we have to defend from attacks from the outside, at the end of the day, that comes directly into Barack Obamas lap. It seems to me you have to say, this is a president who has put us at risk because of his unwillingness to exercise the concern for the constitution, frankly, that you guys did. So whats your solution . Chief. W commander in yeah, exactly. I understand the concern everyone has. Im as much of a small government guy you are going to find. I believe they strongly in a strong National Defense. I served over four years on the house Intelligence Committee. I have been heavily involved in the intelligence business a good part of my career. I know how dangerous it is, how difficult it is oftentimes to collect the intelligence we need, to get it right, and it is not a perfect business. It just isnt. It is very hard. What are you after are the secrets being kept by the worst regimes, and the ones they more than anything else want to protect. Sometimes the Intelligence Community makes mistakes. But as a general proposition, i most argue that for the part, what weve depun with our Intelligence Community, specially in since the 9 11 period, has been by the book, well managed, not perfect. Nobody is perfect. But they do have in place procedures to make corrections when they have to. And the last thing im going to do is be in a position where we say now that we need to shut it down or we need to significantly limit their capacity and their and which 10 or 15 are you going to protect . There was a book britain called the 1 solution. I wanted to make a statement that our defenses against terrorism, against attack with deadlier weapons than 9 11, have to be 100 successful. Most lines of work, if you get a success rate of 80 or 90 , hey, thats pretty good. When you are defending against a potential attack against one of our major cities by a terrorist armed with a nuclear weapon, are you willing to accept 99 . Im not i think you have to do everything you can to stop whatever might conceivably be cutting edge. And that means you have to be aggressive with the military. That means you have to go overseas sometimes and be actively engaged in making certain that people with the technology dont provide it to the people with the motive to come use it against us. It means we have to work doublely hard here at home to make certain that we can, indeed, defend against that next attack. And im saying, based on my own experience, both with respect to the threat, with respect to our success after 9 11, and what we were able to do primarily through the Intelligence Committee as well as our military forces to prevent that next attack, i think n. S. A. Is a well run program, it is an Important Program, it is important to the security of the nation. Now we have a president that concerns us for a lot of reasons. But i wouldnt throw the baby out with the bath water. I would not say because we have a president that does not have the same concerns we do means we ought to limit our Intelligence Forces to protect the nation. I think we got it the wrong way around. We have to beat him at the next election. We have to get him out of office, and we have to elect people that we can trust and ave confidence in. It is a tough problem. I dont deny it. What happened at benghazi. There are so many of our intelligence professionals all over the world that put their lives on the line day after day after day for all of us. And we were successful at stopping all further attacks against the United States during those 7 1 2 years. Boy, i would back them to the hit and do everything i can to support them, because they deserve it. [applause] im glad to see you havent one squishy in your old age. [laughter] i wncht want to end by talking about our men and women n uniform. When my dads memoirs came out, he and i spent a lot of time talking about his life and his career. When i would ask you the question of, what was your the job that you sort of treasured most or valued most, i know secretary of defense was normally the answer. And the time you got to spend with our men and women in uniform. I know that one of the reasons so many people are concerned about the budget cuts and about particularly whats happening at the Defense Department, because of what its doing to the military. You mentioned earlier what it is doing to our readiness, but also what it is doing to our veterans. And what we owe to those men and women that put their lives on the line and they do come home. And the extent to which the kind of budget cuts were seeing may well mean that were not taking care of them the way we should be and living up to the promises that we made to them. And there is a story you tell in the book, and it is actually a prayer, that i wanted to see if you would sort of end our section with tonight, maybe tell the story of where this prayer comes from, and then read through the section for the people. Toward the end of my time as Vice President , lynn and liz and i were invited to a special ccasion. I spent a lot of time with our guys in forces. A lot of things were done it is not classified, but it is not done out in public. They get together and honor one another. Families are included, spouses are included. And liz and lynn and i were invited to attend one of these sessions. It was a very, very special ight for us. At the dinner that night, where you had many guys that had fought in afghanistan and iraq. Many of them wounded. They had a lot of purple hearts there that night. They had a young chap atlanta that was asked to deliver the invocation. He happened to be from wyoming. This is the heart of what he said. We are soldiers of god, agents of correction. May our world see the power of faith. May our nation know the strength of selfless service. And may our enemies continue to taste the inescapeable force of freedom. That says it all. [applause] now i think there are queds somewhere questions somewhere. The question is i think it was directed to you, liz. Well, you go first. If i dont like your answer, then ill chime in. The question is, who would i pick as the next ommanderinchief. I think we should undergo a generational change in terms of leadership. [applause] i do not think we are likely to see somebody who has been engaged in the past regenerate a new successful campaign. There comes a time when your moment has passed. Mine has, i am 72 years old and i had a great 40 years in the business, but i want to see someone else come along and take over. I think there are some promising folks out there. Obviously, i have some favorites in that generation. But i look at pardon . Like . I thought liz said that for a minute. I think of people good i lot of you know them. Like kevin mccarthy, from bakersfield californian. How many of you know kevin . He has my old job. He is not that well known at this point of a but in terms of making the trains run on time, he has a key job. I like marco rubio from florida, people ive gotten to know well. I am trying to remember the name of the governor of new mexico. Susana martinez. I loved her speech at the convention when she said she was 18 years old and her daddy owned a Security Firm and he gave her a colt 45 and part her out in front of the bingo parlor. To guard the bingo game. That had a certain appeal. But i think weve got folks coming along in that next generation. I think there are a lot of governors out there that h have a lot to offer. They have been out there actually making those tough decisions. Balancing the budget, cutting taxes. So im not at all pessimistic. It will be a tough process. Weve got hard fought primary process. Must say, im inclined to think what primus is trying to do, moving up the primary, but i dont think we need 23 debates or however many it was. We end up beating up each other to the point where all we have done is create the lines for the democrats to use against us. A good tough primary is fine. I believe in them. But we need to have an ordererly process. We also need to do a better job than we have before in the party mechanism. There were things appeal followup crowd did those were things that the obama crowd did better than us. They built it and used in 2008, and they kept it going until 2012. It is still cranking away out there tonight. We need to be able to take advantage of all the modern technology to identify our votes and get into the polls and we need to be better organized than the democrats are. There are a lot of things that will enhance our chances. In terms of picking next president , i am not ready to do that yet. I think we will see a lot more potential contenders, but i also think we will see a lot of people come to the forefront and that is healthy for our party. As long as we ended soon enough that it does not becoming death march for whoever we ominate. I want to add two things. I agree what you said about the next generation at the commanderinchief level. I keep thinking about hillary, because she is the last generation. And she blew benghazi. [applause] and as the esteemed former governor pointed out, she blew benghazi. And finally i want to put a plug in for adam puttnam. He used to be the house policy chairman. He went back to florida. I hope adam will run for governor. Hes another young upandcomer in our party and really someone to watch. I think we clearly have the ability given where we sit today , and given the challenges we face, to beat barack obama in 2016, and we have the obligation to do so for the sake of the ation. In case you might think you might not give us a mistake, this particular question might change her mind. Actually, it could make it for both of you. It is kind of a composite of several questions that were sent up. Despite how we got here, the places that we are in, in the middle east right now, with egypt, syria, iran, seem about as intractable as any of us have ever seen. And taking on the political side, does it concern you with some people that lean toward the libertarian aisolationist side of the party that questions of what to do with countries like this might be just shoved off and end up being horrendous in the future . Well, those are key questions. I think partly it is important or us to distinguish