Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20100209

he insists speaking in arabic. i present the question to mr. ayalon who presented what the government has been doing a long ago concerning the peace and the speech that netanyahu read. contrary to what is going on on the ground as far as the settlements and the failure in the negotiations there is a great change, grave changed happened since 15 years ago that is true but my question is how can we reinstate and go back to peace talks and negotiations if in fact netanyahu is asking more demanding or presenting the report stage without any clear borders, no control over the borders, and he's not talking about jerusalem or the return of the refugees. we are talking about -- i didn't learn anything about this in the political science that a country can be established without having security, without having control over its security and without having capital which we consider as its capital. >> thank you. indeed what we see here is something unique for political science because we are talking here about creation of a new state. it has not existed before and you will see the irony of the history is the palestinian state will be created by the jewish state and by the jews. however, let me tell you that all the parameters that you mentioned should not be discussed here because this is exactly what we are trying to do behind closed doors. if you really want to take and make effective negotiations, used to quite eloquently the demands from the palestinian side. we have our own demand and should meet halfway in between however let me draw attention to everybody here that on two cases in the past eight, ten years there was a very, very comprehensive the offer by the israeli government's that put on the table once by former prime minister barack and at the second one by former prime minister olmert just a year and a half ago. one was to yasser arafat, the other was to mahmoud abbas, with very exact parameters as you discussed including borders and unfortunately they were rejected. this is not helpful for coming into the reconciliations. let me tell you also something that my good friend said. let me tell you i tried to get into a medical school. mr. rock med did get into medical school. very respected so when he talked about democracy also equal rights and i believe we do have equal rights, however -- is also a winter and economics school. i didn't go to madison school -- medical school and rightly so because he is more competent than me that he should get it and the fact that he is not the issue, it allowed him to become a successful gynecologist. when he talks about equal rights his equal rights also prescribe equal obligations and when we talk about the jewish state a jewish state, judy is in this novel the religion that is a national league and way of life in this vehicle exists 5,000 years or 4,000 years. as jews we knew we were a minority for 2,000 years. as jewish minorities and arab and muslim countries we played allegiance to the islamic countries and we didn't take it as a fence as jews but as members, citizens of whether it was turkey, the ottoman empire or egypt or any other country. we were loyal to the king. we were loyal to the country, we were loyal to whatever the country was designed whether it was a christian or muslim we did so let me emphasize here that we do not ask anything which is out of the ordinary throughout history and it is a double standard that arab israelis would not accept israel as a jewish state even as a minority and especially as they do have a choice, and i am proud to say that when we talk about a solution of the two state solutions we do not preclude the chance that arab israelis who do not wish to stay under the israeli sovereignty and regime would go without going physically, quote but what change and transfer their citizenship. there are 250 were 300,000 israeli arabs who live smack dab across the green line. when we talk about swaps at the palestinian request one of do a slot on equal footing if we are to incorporate a populated area, the settlement blocks into israel, why not have mice is really the liches, arabs, who will join the palestinian state? join their brothers and fathers? then we will not have this problem of loyalty to a state which they don't want to be. thank you. >> thank you. we have to be loyal to time to get more questions. thank you. i do want to set the record straight, mr. tibi come and let you know there were journalists who got permits from gazzo but they had to get permission from hamas and they did not get their permission so sometimes it's important to note on the record that what you see isn't always the way it happens. anyhow, can we move on to the next -- >> do you understand what she said? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> thank you. any questions? >> i should react to that, to mr. ayalon especially about his remark that i was accepted to the medical school in israel, and this is a sign of equal rights. i would like to say that i was accepted because i succeeded in my exams and all what is good in me is because of me, all what is bad of me is because discrimination of me as an arab. [laughter] first of all, second, about the idea of moving the ribs or revoking the arab citizenship of arab citizens in the state of israel, that is why we are seeing that we cannot accept and we totally denounce attention of the minister danny ayalon proposing dealing with us as guests. you can move from here to there. we were not brought here by airplanes to this homeland. we are indigenous. we were born here. we don't want to deport anyone from israel but if anyone should move, usually those who are right at the end lately are supposed to leave first. we will not our life lately to this homeland. thank you psp mix before, mr. tibi. next question, please. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> my question is for my colleagues, my journalists and line media critics. >> could you please state her name and what media outlet she is with. >> my name is judith from the israel broadcasting. >> thank you. >> state again. >> my question is to my colleagues to the extent do you find that your affect on the general society -- to what extent do you have an influence on the people and the population in your community and on your leadership as media members? >> ahman is going to take that. >> [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] i am a member of the media line the -- >> [inaudible] >> i would like to answer -- we have a large extent as jordan analysts whether if we are i think is really or palestinians we are able to bring our voice forward to the leadership as well. i think this important meeting for palestinian and israeli journalists is on both sides. i think the leadership and the people who carry positions, important positions do watch the media and follow on what happens on the media, and it has great extent of influence, very often positive influence on the threat issues because leadership members also do watch the media and what is stated on that. >> thank you very much. thank you, ahmad. any questions please. >> [speaking in native tongue] [inaudible conversations] >> [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: welcome, everyone. i work for the israeli tv in arabic. i listened and follow the palestinian and arab stations on different occasions, and particularly the palestinian. what i see and what i notice is that the coverage of the palestinian or the arab stations is one-sided. usually we hear different criticism to the israelis stand, and i never hear any criticism towards the palestinian authority or to the palestinian word. >> who do you address your question because i think instead of making statements we are asking questions today. give someone else a chance first. anyone want to ask a question? >> i am david from the jerusalem post. i think first of all it's terrific that we have an opportunity to meet again, is really and palestinian journalists, and i did make the visit to ramallah a couple years ago which was very useful. i think, and i'm speaking to the palestinian journalists and i don't know who wants to answer this. danny ayalon set out quite a good consensual summary that is really is debate -- is release would like the contradiction of becoming a state by reaching accommodation with the palestinians, some kind of territorial compromise so that the israel that is left is overwhelmingly jewish and maintain that democracy. what i would like to know what would be useful if think for us to hear from some of our palestinian colleagues is what is the palestinians are of public attitude. we heard it in your question what about the right of return, what about a capital in jerusalem? i would like some sense from you, not need your personal opinion but the sense of whether the palestinian public is ready for a territorial accommodation, whether the palestinian public is prepared for palestine to absorb palestinian refugees in the way that israel absorb the jewish refugees in a readily stand north africa. in other words whether there is any hope of and negotiated accommodation because the feeling of israel is the last government tried couldn't megadeals therefore there is a lot of despondency in israel about the prospects for finding the middle ground. thank you. >> first of all i want to address this question to any of the palestinian journalists that would like to respond to david. >> [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> please translate briefly. >> translator: thank you for the question. the palestinian public's attitude is very well-known and clear, which is towards a to state solution and towards peace. apparently that is seen from the elections and from electing mahmoud abbas who had an objection that was clear of the two state solution, and he had a higher number of votes and the elections. as for the refugees, no one who is forced to leave his land especially from the first were the second relation will see this as an easy solution but everybody in the palestinian -- of the palestinians feel and see the point of view of going toward coexistence and understanding that there are natural rights which are for both sides and they accept that. >> question for any of the members? >> [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i am from the east voice from ramallah. i would like to give a reflection of my colleague and my israeli colleague has presented that when he watches palestinian channels he never hears any criticism towards the palestinian government or authority to an extent that is true because this did not come from something on the ground what happens on the ground. we are suffering as people. we demand a palestinian state. we demand the return to the borders of 76. we demand the demolition of the citizens. we demand to have a capital of darussalam. this is presented to with the israeli government and the israeli state and indeed we are demanding this and presenting these through our media. >> one last question. >> if