between a situation in different countries. There are, obviously, common themes and similarities. I look at what is going on egypt today, and i have been supporting the military. I think they have my experience with the jilling Egyptian Military. Going back to 1990, and when it was time to get organized and deal with Saddam Husseins aggression with kuwait. They are a pretty sensational force. I think they got involved in toppling the morssi regime because there had been n an upwelling of support from the egyptian people. In fact, petitions were circulated and could be signed only by egyptian voters. It was an egyptian that mate made it possible to vote. And the petitions called for the removal of morissi and they got far more signatures than in the past. The Egyptian Military responded to that. I think there is a majority view among egyptian people that they do not want egyptian egypt to become an islamist state like iran. I think we ought to preserve our relationships with the Egyptian Military. I think it is a lot like turkey back in the 1920s. That arab rots turkey into the modern one that brought turkey into the modern era. What ultimately will arise from that is free elections and another shot at democracy. One not dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. In terms of the overall situation with respect to syria, it is a huge mess. It is almost like whoever wins we are going to have problems. If there ever was a time to interview to shape the situation it was some years past. Right now today, we are in terrible straits about what they are also in a situation where you have to be concerned about who is going to inherit the chemical weapons they obviously possess. As i said earlier, thank goodness they do not have a uke. But it is a worrying situation. What happens politically if some of the people who have a strong tendency toward isolation take care of themselves . I understand the temptation to say, the heck with them. It is their problem. Let them solve it. Why should we mess with it . We decided back in 1941 that that did not work as a basic policy. A lot of people leave in the 1930s that the United States should not get involved overseas. Especially after why should world war i. It was a legitimate debate, and we have some people that believe that. Boy, 9 11 put that to rest. I do not say see any you could look at the threat about he potential for another attack, only next one with deadlier weapons, and say, well, what happens over there is none of our concern. The 9 11 terrorists trained in afghanistan. That is where the nuclear trade is taking place. You have north korea among you have the pakistanis, the developed black market, dealing ith the libyans. That stuff is spreading, it is going to continue to spread, and we can to stop it. We have 19 guys who come into the United States with airplane tickets and box cutters and do what they did to us on 9 11, how can you ignore what is going on over there . You cant. You have to be repaired to work with the support of governments supportive governments. But for the United States, the day is long past when we are saying we will hunker down behind our oceans. That is a pipe dream that was over decades ago. And you want to say anything about the political situation . I want to point out that what were seeing across the middle east today is a large part, a result of american foreignpolicy attempting to turn back on our allies. Ensuring that arafat our enemies do not fear us anymore. If you want to understand what happens when america leaves a vacuum in the world, you have no look further to look than syria. The rise of al qaeda across the middle east again today. The historical record is very clear that a Strong America is one of the best guarantors of eace in the world. We have a president who has really attempted to weaken us, who has attempted to bring us down a notch, who does not believe that america should lead the world, you see the vacuum created like the one we have in the middle east today. Vacuum like that, when america turns its back, are filled by those who wish us ill. Filled by those who, in the case of syria, are using chemical weapons against their own people on one side of the fight, and on the other side you have al qaeda on the rise. The world is more dangerous when america is weak and walks away, and that is a clear lesson that you can see today just by turning on the television. One more political question. So many of us realized, we saw this in the last election than any other time, that as republicans we are painted as the rich white guys. Unfortunately, some of the people that we have had in the ront make that an easy case to make. But, it is not true. We need to find a way to get around that and present ourselves as more populous, younger, and what other things would either view of you recommend that we can change this persona that most of the electorate seems to have of us . Since you are a rich white guy, maybe i will answer this question. [laughter] [applause] cheap shot. I think it is an important question. I think that i do not have anything against rich white guys obviously. I love a number of them. But i think as a party, that is how the Mainstream Media wants to portray us. What we have to be able to do depends on who is speaking out front for the party. Hat is very important. I do not want to see our Party Falling into the trap of classifying people by the color of their skin, by their income until level, by their gender, i think that is what the democrats do. We have to be the party of ideals. [applause] we have to be the party of ideals. We have to be the party that knows what it stands for. I do not want to see us trying to be all things to all people. Ronald reagan made very clear that a Political Party to stand for something. We cannot attempt to have a tent that is so big that nobody knows what we believe in. We have to be able to articulate our beliefs. We to be safe able to say hat we believe in the Free Enterprise system. We believe in it not only because it makes people wealthy, we believe in it because it has raised more people out of poverty than any other system devised by man in the history of the world. That is why we believe in Free Enterprise. We are the party of opportunity. We know that the American People dream can be real again. It is not going to be real if every single young person falls nder the spell of barack obama and the democrats who are saying, let us help you from cradle to grave. Let us give you assistance along the way. As a mother of five kids rvings them amazing that anone of would know the his history if i wasnt telling them or my husband wasnt telling them. They didnt live through watching nations frankly that has attempted to control every lives f their citizen crumble. There is a history that seems recent to many of us, but to kids today, they did not live through the fall of communism. They did not live through watching nations try to control every aspect of their citizens lives and all apart and crumble. We know what happens. You can see it today across europe. Those are the policies this president is trying to advocate. We have to say there is an incredible future for all of us. There is an economic renaissance possible if we have the kinds of policies that will allow us to get access to energy resources. The ones we have here in the United States. If we had a president really committed to energy independence, we would have Economic Growth you could not even imagine. Across the board, talking to people, explaining to them, young people in particular, you want the government out of your life. You want to get back to the point where the government is best that governs least and is closest to the people. The more the government tries to giving you things, give you benefits, tell you that they can run your life, tell you they can make your life easier, it is a pipe dream, and it is going to end up badly for all of us. The benefit we have as republicans, and as conservatives, is the truth. The truth is on our side, and the facts are on our side. We have to be unafraid and unabashed about standing up for what we believe in and making the case to the American People. If we do it clearly and with conviction, and with pride, we will win the day. [applause] thank you very much very much, and thank you both for eing here. We have several live events to tell you about tomorrow. The Carnegie Endowment hosts a session on the Defense Department to develop or acquire conventional global prompt weapons. That will be here on cspan at 12 30 eastern. Also at 2 30, the Senate Authorization committee will consider the use of force in syria. Members will hear from secretary of state john kerry and defense secretary chuck hague l. Also a Brookings Institution discussion about a Free Trade Agreement being negotiated between the u. S. And the soviet nion to affect turkey. Announces the opening on thanksgiving day of the 22nd annual sale. It seemed to me such a chame we came here to find hardly anything of the past in the house. Hardly anything before 1902. Then when we went to columbia, the president ial palace there, and all the history of that country in it. Every piece of furniture in it. I think the white house should e like that. We will pledge to do all possible to stop this scourge. Season two of our original series, first ladies, influence and image live monday nights including your calls, facebook comments, and tweets. Starting next monday with first laidy, edith rooze felt on cspan and cspan 3 theow a forum on history of scientific revolutions. When i conjure up an image, i think of this as walking hand in hand and if i hpt jumped out of the way, we would have collided. Or walking into harvard yard with that nice statue of john harvard sitting in front of university hall. 100 tourists gathered around. Smart phones up, snapping ictures. This past april, five young men gathered together in a cafe in cairo, egypt. They decided to launch a petition going to the ouster of president morsi. Within a few weeks, the petition had gathered 22 million signatures. Paper. Hand, some on but it gafse an indication of the poetencey of a technology to communicate