i may come to questions. >> you may. >> [inaudible] >> can you please state -- >> first question to mr. hanegbi. what can the cuddy my party offered that the government doesn't offer or let me ask in another way does the party of another plant, plan b different than the one that the netanyahu government offers to the darussalam borders and the second question to mr. danny ayalon. do they think they can achieve peace or right-wing government achieve peace without giving east jerusalem to the palestinians and without almost 100% of the 96 territories? >> thank you. i think that the kadima party cannot be, there is no question concerning its commitment to the peace process. we get to primm and esters, sure roane and initiated a unilateral thus proving his readiness to go forward with painful and president of the concessions and he was replaced by olmert who as mentioned before presented the said dustin to the palestinians as was never by counter suggestion. i guess the time he didn't feel comfortable to give -- he felt that olmert's days in the primer should are numbered and it wasn't logical for him to make concessions. a prime minister that might not be relevant within days or weeks or months, so this is something that can be understood. still, we are not in power now or in a saturation we can negotiate. what we do support will be general and real and sincere to go forward and renew the peace process. we doubt it. but we still give the prime minister a chance and called on the pulse finance to give the prime minister a chance otherwise we will be stock for years until we get back to power which will take years. so we don't tend to do with the media about the refugee issue are the possible solution in jerusalem. there is no way that it can be effected if it is going to be discussion in the media. it has to be closed doors on the table with palestinians and hopefully we will have a chance to be part of such negotiations. >> thank you. first of all as you heard my good friend and former minister we didn't call for kadima to join. i don't see much difference sexually we could have created broad coalition. we need the leadership in any government in the future, so but about your question it seems dramatic to put on israel because it could be just as relevant to ask the palestinian leadership do they believe they can reach an agreement with israel with full control over the sacred places of the temple mount with what you called the rate of return with 100% of demand territorial. so i would say these things should be discussed honestly and negotiation which would be direct negotiations without preconditions and things can be done now anything which is presumptuous or anything which would be prejudicial for any agreement. >> okay i will close after you if you can kind lycee a couple of words. >> i think at least i feel it was too short and maybe should be the beginning of an ongoing dialogue. i didn't come to hear myself or even to hear my friend, danny or even my friend, ahmad. we speak a lot and we fight a lot years and years and came here because i thought this was maybe an opportunity that i didn't have much before to hear. palestinian people who are involved in the media who reflect the feelings of their community and who can be partners for dealing with this release whether they are journalists are members but think we should call upon to make such meetings as many times as you can we will be happy to do it, not in front of the camera. this was important for the media but behind closed doors. and this is a good opportunity for us to get to learn each other and to be much more knowledgeable of each other's aspirations and hopes so i want to thank you again and thank all of you especially people who came from the palestinian authority who made the effort and are courageous enough to come. i want to thank you very much. [applause] >> before we close the session of one to thank the palestinian journalists that came today and there were hopes there were quite be many more of these sessions many more since we did in 2005 but many mark and his we are going to back-and-forth as a matter of fact david agreed to even try and go to ramallah and teach some photojournalism in the next few months so there's a lot of things we are going to be involved in and we are going to be informing you. most important i want to thank each and every one of you the journalists that came today. after all you are writing about the stories here. you are each covering the stories here. you need to have the access definitely. most important don't forget your colleagues in a profession that is not always simple and in this case before we close of one to thank the staff because they did an incredible job and i really do want to sing aloud a few people. rochelle, thank you very much. people don't realize how difficult it is to really make hundreds and hundreds of calls and try to get assistance, and i12 thank ahmad, you went above and beyond. and of course the best you know who you are. i just want to thank our hosting member tzachi hanegbi again and danny ayalon and ahmad tibi. many thanks. and with this, i close this session of the middle east press club. [applause] [inaudible conversations] the this is c-span america and the courts. next, a discussion of women lawyers and the supreme court. former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor and uss solicitor general took about the challenges women face in the legal profession and are doing before the supreme program ni association and