across all sorts of lines. And i suppose a lot of us were brought up sharply when it was learned that the Security Agency had been gathering materials from several trillion phone calls. And then some trillion other internet records collected. The digital revolution is here. It raises questions about where it came from, who was involved, who is affected by it, who makes decisions involving it. And what i want to do as a historian, i always duck back to three prior revolutions. The scientific revolutions of the 16th and 17th century. The Industrial Revolutions of the 18th and 19th century, and the biological revolution of the 20th and 21st century. A harvard colleague of mine was writing about the scientific revolution. I suspect in some ways that term dating what happened in the 16th and 17th centuries feels omfortable, but not for him. He opened his book in 1996 with there was no such thing as a signing scientific revolution, and this is a book about it. I know we could say lots of things about what harvard professors do when they are not thinking, but what did this do . In part it represent aid revolt of the historians. They were trying to Say Something new and do it in a different way. An end also represented of a period of certainty about limactic events. What people knew about the natural world, its series and concepts at the core of that scientific revolution. How did they know it . How did they gain the knowledge . The tell scopes, the microscopes . Their practices. And then, of course, we know that historians looking back proclaimed that modernity had arrived and that humanity, particularly in europe, had merged from the dark ages. The great historian said, the most profound received or suffered by anti qufment ity. The british historian his book the art of modern science. The scientific revolution outshines everything since the rise of christianity. It reduces the renaissance rank of mere episodes. It is the real origin of both the modern world and of the modern mentality. Eye these are not modern claims. But it is interesting. What are they there for . What do they represent . Chapin is quick to remind us that the term scientific revolution was was not in use in the 18th century. It became most common after 1939. Alexander forrier, in his threevolume study of gallileo, talk bd this period of the scientific revolution. But if you think back, those of you who know about list tri and science, some of you i know will bring courses i was involved in some years ago. Capernicus wrote his colestrum, revolution of the heavenly spheres. Revolution was the movement of hese bodies, as as we proclaim now around the sun. Revolution has a radical transformation. The way we tend to use the term most often now, historically, probably came during the french enlightenment of the mid to late 8th century. But let me go back to the revolution. What were they doing . Not completely, but largely, they were talking about the change in concepts. They were talking about the change in theories. They were specifically talking about a new method for gaining noling. The new views in the heatherens. A sunscented world. The new fuse of physical matter. W views of life itself the philosophers at that time be driven not just by the quest of enlightenment, but the relief of mans estate. We understand nature, bacon wrote, in order to dominate it and correct it. In order to dominating all thoughts possible is what bacon thought would come from the scientific revolution. It is possible to attain owledge, he said, which is useful in life, instead of that specktive philosophy which is aught in the schools. The sclaftic philosophy. And then lets render ourselves masters and possessors of nature. The notion, then, that during this early period of modern science that one reason we Gain Knowledge is to dominate nature, to command it to human ends. Of course there is a tension that exists in the historical interpretationed. Had a nd deca and others utilitarian promise. Ever matched it. For the vast majority of the people, the greatest ms names in the scientific revolution were not known at the time. If you look at the notes and things, not of the great philosophers but of more Common People among them. The literate were there. John dunn, the poet, in 1611, writing the new philosophy calls all in doubt. The element quite put out the sun is lost no mans wit can well direct him where to look for it. In a sense, there was a framing that some people were making of a world undergoing change. But what does it mean . There were some underlying issues that emerged. Where did this science fit in a world governed by kings and priests and popes . The Royal Society of london on its founding writes this society will avoid all discussion of religion, rhetoric, more ality and politics. We will limit our activities to those things which we can know directly in nature. So on the one hand they were proclaiming their greatness of this new science and its ability to change the world. At another level they were standing back and saying, were not going to challenge the authority of the society in which we live, or the secular or religious. They will keep peace with the church and the state. But there were new ways of knowing. New ways of understanding what lapped in nature. There was a motto, if you see uarba. Shield, nulius en take nobodys word for it. We know only through observation and experiment. A classic example was Robert Boyles experiments. Ity were an exemplar of what was, the natural philosophies of that day. But who was this robert boyle . Very quickly, he came from a family keblet connected to the nobility, the aristocracy, with Large Holdings in ireland. Wealthy enough that he could have a fulltime conservator. Someone who built the instruments which he wanted, including his air pump. That pate niced individual was robert hook. Another of the great scientists who could not have done this on his own, for he had no income other than that he got from boyle. These new experiments, fist physical and mechanical, touching the air, and maybe with new problematical a new numatical extension. In a way it is how you experimented in the new science. It became a model. Dealing with the properties of the air. Combustion. Could combustion take place in an evacuated tube . The answer was no. Can a mouse survive after a knew matic engine had evacuated the air . The answer was no. Down the line they went. Could insects fly in an evacuated tube . No. It has been referred to historically as the greatest factmaking machine in history, this volume. A lot of simple experiments experiments as we look back at them. So while the new science was largely practiced by those with gentry, theree or were methods developed. Methods which in turn, not then, but in turn, became democratizing. Why . Who can know nature . You dont need a title. Great middle nature. You do need to understand a method of experimenting and observing nature. So a new method was happening when even at a time when the practitioners were here and most people lived down here. Let me turn briefly to the Industrial Revolution of the 18 th and 19th century. Historians like to pick a date. They roughly say 1760 was when the Industrial Revolution began and lasted roughly through the mid 19th century. And this is a very different the scientific revolutions history. One, it began in place. Began. Now where it not in france, germany, or italy, but in england. There were different actors. The major practitioners, the major actors in the Industrial Revolution from were from the emerging middle classes of british society, and an emerging working class. And there were different locales. The Industrial Revolution didnt take place initially in london but in the midland cities of england. What do we know about the midland cities . One of those little facts on the side, is that the midland cities were largely the homes of the dissenting protestants, not the catholic church. Whether it be the quakers, the presbyterians, the methodists. They were the people who were primarily those engaged in making the Industrial Revolution. And of course, there were different ideas. What was happening . Manual art production was being replaced by machines. And the workshops attached to the home were being replaced by fact days trizz. Factories. The meak making of textiles was turned upside down. Chemical manufacturing came in a scale not known before. So notice one of the things that were happening. Not only the way things were being done, but also scale. The Industrial Revolution allowed things to happen on a much, much grander scale. Iron production was greatly increased and costs reduced. Water power was reduced so factories could be run. Steam power was invented. Not that steam was invented, but the ability to harness steams, to drive wheels, which in turn you could use for many, many tifts. Machine tools were invented and produced. And perhaps most importantly, and something we have lived with ever since, the switch for the source of energy for this new Industrial Revolution. From wood to coal. Every aspect of daily life was being transformed in england. Population saw sustained growth from 1760 on for the next century. Or more. There was a doubling every 60 years of englands population. A doubling. A striking fact. There was a move from the rural areas but not to the cities. To the industrial midlands. Cities that barely existed prior to the Industrial Revolution. There was an emergence of an explicit working plast class. People drawn off the land now earning a living, earning income as workers in these new factories. And of coffers, by the early to mid 19th century, trade unions became part of the scene, as there was a redistribution within society of where influence and power resided. One historian remarked at the time that this is the most mark in history p sounds extreme, but if any of you want to take a look at david linus study of the Industrial Revolution, and you will get a sense of the way in which things did, in deed, seem to represent that change. There was a second Industrial Revolution which game then in the early 19th century, 1820s, 1830s. Hards on the heels of a revolution. What was being transformed then . Transportation. How did you get from place to place . How did you move goods and people from place to place . The horsedrawn carriage, the canal barge, the ship under sail . A steamship. Have you had railroads. And these replaced the canals and those not very well paved roadses of england at the time. Textile industry. Cotton spinning. Were steam driven now. And it increased the output of workers by a factor of 1,000. An enormous jump in what a single worker could produce during the workweek. He power level increased the cotton gin by a power of 60. The steam engine increased efficiency and effectiveness by sing only 20 to 25 of the amount of coal that had previously been used for the same amount of energy. And it had been adapted for oving steam locomotives. And what about the social impact . Well, the social impact was strongest, and the nirbling impact, on the lower class. Faceddrawn from the farms a severe reduction in living standards. Why . In farming, you could be almost selfsufficient. Not when you move the slums round the industrial cities. Ere was squalor in these new cities. Read Charles Dickens if you want at ow what it looked like this time. Smumently simultaneously there was something that had not yet existed a new middle class. Lawyers, doctors, businessmen. Ople who earned their living by overseeing production, contracting production, and caring for the ill in society in forward manner. A society of industrialists and businessmen over the aristocracy. A shift of who, in a sense, had power. A shift which was replicated on the continent as frangs and italy and germany underwent an Industrial Revolution. Initially there were health problems. Yphus, t. B. , cholera as time went on, more well springs produced. Sanitation improved. And there were conscious events, conscious movements to increase and improve sanitation. Factories emerged. Cotton spinning was mechanized. Production soared. Manchester became known at the time as cottonopolis the center for the production of otton goods. But not everyone celebrated, as we tend to now. There was pain, a lot of it at the time. And it was felt. In 1817, a group that called up the es ludites, took challenge of the artisans. They were machine breakers. They would, indeed, break the machines if they could when they got the chance in these new cities. The weavers, the hand weafers, werertisans the weavers walk on holy these new grn the hand of god on englands pleasant pass tours seem and did countenance divine walk on our hills and was jeruslem build here mong those dark satanic hills . Bring me my clouds of desire bring me my spear bring me my chariot of fire i shall not cease from mental fight until we have built jeruslem in englands green and pleasant land. 1808. Is blake a romantic . Good poet . Superb artist . As blake was reflecting the pain of some of his fellow citizens. How the intellectuals followed suit in much the same way in their writings. Wadsworth, keats, byron, she willy. And of course, all of you will remember marry she willy. A document of the mid industrial read frank stein as an introduction to the mid Industrial Revolution, and you can see some of the citizens at the time. There was another movement called captain swing a movement of Agricultural Workers who burned the threshing machines which were replaced which replaced their own handdone machine work. There were things called the swing letters. Sir, they write, your name is down among a blackhawks in the black book and this should advise you to make your wills. You have been the black art enemies of the people on all occasions. Ye have not done as ye ought. Sir, this is to acquaint you that if your threshing machines are not destroyed by you directly, we shall commence our labors. Signed on behalf of swing. At the time 600 protesters were imprisoned. 500 protesters were exiled to australia and other places like that. 19 were executed. As the Industrial Revolution proceeded, knowledge and practices were being transformed. And notice the transformations were not just up among spl intellectual, literate, and wealthy classes, but now spread hrough the society as a whole. Low did people learn what was going on . Well, you will probably recognize an old technique that was developed then. Study tours. That is people from one city would go to see what was happening in another one. How did they organize their factories . Where did the workers live . What services were provided . What was the outcome like . How did you increase productivity as compared to productivity being low . Study tours then to visit the factories in the new cities informal and re formal philosophical societies formed in the new industrial heartland among these new middle classes. If the scientific revolution of the 17th century had seen the first of the organized p intellectual bodies of the time, e academia del she are mento. The Royal Society of london 1660. And the academy in paris in 1665. These were the meeting places often pate niced by the crown patronized by the groun or by a local noblemen in italy where and the ligencia wealthy met to Exchange Ideas and begin publications of ransactions. In the 18th century the new groups which emerged included any from the middle classes. Intellectuals. Urma, 1865. Ciety of b its name . Very simple. They would neat meet on the nights of the full moon because it made it easier for their fellow travelers to travel by the light of the moon because they could travel on streets that were not lighted by the light of the moon. They did not elect a president , but its members give you a clue as to who was involved. And these were new names at the time. Although we rook back and recognize them. Irasmusdalwood. Joseph black. One of the key congressmen ifflets of the Industrial Revolution. The other inventor of the teamening yimin, james black. Darwins grandmother. And another man who spent a lot of time living in england, representing the colonies, and then went to the United States. His name, youll recognize it immediately, Benjamin Frank lip. He went meetings of the luna society, and in part sending back reports to the colonies and states over here of this new american eople, the Philosophical Society in philadelphia, founded early on. The American Academy of arts and sciences in boston. Both in a sense having received information their confrares over in europe. This group of the luna society was a stellar group. Then there was the manchester Philosophical Society founded in 1871. It organized more formally and it did produce reports or proceedings of the society. And it was very, very useful and in carrying out some of the ideas of these new groups. Some names you will recognize. Thomas percival who was the first president of the society who did important work on Public Health and factory regulation in manchester. And then there was Thomas Vaughn and thomas henry, the chemist. Robertoens. You recognize his name. He was in the Manchester Group. And john dalton. And James Prescott jewel later on, the physicist. And tom killburn. Peter mark. Eter markrojet . Rogets thee saurs thesaurus. An inrow into knowledgemaking and knowledgepracticing. Something like the Manchester Group bridged the gap between the knowledge revolution and the Industrial Revolution. The darby fizz Philosophical Society founded by rasmus darwin as the luna group declined. Again, josiah wedgewood, William Pickering and others. The group at new castle. Group in liver did pool in liverpoole. Notice whats happening . The midlands of england are being populated by people who consciously were working on issues of science, manufacture, industry. By the time of the second Industrial Revolution that historians claim was roughly 1850 on. The revolution in chemistry, petroleum work and electrical work. There was strong interaction occurring in the mid 1980s with the scientific revolution. Knowledge, experiment, material manufacturer. Science practice itself was being transformed at the time, and this is when people began talking about science as a handmaiden of industry. A very different relationship than had been thought of before. Take, for example, our local massachusetts interests tute of technology founded in 1861. Very much in the model of the polytechnic university. That is compining professional and liberal education. Combining Laboratory Instruction in total cooperation with industry. It goes on to this day. The change then in the character of the knowledge being developed and the people engaged in the knowledge and the penetration of that knowledge into the society. Let me turn to the biological revolution. The 20th century. 21st century revolution. Aldes huxley. Grand ss son of thomas henry huxley. Remember he was a mid 19th century the public defender of charles darwin. And the younger brother of julian huxley. A biologist and the president of unesco. In this book, he projected a ision of the year 600 a. F. After ford. In his opinion you now dated things from the new industrialized, massproduced society. Brave new world is, of course, a book which you all knew. Sometime in 2007 we get the real name. Sayed is a john smith name. He is not a kuwaiti. He is a pakistani. That is twice the size of california. It is something that it is not great. In 2010, this guy makes a phone call to someone in the gulf. The content lead the agency to believe that this guy is still in al qaeda. The city is about several million people. He is practicing careful security. He takes the battery out. Theres no way to track him. They have to put people into the city in peshawar and eventually track and back 2. 