the first amendment center hosted this discussion recently in washington, d.c.. [applause] this is a great program and it is a topic that i have spent time thinking about over the years needless to say. my chambers window looks out on the house that used to be the home of alice, the famous suffrage so i'm reminded when i look at my window of the efforts women made to get the right to vote much less practice wall and most of the early women pioneers faced a profession and a society that espoused what we call the cold of domesticity. women were different from men they said and were fitted for motherhood and home life. they were compassionate, selfless, morrill and pure. and they're negative were attuned to art and religion, not logic. minn on the other hand were fitted by nature for competition and intellectual discovery in the world. they were battle hard, shrewd, authoritative and tough-minded. women were thought to be ill qualified for adversarial litigation because it required sharp logic and shrewd negotiations not to mention the exposure to the unjust and immoral. now in 1875 there was constant supreme court told she could not be admitted to the state bar, the chief justice said the practice of law was unfit for the female character to expos women to the brutal khmer pulsipher and obscene agents of court life. [laughter] he said would shock men's reference for womanhood and relax the public's sense of decency. in a similar case myra brad will of chicago who studied law with her husband applied to the illinois bar in 1869 and was refused admission in the illinois supreme court said as a married woman her contracts were not binding and contracts with the essence of the attorney-client relationship so of course she couldn't practice law and the supreme court of the united states agreed with the illinois court. justice bradley in a concurring opinion for the supreme court cited the differences between men and women as the reason probable couldn't be admitted even clearance, one of the most famous champions of unpopular causes addressed a group of women of lawyers and said you cannot be shining lights at the bar because you are too kind. you can never be corporation lawyers because you are not coldblooded. you do not have a high grade of intellect. i doubt you can even make a living, said he. [laughter] another male attorney of the period said a woman can't keep a secret. and for that reason if know whether i doubt anybody will ever consult a woman lawyer to. luckily for the women lawyers today our female predecessors have far more spirit and weight than they were given credit for. clarence, the first woman lawyer in california and the first woman deputy district attorney in america displayed the characteristic medal of those early prevent lawyers and opposing attorney once suggested in open court that clara better be at home raising children and she replied a woman better be in any business than raising such men as you. [laughter] a new york woman lawyer pioneer was in 1879 the first woman admitted to practice before the supreme court of the united states and to receive her honor she had to try three times to get a special bill passed in the u.s. senate changing the admission requirements. she wrote 83 we were all over washington, d.c. lobbying of the senators and explaining to the press she was calling to get a fight all the way up the line and she did. she even ran for president in 1884 reasoning that although women couldn't vote there was nothing to stop them from running for office. even without women voters she got 4,149 votes in that election. now we saw a historic first a few years ago with the confirmation of the first woman attorney general of the united states, janet reno, and the justice department had a woman assistant attorney general during warren harding's administration in 1920. her name was mabel walker will brand of los angeles. she was given the job of course that no one wanted. the job of the chief prosecutor of the provision law. [laughter] she became known as provision portion -- portia. after nine years of justice she went back to los angeles to practice law, and there were three women who served as fbi agents in the early 1920's every one of them subsequently asked and tate resigned when jay edgar hoover became a director. well, i think during the early era, susan brandeis was the daughter of associate justice louis brandeis and argued a case before the supreme court in a case involving the veterans' benefits and like many skilled attorneys to argue before the court, she didn't win and her father supported us he was was reduced. so in the mid-20th century we got more women before the court and they distinguished themselves in many ways and now is the time we are going to get some of these women to talk to us. i'm going to go back to my seat and we will engage in conversation from there. are we all turned on? can you hear still? we are going to start with wendy over here and ask what you like to add to history of women. >> i myself argued once before the supreme court of the united states -- >> were you scared? >> terrified, yes i was -- >> i was, too. [laughter] >> i had gotten so excited about the whole project that i broke my leg and had to appear on crutches it was great and lost the case of course. >> what case was it? >> the constitutional pregnancy case. three very fine dissent in that case. >> that is what people remember. [laughter] anyway, have the privilege afterward my one terrible experience as a supreme court advocate of setting the stage elena kagan and mahoney, the most distinguished women in court to argue for the united states supreme court. now, you have gotten a little bit of this already from justice o'connor, a wonderful anecdotes and by going to add to some of those to give you a good feel so you know the background, the shoulders, which these two at tickets stand. so, here is a lightning quick sketch of the history of women of lawyers and supreme court to bar, an extraordinary journey that began may 3rd, 1879 when as justice o'connor said was admitted to the united states supreme court bar, the first woman ever to do so. she was just one of 20 women who actually joined the supreme court bar between 1879 and 1900. how did she and these other 19 that there and what happened next? first how many few are actually lawyers like that? all right so you know the first thing you've got to do is get a legal education, right? well, back in the day most lawyers who actually practiced in that time period what their legal training by apprentice ship in an office. it was the more common method but all schools were just beginning to take cold and a lot more young men were heading off to law school to become lawyers, and in this group of the 20 women, a higher percentage of them actually attended law school in the print is ships. now, this was quite possibly because the only apprentice ships women could get were basically with their father if he was willing or their brother if he was a lawyer and few other lawyers would consider bringing in a woman has an actual fellow lawyer for training in their offices. the other problem was if the women decided to go to law school there were a lot of barriers to go to law school in the united states at that time and i will give you a couple examples from the first 20 members of the supreme court bar belva for symbol was allowed to attend class in washington, d.c. but they refused to give her a diploma. they didn't give women diplomas and she dealt with that in her characteristically feisty way by writing a letter to the president of the united states and asking him to do something about it and that apparently worked. the other example i have is clara who's been mentioned. one of the few of the first women who were actually criminal lawyers. and she was the number five woman to join the supreme court bar. she sued the hastings law school in san francisco because of the excluded women. the california supreme court ordered hastings which was his school to admit her, and the rest is history. she by the way went on to invent the concept of a public defender and her biography by barbara babcock is about to come out the next few months so look for it. here's another one, carey durham kilgore number for to be admitted to the supreme court. it tonight mission to the law school at the university of pennsylvania in 1871. the way she coped is hung out for ten years and tried and by that time they let her in. she had a lot better luck with medical school before she tried law school and she was actually an m.d. when she applied to go to the university. >> may i ask you to talk -- we are going to run out of time before you know it, tell me about the situation for the women today. are they still getting of the opportunities they should? are they getting opportunities at the supreme court, have you counted that lately? i will tell you there's only 11 this year out of 38. >> there was one year and actually went down from the previous years. the first woman clerk was justice douglas's clerk in 1944 -- estimate of the was during the war and he couldn't get -- [laughter] the wall schools didn't have names to give and he finally broke the school in washington and said it don't you have any women? i don't you don't have any man, aren't there any women? and they said guests here are some names and he hired one. >> right in the bottom of the carroll. [laughter] >> 20 years later the next work got to the supreme court during that period. >> he never hired another woman for 40 years or something. >> he hired another in 1961. >> much later. >> but was 20 years before another woman got there at all so we are doing better but it's a rocky road. some of how many women when you clerked? >> not very many but i don't remember the number. maybe i think six or seven, something like that would have been 1979. >> but it's such a stepping stone to the legal employment that you hope that there are opportunities for good luck positions. do you know what the statistics are for the clerks in the lower federal courts, the court of appeal level? >> it is much better than it used to be. much better than it used my own experience was being turned down by federal judge for the clerkship because he didn't hire women and when his daughter later went to high school -- >> did he change his mind? >> surprisingly enough. but i think some of you heard about ruth bader ginsburg's experience. first, when she wanted to get a federal court clerkship, she couldn't get one and finally gerald gunther the member of columbia where she did her third year twisted the arm of a judge and persuaded him he had to take her and got a young man working in a law firm to sign the oath that he would take over for her if she didn't measure up. >> she got pregnant or something like that, right? [laughter] >> when i was working in 1979 for justice rehnquist we had a tradition of going out to lunch sometimes with other justices. the justices would graciously take the clerks to lunch and there was a justice there that shall remain nameless