5 hours away to the city of abbottabad. What surprised them was the mysterious third family who was living in the compound. They began to think it might be Osama Bin Laden. In august of 2010, leon panetta goed to president obama and say we seem to have a good potential lead on Osama Bin Laden. Khost has just happened. Khost was december 30, late december 2009. There was no great excitement in the oval office. The last really good lead to some cia officers dying. Clearly this was a good lead. Then there is the whole Agatha Christie story about how that lead, how they tried to get a sense of how to make the lead better. There was a debate. At the end of the day when you made the decision, he is either 100 there or 100 not there. The analysts were saying 40 or 80 . It is an interesting case of president ial decisionmaking. The stakes were lower. If you think about president kennedys decision in the cuban missile crisis, he made an extremely mature decision in a difficult circumstance. You can say the same thing about president obama. It is easy in retrospect to say this was an easy decision because you know the outcome. There were outcomes that do not look good. Civilian casualties. Bin laden not being there. They plan for every eventuality. Wereof the reasons why there imprecise explanations in the immediate aftermath, they have not really prepared themselves for success. It is a classic case of president ial decisionmaking. Do not forget that his security advisers were evenly on either side of the issue. In your book, do you dwell on that and take of the Decision Making issue . Why is it not big in the film . We all know the outcome. I was hoping to do that. It was my intention initially to do that. It is hard to put drama in that because we all know what happens. It did not work. It is funny. When you make these films, you have to follow your access and the course of the movie. The movie starts speaking to you. You have to listen to it. Petersrth noting that film exhaustive, the we do not have all the information on this. There are a lot of big gaps. How do we really get the couriers real name . E do not really know that is something that we will find out over the years, possibly decades to come. Film clipanother rate e abbottabad raid. Abbottabad, how is it handled in the film question mark with what excerpt number four. [video clip] the hunt from the courier to bin laden makes complete sense to me. It was based on all of the years of experience in a tightknit group of people who really cared about this and supported each other. We invented the technique that works. It is the technique that got bin laden in the end. I got a call from a former colleague. He said turn on the news. I was at home. Turn on the news, the president is going to make an announcement. I had a feeling that it had been a good day at the office. Good evening. Finally, it is him. They got him. They got him finally. That was really something. [end video clip] isnt that terrific . All of you know where you were. We see a lot of the old, everybody we met in the movie, saying where they were when they got the news and how they reacted. Let me come to you on this. That little bit of video we saw on Osama Bin Laden like an old man in a blanket watching wheel of fortune or something hes watching one of his own videos. Wow. What did you think of the decision u. S. Government agencies to release very little of what they found in the abbottabad home . That is the answer. I would have loved to see more. The documents are fascinating. If you have never read them, i encourage people to do so. They are available on the internet. Im sure theres other footage that has not been released. Peter, you got to go there before the house was leveled by pakistani authorities. It was controlled by pakistani intelligence. You went there first. You must have expected hitlers bunker. I was working on Osama Bin Laden for a long time. I was the only outside worker to get inside the compound. They must have known they were going to demolish it. I did not know that. I thought it might be like visiting hitlers bunker after it really was not. He was living in a suburban compound, surrounded by his three wives and a dozen kids and grandkids. He was certainly not living large. There is no air conditioning. Theres very little heating. People were sleeping on beds that were basically bit of cardboard put together. They were growing their own vegetables and raising their own chickens and cows and vegetables. It was very selfsufficient. They did not have to go out very much. For the worlds most wanted man, it was not a bad life. He was there 5. 5 years. He was surprised. We nowught he was safe. Know, there has been a 300 page report by the pakistani commission. Theres more detail about what he was doing that night. He told his family that as soon as he heard the Helicopter Crash that they have arrived. He understood what was happening. There was no moon that night. Theres no electricity in the building or the neighborhood. He did not try to set up defensive action. He had no plan b. When people look at the compound they were worried there would be tunneled out. The water table was very high. Would there be a safe room . They had a sense of what it looked like from the outside but not inside. I was able to retrace the steps of the seals that night. It was interesting to see the physical evidence of what happens. There was a huge metal door almost the size up to ceiling here that separates the second and third for where he lived. Seals blew through that door. They ran up the stairs and killed one of his sons. Bin laden is living on the third floor. There was another big metal door that had not been blown through because bin laden poked his head out and closed it behind him. Then you go into the room where he died that was relatively small and i could see that somebody has shot in such a way that there was a big blood spots on the ceiling. There are different narratives about what happened but a lot of commonality. Bin laden had 15 minutes to surrender. He didnt. He had two weapons but he did not pick them up. The wives try to intervene. The seals moved in. This is the consensus version. There is a dispute about who killed him and at what point. That is probably too arcane to get in here. I do not think we are going to have a particularly good answer to that. It was a confusing situation for the seals. There was a ofght. Adrenaline pumping. Witness accounts can differ. Theres more commonality than differences. Have you concluded whether it was just a kill mission . Is there some circumstance in which they would have taken him captive . Yes. If someone surrenders it is a war crime to kill them. Hands up . He did not surrender conspicuously. When the Helicopter Crashes in your house it is a loud event. If you want to surrender you have 15 minutes to do so. Said that he wanted to die in the struggle. At the end he did not want to end up in guantanamo. He chose to die essentially. Your big decision as a filmmaker, not to attempt what we call a tick tock of how that raid went down. Did you think of having that and decided not to . Of course i did. When we began i thought that is the obvious piece at the end. There had been a Tv Documentary last year. And of course, zero dark 30. Maybe he thought it was already covered. I would only do it if i could do it better. When i make these films, i used to make frontline. Those are investigative films. They would have that. They would have the question if he would have surrendered or not. This is a movie. I made a decision a few years ago to make documentaries that appeal to the widest possible audience. That means at the end of the movie you have to have a strong ending. If i did not have the great stuff that we needed to really advance the story somehow and make people feel like youre watching something they have never seen before, i was not going to do it. The khost material became so good. The other thing that was so interesting is the point of view became that of the people who have been hunting bin laden going way back to the mid90s. A lot of them were not involved in the final he wanted to get their reaction. None of them were highfiving or cheering at the end. They all had this melancholy reaction. That is why there is a cello going underneath the final graphics. It is intentional. It creates the sense that this was a long, very difficult, very painful chapter in our countrys history but also in the lives of the characters we come to know. That is how it played. Eventually it worked. We were able to do it rather elegantly without having to do a tick tock of the raid. It was elegant. There is someone with a question. Thank you. Hi. In your reporting, did you uncover any new information or speculation about the 15 minutes . People trying to defend him . There seems to be a hole. He thought what protected him was the position in pakistan where he was. 15 minutes. He doesnt do anything . It is impossible to do to interview him now. It is not clear. It must have been confusing. It mustve been surprising. You cannot see anything. Your opposition can see somewhat with the night vision goggles. One anecdote i thought was told, and iis he confirmed in the pakistani report the last words we know he spoke was dont turn on the light which he told his wife. The natural thing was to turn the light on. She did not know the electricity was down. He was thinking, do not give up our location . He was cognizant that this was not a visit from the local police man. A gentle man not far from there. One day the wives will speak. You have got living witnesses. The wives spoke to pakistani interrogators. The cia tried to speak with them. There are very few things the pakistanis and americans agree on. The hostility of bin ladens wives is one of them. [laughter] my question is did you request access to the helmet cam video . My understanding is that there was no helmet cam. For the precise reason that people like you would be asking for footage forever. This is what i was told. There was no helmet cam. Theres one interesting thing. We are in a new era of warfare. It was revealed. The bin laden raid is a tactical operation at the end of the day. The president was watching in real time. It is the first time in our history where that is the case. There was a stealth drone. Sitting in the situation room you could see this thing unfold in real time. Admiral mullen that i interviewed for the book was very concerned that somebody, if things started going wrong, that somebody in the situation room was start to intervene on a tactical operation on the other side of the world. That did not happen. You could easily imagine. We have the capacity for the commanderinchief to watch a tactile operation unfold on the other