who was known for not having women clerks and i asked him i said is there a reason that you don't hire women clerks and he said to tell you the truth i'm not very comfortable with women in my office, and he was very genuine about how he just feels that the collegial environment was more comfortable for him with men. i didn't criticize him. [laughter] >> i guess we still have solved that. do most women who argue cases of the supreme court today -- do most of them work for public employers? that was my experience when i came to the court. you might see some women that they were working from different public office is, state or federal. is that still the case? >> i think there are a number of women who have great supreme court practices and private law firms. i see patty in the office, now lisa just left my office and has gone into the private work. >> somewhat better but still in terms of numbers, maybe not as many as you would think. is it still more heavily in the public sector? >> pro blease. i haven't seen the numbers but i can speak in private practice the supreme court bar is still more dominated by men and in large part so i think it is a factor is as yet with the solicitor general's office as much as anything women have been underrepresented in the general's office for many years it is a major stepping stone. >> do you suppose they are today? >> they are today. >> what are we doing about it? [laughter] >> just asking. >> i know you were going to hold me to account now. [laughter] one observation i have on this business of coming in through government is the first great lawyer or middle 20 of the century or almost i think all government lawyers and they were rare i would say. but today women's opportunities are bigger but as you know the women are still not represented to the degree in the legal profession and private firms, still have trouble making partner. >> where should people like clara focus their efforts in helping women? what is needed? >> unlike clara they wouldn't have to sue to go to law school and on like clara, they wouldn't have had to go to the california legislature and persuade it to allow women into the bar. that's taken care of. and so now the project i think can be looked at and to ways. one is to simply sort of let nature take its course. the majority of people now in all school or when in and so by definition that is going to have an impact. >> but it hasn't made -- if there aren't that many percentage was practicing law as many even though they are equal in numbers in law school -- >> which brings me -- >> why do think it is true? i want to ask all three of you that. >> all right. >> you will go first but then i want answers -- [laughter] >> i would prefer. >> i will take a swing at it. >> it's very hard to know and i practice in the corporate segment of the practice, so my view is somewhat skewed and that is probably where the women are underrepresented in most but i honestly think that one of the big reasons is something i would call breadwinner mentality. men are much more likely to come out of law school that have done a boil and law school with this idea it is their role in life to go out and be professionally successful because they are going to bring the bread home for their family. women are much more likely to think wait a minute, i like practicing law. i am interested in professional success but one of my jobs in life is to nurture my children and it is a goal i feel we shall hold high if you are a mother. and i think there's a big gap in the ambition at least after about five or six years between a lot of women and men. >> it has modern technology levy added that? you can work from home better than you used to be able to. >> and it definitely helps but at the most competitive levels of the profession, there is a goliath that is required, enormous amount of time and business development time and just a lot of sacrifice. it doesn't mean that women can't do it. but many of them choose not to and for good reason. >> and that feeds right into the second point i was going to make which is if there is an action item, and i think there is, we still have some work to do on structuring workplace features so that there isn't a penalty for having a family life. we've been talking about that forever now. there is to institutes now that are taking a closer look at the family work life mixes its use and beginning to come up with some concrete suggestions on moves that can be made on that. your suggestion the ways it's impossible given the structure of the legal -- >> what i think the best thing that could happen is that men could continue to develop their nurturing instinct >> yes. sprick so you eliminate the gap that exists. [applause] and actually is happening. i have to say paternity leave ten years ago was virtually unheard of because no man would be caught dead taking paternity leave. >> they were in paris. >> is becoming commonplace at law firms including mine, the men are starting to feel like it's important and it's something i have to give greater priority. and when that starts to happen then the wind will not be as big of a competitive disadvantage. >> what do you think, you have been a law school and have seen women in and out. >> i think maureen is right, more women have the feelings they want to come by the work life with family life even now the man do but it's not only family issues. when news of the breadwinner mentality i think that women have lots of intellectual interest, lots of professional interest and so they move around to different areas of the law or sometimes jobs that are not law related of all. it's not the kind of money to take this step and then i need to take this step until i get to the head of whatever institution or organization i am in. sometimes i think fit women construct much more interesting much more varied professional lives for themselves. but don't just keep on going through the hoops on till they get to the pinnacle of wherever they are. >> do you think the fact there are fewer women partners than you would think there would be at this time is because of the choices the women because they go along and what they want to do? >> at least the most significant factor. i am sure there are many but i think it is very significant. >> all of you are agree on that but to say? >> at least in part, not to say the law firms couldn't be doing a better job in order to accommodate women's many needs and especially the work life issues, i think that all firms for the most part could be doing a better job. >> could they do better -- could they make workplace changes and conditions the would help? >> you are the law firm person, maureen. >> there is nothing i think my law firm should do that it's not doing. i found my firm any way to be very accommodating. the offer a variety of different ways that you can practice all. at the end of the date you ought to be a supreme court advocate in this highly competitive market, you're not going to be able to do it probably few opt for one of those alternative tracks where you are not going to spend a lot of time practicing law we. >> you yourself have children do you not? >> i do have two children to read >> and you have had a red hot supreme court practice rate how have you done that? >> i think by limiting my life to my family and my profession, period. >> no time for france. >> very little. [laughter] >> that was true for me. i had time to do my work and try to get a chance in the profession, but i did not have any spare time. >> that's it. those are the two things you can do. >> couldn't play bridge. >> can't get a manicure, can't go shopping for clothes. i like ebay, occasionally i will do that but that's true. >> [inaudible] >> i do. >> we are supposed to allow a little time for questions from the audience, and i think we are going to do that but if you don't have any good questions, i'm going to start asking some. [laughter] anybody that wants to ask better get up. >> if we may with your approval, justice o'connor asked, we have in the audience as was already mentioned, a noted supreme court advocate and person patrician if we could have her she would like to make a comment or raise a question. >> where is she? >> patricia? >> , of and ask a question or engage. at least come to the microphone. >> turnarounds a vacancy. [laughter] >> if you would like since she has invited you are welcome to come up here, whenever you are comfortable with. >> of this panel is still work, they don't need an extension. thank you for the fantastic panel. a comet in the question. the question is the comment in the reaction to what you're talking about. you talked about how hard it was for women to get where they've got and now we are at this stage of now we are here would do we do? do we turn into the men or do we try to sort of change the world? and i think i am with maureen that we try to find a pass that we don't have to choose as i think men did for all of history to the profession over and try to find a new path and i think we all should keep cutting overhead together to find a better way to do that. my question is with a lot of the overt barriers gone how do we combat the subtle barriers women find, and i'm sitting here thinking when you are talking about is you can't get law of licenses, but we have a hearing last summer there was even a blip in time judge sonia sotomayor, then sonia sotomayor, people were asking about her qualifications early on, which was insane. she was beyond qualified. >> just the question. [laughter] >> then it went into the questions of judicial temperament that i personally thought were the type that wouldn't get asked so how do we start combating that, those subtle -- >> let's have each of you try to answer starting with elena kagan. >> those are the hardest. >> sure. what should we do? >> i think women always have to be aware of these things in a way that men don't. and i wish it were different, but to be aware of the way people are perceiving you is something i think women in public life whether it is that the kids before the supreme court or whether it is political figures is just a set of questions i think you have to be very aware of how other people are -- >> being aware of how you deal with it? >> you just try. i don't know. in the and you have to be yourself and you have to have people accept you on your own terms. but i do think there are those issues of the kind that pattis talking about. >> there are. maureen? >> show up as the best prepared and it just wow them with your talent. sprick that is what you always did. >> that is what women have to keep doing until this is done. it may take awhile but -- >> if i may say so, maureen mahoney dustin a good job of doing just that. she gets up there and wow them. you won most of those cases. you did. [laughter] >> okay, wendy, what is your answer? >> my answer is listening to this i am impressed with how much has not changed from the discussion the woman had about whether they should wear their hats to the argument to the early 70's when the big discussion boswell