side of the world. It is something we have never perhaps give orders right there, right then. A different level of that is the unmanned, pilotless vehicles, the robots we are going to have. We may be dependent on the real another question out there. Thank you. One thing if i read a report the Abbottabad Commission report correctly that surprised me was that Shaikh Mohammed was very much involved with the family of the courier. If that is true, it is interesting. Here is a guy he was interrogated perhaps more than anybody else that was at guantanamo. What do you make of that . There is a mention i think of ksm being in touch with people from captivity . My understanding was that was the red line despite all the interrogation techniques. Ksm made it clear he would never speak about that. Just a few minutes left. We will move a bit more rapidly. I will get you for sure. Promise. High impact when it is a later question. Chad sweet. What i thought was brilliant was the dna operation by the medic to get affirmation of who was in the compound. What is hard to understand iswhy whyot x full traded he was not e xfiltratedwhen the operation went down . I think it was brilliant on two ways. It is ethically dubious for them to be pirating doctors. Were talking about the doctor who helped set up the raid. He had no idea he was involved with the bin laden operation. He had no way to know. He thought he was being recruited to vaccinate people in a particular neighborhood and he is working for the cia. They never succeeded in getting dna from the bin laden compound. You wrote last week that he is still in prison in pakistan. He is not a hero. Jonathan pollard is still in the United States prison. It does not matter if friendly countries are spying, they are still spies. The pakistanis had every right to lock up someone who was spying for someone else. The reason i think it is ethically dubious to put it mildly is in pakistan people are polio workers being routinely assassinated because of the view that they work for the cia. This is a common urban legend. We added to this. It is true. The cia is employed people to do that for nation programs. Now it is true. Vaccination programs. Now it is true. Before it was an urban myth. It was a creative idea. You can applaud that. At the end of the day, the cia abhorred the idea of using journalists of cover. There are certain categories saying they would not use. I think one of them should be people engaged in medical activity. A lot if you are in the intelligence field. It is perfectly understandable that someone in the cia wants to be good to this doctor and get him out, similar to the ways israelis demand that pollard be ina former army psychiatrist. I am interested in National Security. A common question. The power of documentary filmmaking the invisible war, the documentary on military sexual trauma. Now your film. The invisible war has achieved unprecedented policy changes that are being debated on the hill for legislative changes. With respect to your work and the sisterhood and bringing out the stories of these courageous women analysts, do you have any policy aspirations with respect to your work . Is telling their story enough . It depends entirely on the film. Kirby, really he just got into that subject not knowing at all what was the tip of the iceberg. Thehas taken over his life. Woman who got the interview with snowden, the film that she will make has account of this but will but will portray snowden as a hero . Dont predict that. I do not want to say that. I think it will give this his perspective and depth. We will decide. Figure it out for yourself. I made a film called ghosts of rwanda of those in the white house or the un when the genocide happened and why they did nothing to stop the killing. It was impossible not to feel like i was on a mission making that film. The reason people were talking to me were to try to prevent theilar officials from making mistake that they made. Someone in the bush administration, during darr for during darfur, they cannot believe what people have been through. Theyre not going to let happen on their watch. With manhunt it was different. I spend most of my life living overseas. An american based in london for on most 20 years. Coming back to the states a few years ago i felt like i was stunned by the divisiveness of our debate. Also, the night of the raid, everyone was cheering and then it went away. I knew enough. I have been around the world enough to know there was a dark, painful history that ultimately led to abbottabad. I knew we can learn from the people who were part of that their stories would be compelling on a human level. Peter said did you know there were a lot of women . In the agency who have been tracking bin laden since 1995. I did not. That was something i wanted to portray. That is a human story. Only have about two minutes up. You are one of the best known analysts. Where do we stand . Bin laden has been killed. Is al qaeda finished . Are they more than just the bin laden core . I think al qaeda is going the way of the vhs tape. They have not conducted an attack on the United States since 9 11 or in the west since 2005. Almost all their top leaders are dead. We are not playing whack a mole. We have completely destroyed the central al qaeda organization. There are maybe three or four leaders left. The number two is dead. Al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, it their number two is dead. They are under in enormous bin laden as an ideology continues. Therell always be some takers. There were always be some disaffected young man somewhere who thinks this is a solution. Since 9 11, 21 americans have been killed in the United States by jihad the terrorists. That is not a lot of people. Each of those is an individual tragedy. If we have this conversation in 2002 or 2003, because a lot of the work of a lot of people in this room including Jose Rodriguez and general hayden and others who are interviewed in this film and others who are not. I did want to fit this in. Are you not adversarial enough almost by instinct . Some of us journalists are. We meet someone to work in the cia. We know hes not telling us everything. Are you skeptical enough . About what . About the story, the way they tell it. Are you setting them up as heroes . I do not know. I do not see myself as an adversarial person. I dont think that is particularly beneficial. I have interviewed everybody involved on both sides, including bin laden and many leaders of al qaeda. I think was more useful just to hear what they had to say. Bin laden declared war on cnn in 1997 in an interview i produced. Imagine in. 1937, if the japanese high commander said we are planning to attack the United States and if pearl harbor would have turned out differently. We are not in the business i do not see adversarial being a useful trait in all of this. Did you try to leave us with a feeling, with the cello and all that, that the war is not over, that is going to happen again one of your main characters says. It is such an interesting point about how you tell the stories and interact with sources. I do not take an adversarial approach. Some people may not like films. I try to get into the world of the people who stories im trying to tell. Here is what i have tried to do. If god forbid there is some other major attack at some point we will all, instinctively, want it to be sorted out. There will be people whose names we do not know, and offices that are hidden away somewhere, making the decisions on our behalf about how to conduct that war. That by telling the stories of those who were there at this time, it allows us to better understand how our government works. We talk about openness we can tell stories without revealing anything that is classified. It is important. That is the way the general public understand how the systems work. There are ways of doing it through documentaries, through there are people hungry to tell the stories. I will give you my card. [laughter] manhuntwatch tonight at 9 15. Also on hbo. Nominated for two primetime emmys. Please thank peter bergen and greg. [applause] on the next washington journal the latest from syria with washington editor for the atlantic. Taking your questions. We will look at how instability in the middle east, especially in syria and egypt is affecting oil prices, our guest is the president of citizens for affordable energy. We will be joined by nathaniel of as miguel, producer movie looking at the decline of american americas manufacturing workforce. Journal is live every day at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. Several live events to tell you about. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosts a discussion on the defense acquirents efforts to Global Strike weapons. 1230 eastern. Senate Foreign Relations committee will hear from john kerry and defense secretary chuck hagel. On cspan2, a Brookings Institution discussion on how a freetrade agreement between the u. S. And the eu could affect turkey. Now on Aspen Institute dissection discussion on in visual on individual constitutional rights. Margaret marshall wrote the Decision Making massachusetts the first state to legalize samesex marriage. This is about one hour. [applause] i would like to thank all of you for being here, with a special thanks to alan and stephen for your generous today. This has already become a signature event. We thank you. Ms. Chertoff has expanded our programs and brought it in wonderful new directions. Today we have two luminaries of american law here. The fact that we have Justice Marshall here is an important reminder of something many of us forget, even those of us who are lawyers, and that is we have something unique in this country in our constitutional system. We have state constitutional courts, and the work the judges on the highest court that the states play in interpreting state constitutions, and in many cases the state constitutional justices have taken individual rights further than the federal Supreme Court has. It is a unique aspect. Some people call it dual federalism. We will talk about the interplay of state and federal constitutions. I would like to mention one thing because Justice Marshall is here, and it is to point out that Justice Marshall really was part of a team of two in terms of protecting the individual rights in the United States. And when she retired from the Supreme Judicial Court of massachusetts in 2010, she retired in part to be able to spend more time with her husband. As she put it at the time, to be able to share their last seasons together. We, Justice Marshall, want to share our condolences in the loss of your husband a few months ago, who was also an enormous loss for the country. Anthony lewis, tony lewis, was a giant, a champion of individual rights, a champion of the bill of rights. He not only won two pulitzers, he wrote gideons trumpet, and significantly, more than any other reporter in the United States, to explain the role of the courts, and especially, the Supreme Court, in a very sophisticated way. I think it is fair also to say that that kind of explanation, the role of the court, continues now par excellence by Justice Breyer, because it is not part of the Job Description of a Supreme Court justice to go out in the public and explain the role of the court, explained opinions, and Justice Breyer is one of the few retired justices Sandra Day Oconnor is another who go to Great Lengths to provide this important set of functions. This important civic function. We appreciate that and we appreciate enormously the contributions of tony lewis. As you heard in the introduction, and i will start with you, Justice Marshall, the goodrich case you wrote over 300 opinions, many of them were important, and i would like to go back to 2003 and when you wrote that opinion for the court, finding a right in the massachusetts constitution for gay marriage. You were criticized pretty widely and strongly from all quarters, from the massachusetts legislature, from the Governors Office mitt romney at the time and all the way up to the Supreme Court. And i wonder if you were prepared for that and whether you thought at all about what the reaction would be or whether you just looked at the massachusetts constitution and felt you had no choice but to come to the conclusion that you did . I probably was not as prepared as i might have been, not so much for the massachusetts reaction. I had come into a lot of criticism, and as a Firm Believer in the first amendment, i think judges can be criticized along with it everybody else. We are different in that regard from most other countries. What i had not anticipated, at all, was the reaction from around the country and around the world. And although i was criticized, the opinion was also praised, and i had not anticipated that. You might say that was my naivete. State court judges we know our opinions are followed in other fora, but we do not think we are going to make international and National News on the scale that was the response to the decision. I have to say, i grew up in south africa, and for a very tiny village, and it is a little odd when the president of the United States points his finger at you and says you are a judicial activist. That is a sentence some make to Justice Breyer all the time. [laughter] not if you are sitting on the massachusetts court. I think the reaction did take me by surprise. Do you think your experience growing up in apartheid south africa strengthen you in anyway for the kinds of courageous could positions you took on the court . No. [laughter] i mean, when you become a judge, you bring to that position your entire life history, and when you are sitting on the court, you work very hard to put aside your personal views. And so and gay marriage really was not part of my thinking in south africa. In fact, gay marriage had not been part of my thinking in the United States. So i did not make a onetoone connection. My life had been involved with issues of race discrimination, deeply involved in issues of gender discrimination to some extent, involved in issues of disability law, but i can recall and i do not say this proudly, but looking at the extent of how much things have changed, when i was the general counsel at harvard in the 1990s, i was asked to come and speak to a meeting of the samesex of gay and lesbian alumni of harvard university, and somebody said, the conference was going to be held on the anniversary of the stonewall rebellion, and i had never heard of the stonewall rebellion. That was pretty astounding for somebody who had been very involved in equality. I see that as an historical fact and not because i am proud so i think gay marriage just was not on my agenda. Justice breyer, i do not know if there has ever been a time when Public Opinion has changed as broadly and rapidly perhaps as in the case of gay marriage. And i wonder if you could comment a little bit about the role of Public Opinion at the Supreme Court. You were in the five votes overruling or declaring doma was unconstitutional. It is hard for some of us to believe that even as little ago as one or two years the Supreme Court might have come to that same conclusion. I am sure you say it probably would have, but tell us about the truth of the matter is i do not know. That is the truth. And margie just put this very well. One, i do not know. Two, she said exactly what i think. No, of course, what you are trying to do is decide the matter on the law on what is now, i look at the briefs, i look at the law, i try to get it right. No, my entire life is there in the open cases. By background of course matters. No, it does not matter. Perfect. And you find a judge who says he does not think that they do. Of course they do. And the third way and why this is such an interesting case in this area but to me, you have to think of loving vs. Virginia. It was the miscegenation case, it came upl marriage. To the Supreme Court well before the question of whether a law forbidding interracial marriage was unconstitutional, which it was. The court had decided brown. Frankfurter said do not take this case, and they did not. They did not take it for quite a while, and eventually when things had settled down some, and it was clear that this that desegregation was going to end. Then they took the case and said it was unconstitutional. There is discretion in taking the case. Was frankfurter right . That is something that is much debated. Personally, i have read about eisenhower and little rock and how important i think that was taking those thousand paratroopers from fort bragg and sending them to little rock and escorting the black little rock look what high school. It took. The freedom riders, Martin Luther king. Youhave lived through that. Cannot read that without thinking, maybe frankfurter was right. The most important thing was to get this thing of desegregation accepted. Was all that there was gay marriage . No, it is not there. When people say they are gay and meet people who are gay, they are friends. I think you had a hand in that. But it is not the same thing. But nonetheless, you are asking me, suppose we really had a problem about whether this would be accepted in large number of states and people go up in arms and you think about all these things would the court have decided to take the case . Well, i dont know, do i . [laughter] i know, i did live through what we did live through, and of course we are going to take it, and of course all the lower courts who had decided this said it was unconstitutional, and if you sat there as i did and read the briefs, i think, but how can i prove it, i cannot, but i think most people would come to the conclusion when you see the harm the law was causing and you look on the other side and i am putting it not in constitutional terms that i can feed this directly into the constitutional problem of equal protection and so forth but i would say what is your justification for this . A little skimpy. A little skimpy, said the majority. A little skimpy on the reasons for classing these one thousand statutes in this way. All right, so i read to those respected of course it would come out the same way if they had taken it sooner. So there we are back to margie. Of course not. [laughter] i am glad you took it. Let me ask a different kind of question. You have often written about and perhaps your next book is going to be about the Supreme Court in a global context, and the topic of whether or not foreign law, foreign judgments inform american courts. In reverse, what kind of effect do you think that opinion might have in other countries . Again, i do not know. There i do not really know. How do i know better than people who live in these countries or go there more often than i do . It might. It might not. I cannot answer that question because i do not know the answer. What do you think . I think one can at least posit an answer in the sense. We in the United States forget that our constitutional form of democracy, enforced by an independent court, was unusual, was not followed in most of the world, from 1780 until 1948 in polymeric systems are completely different. Ry systems are completely different. People often look to the United States. What has happened around the world, increasingly in the post Second World War era, more and more countries turned to what i call the american system, a written charter of rights. Why . Because we did not like the way parliament was working in germany, for one, and quite a few other places. When you begin to have models that are similar to the United States, you begin to look at the United States courts, but you also look at other courts. If you are in south africa or canada, two englishspeaking constitutional courts, they look at our opinions and they also look at canadian opinions and opinions from other constitutional courts. It is not helpful when you are a parliamentary system, because it is a different system, and i think the United States continues to have a quite a degree of influence, but it is not the only influence, not the only influence, because there are wonderful judgments that come from other courts. From my point of view, when i was sitting on the Supreme Judicial Court, i always enjoyed looking at what other courts, who are now functioning, and looking at what our system was doing. It was not helpful before 1987 in canada to see what the parliamentary system was doing. It was helpful to me to look at judgments, but i follow them, of course they were helpful, yes, they were helpful, and i think it always will be. Anyone in this room is as capable of answering one question as i am, which is the headline is, Supreme Court strikes down the antigay marriage law as unconstitutional, and people react to that all over the world. If youre asking the question how the lawyers will react, the ouryers read the decision. Decision is not talking about what her decision talked about. Her decision is interpreting the massachusetts constitution and whether they have to have to treat the gays the same as respect to marriage as the heterosexual system. Our question is a different question. Our question was is a federal law in this area of marriage, which goes to a thousand statutes and deprives people who are lawfully married who are gay, of federal benefits, such as 300,000 in Tax Deductions to them, is that consistent with the constitution of the United States . And they will read the opinion and they will see theres a great deal of emphasis in that opinion on the fact that it is primarily, not completely, but primarily up to states to define what marriage is. Family law is a matter of state law almost entirely. And so the federal government was intruding here in an area that is primarily states. This is how the lawyers will look at it, and you say, will it make a difference . I say i am not sure, and you see why . By the way, since i pointed out which i normally point out to the 10thgraders what her court does and it is important they know this in the 10th grade law in United States is primarily almost 90 , 95 a matter of state law. Of course, marriage law is 99 state. And you go through tort law or criminal law or business law and you will see primarily state, primarily state environmental, education you name it. So what she is doing is which is what i tell the students, and why if you want to make a difference, do not read the headlines in the New York Times go back to your communities and work there, and that is why she can do that. I want to give the audience a taste of that, because the latest figures i have are 2010, and i say this with greatest respect, if you took every case that was filed in every federal court in the United States, trial courts, United States Supreme Court, other than bankruptcy, in 2010 there were 1. 2 million cases filed. In state courts, trial courts, intermediate, judicial courts, excluding traffic offenses, guess 48 million cases. So he gets to pick [laughter] she is including traffic tickets. No, no, no. 48 million cases. In a funny kind of way, im afraid that Justice Breyer is using a different context, which is, in states is where bubble massachusetts, north dakota not a lot in common. Great chief justice. It is just different. Massachusetts i do not want a good back to the gay marriage case all the time but massachusetts, we have adoptions, we had the state placing foster children in same gender couples. We had governor wells who wanted to have a huge Teaching Program in middle schools about massachusetts was just different. And so gay marriage in a sense sat comfortably in massachusetts, and i do not know how it would sit in north dakota. Lets go back to another aspect of individual liberty and freedom. There has been a lot of discussion the last few weeks around the country of the relationship between individual freedom and National Security. You have actually written a great deal about this. You do not face the same kinds of issues that Justice Breyer faces in the Supreme Court. You have written quite forcefully that judges must insist on Government Accountability as vigorously in wartime whether declared war or war on terror as they do any time. You say that democracy must fight sometimes with one hand behind his back. Even so, democracy has the upper hand. I wonder what you see as the implications as no longer a sitting judge and not facing these kinds of questions about these issues in the context of things Like National surveillance or detention at guantanamo bay. On my court we did not have as many decisions of issues like guantanamo bay, but i would say this i grew up in south africa during the apartheid years, and almost everything that i detested was done in the name of National Security and it had a racial overtones to it. The reason why people were banned, put into prison, white why people disappeared in the middle of the night was because the south africa and government articulated that was necessary to maintain National Security. So i think i bring to my view of the world a profound sense that you have to really test it all the time. And of course, i think what has made this country such a great country, a really great country, is transparency in our government, which is why i think people can criticize judges. It is not comfortable, but they have a right to do it. They should know how we go about our business, how do courts select cases. Transparency is important, and knowing what our government does is terribly important. There are hard questions. Obviously, the United States in 9 11 suffered the kind of attack on our security that was almost unprecedented, certainly for us, and so that has changed the view. But i tend to think one should always be skeptical when the claim of National Security and push for transparency and be careful, be careful. Justice breyer, how should a judge react when the executive branch comes to you and talks about National Security and issues that judges are not trained in and when the country is at war, when lives are at stake, is it a different posture you take when they come to you with those look, the president and congress are in charge of the security of the United States. The judges are not. That is constitutional. You can trace it. The judges, however, are responsible for protecting individual rights. I mean, their first and foremost that is what they do with unpopular people you try to infringe a protected right for an unpopular person, i am sorry, that person is entitled to the same rights as others. These two collide in that situation. It used to be thought i found out, somebody told me cicero said and i cannot remember it in latin [speaking in latin] i like my translation i said once to an audience, when the cannons fire, the law falls silent. I said that to an audience, and they said, you idiot, the romans did not have cannons. [laughter] we have changed from that. Her attitude is right law applies. Now, that is the beginning of the process. Not the end. If you look at many of the protections of human rights, for example, privacy, reasonable searches and seizures, it says no unreasonable searches and seizures. Ok, what is unreasonable . If somebody is throwing a bomb, it might be different than if they are not. That is the argument. We have one tremendous help in this, and it is not the government. The government helps like any other groups of lawyers. One thing about lawyers they help. Why . Because the defense lawyer in this case, if it is a prosecution, the side against the government is undoubtedly going to ask two questions and these two questions are very helpful, and they focus the point shes making. When you see an ordinary protection being diluted because of wartime, guantanamo, or world war ii and the germans in prison camps and so forth or the ones who ended in the the first question, why . These are questions the israelis face all the time. And the judges ask it, and the lawyers ask it. Why . And the government better come up with a good answer. If the government says it is a secret, there are ways around that. You can show that to the judges privately. If you cannot, ok, still better to have the judge looking at it. There are ways. They would look at it. The second question is, why not . If they show why, then the lawyer says, hey, why not do it this way, which as you get your which is you get your obstacle. You can build the wall across jerusalem, says barak, the chief justice. Build the wall. But build it so you do not shut out the arabs on their farms over here from getting their water supply. Why not do it that way . Those two questions why and why not are very powerful questions. I would say remember what the justice just said. There is a hierarchy, and his two questions are dependent on what . Access to a lawyer, access to a lawyer, and i would say that the thing i feared most in south africa was that i would be arrested and i would not have access to a lawyer. You have to have a lawyer. So you learn to have a kind of sensitivity on things that are really going wrong. Ishe second thing is him access for the lawyer to a judge. Theres something terribly important about the adversary process. Remember that, too. Adversary. There are good arguments on the security side. They come in and they present danger. Onesided courts are not courts. Onesided courts are not courts. Justice breyer, you mentioned search and seizure, and you also had said you have some trouble with the dog case. That was a tough case. Particularly if you like dogs. Why was a tough . It was a question of unreasonable search and seizure. We divided 54. A policeman without a warrant who is standing in the street can look into your house if you leave the window open. That is your problem. He can do that. And he can go up to the front door, too, like any other person, unless you put up a sign saying you do not want them. Few people think about putting up that sign. By and large you can go up to the front door if you are policeman like anybody else and that is not unreasonable because you have all kinds of people going up to the front door all the time. Now, suppose the policeman comes up to the front door with a dog. Everyone likes dogs. What is wrong with that . That happens all the time. This dog is trained to sniff marijuana inside the house. Does he have to have a warrant or not . People come up with dogs all the time. But not marijuanasniffing dogs. What are you going to do in an apartment house, by the way . So what are you going to do when the person is your next door neighbor. I found it a difficult case