dewey appear in the pants -- do we appear in pants. i go well with elena kagan. in the and you have to agree with yourself and i would hate to see what i still see today which is the maureen mahoney's of the world doing six times as much as a guy would have to do. take care of the kids, which is what ruth ginsburg spent her years on the court durham, absolutely that was her approach. and i will just try and work so hard i will be better than everybody else they will accept me as a full member of the club. that was her approach. and she brought us a long way with that approach. .. >> so what do they put on? the tradition? if a lawyer or solicitor general that is pretty formal. what do the women advocates do? >> there were variations they make it into a skirt. >> they probably wear black jackets. >> that is what i do. >> i was in in the solicitor general's office we were having lunch and he asked me why i was not wearing a morning coat for arguments because i did not. i elected not to wear them. i said it is a little like the female the equivalent of a morning coat it is a wedding dress. [laughter] with a big hat to. he said i see. >> eighth eight you did all by h. [laughter] >> when i was in the solicitor general's office i said will anybody care doesn't matter? >> they said absolutely not where would you are comfortable with. >> [laughter] >> another question over hear. >> des trial lawyer in advance of a lasting i have practiced before the bar in georgette. still in litigation i did not have the vast majority of men with the small percentage of women, perhaps 20%. >> what is the question? >> why is it that women fear litigation and the practice of trial practice from your point* of view? >> i don't know of this year. you have to travel a lot and you are stuck in six week trials, that is a nightmare for somebody with kids at home and in school and having to do things. you have to travel and me there your schedule is the court schedule it is very hard. how did you manage? early in my career i liked trial work but i wanted to be an appellate lawyer to avoid the travel. >> all of the cases are here and we only wet between 10 and 12 it used to be one and three. she added made. [laughter] >> that is exactly right. [laughter] >> it was harder in atlanta? >> i hope that is all it is i hope it is a balance issue not a question of when been presenting themselves in a traditionally male role. i think as litigators may represent the profession most publicly. , think there is still there reticence on the part of some women to enter their role where they are advocates. >> i think so to but probably to something related at home with kids. >> please feel free to exercise your free speech rights with our panel right here. >> what have you seen as obstacles for those with physical disabilities? >> >> let's have answers to the physical disability question if you have been a. i have not had much experience with that so i don't know. very few lawyers and practiced with had that issue so i cannot say. >> i have had some experience with that. there was a tremendously respected and able lawyer who died a number of years ago who was wheelchair-bound. and a lot of time it was even before there's the entry or exit into the building. he found ways of coping with at and by the sheer force of his personality and confidence he made his way up through the legal profession. but he was very exceptional in that regard. i have had experience that we have ed judge on the d.c. circuit who can't see. he is another of the brilliant capable people who have somehow worked around the problem that he cannot read. >> justice o'connor your reason they have a law clerk? >> last year who was totally blind and he was amazing. he was incredible and he had of machine that would read to him. [laughter] i could not follow with but he could. it was incredible. there are ways to cope. >> there is a ceiling you know, it better than i do that people with a physical limitation are somehow not up to the job. so you have a double burden of proof. women always had a tremendous burden of proof of humor disabled it was impossible on both counts things are getting all little better. >> do you think a lot profession is keeping up with other areas of business both private law firms as well as government to change the business model so it is more amenable to family life? sometimes they think their profession working on storey desai says it is slow to change and get new ideas. my opinion is we could do more said you think we're keeping up with other businesses? >> anybody? >> if you compare law schools to business schools there are more women in moscow than business school so the pool of women is larger in think if you went around and thought about law firm life i am not sure if you would find out that many differences. maybe even fewer women than in the viggo world now. >> not school running businesses like working from home programs or telecommuting were flexible schedule programs. is 71 to compete you cannot take the alternate track but why doesn't have to be an alternate track? >> certainly women can be an equity partner in a major partner and to work from home. but are sexually referring to somebody who wants to be a part-time person not a full-time equity partner. that is what i meant. i think what you have to compare two or the other competitive service industries so the high-end accounting firm and investment banks and those sorts of things. we year doing as row as they do may be a major accounting firms are bred it is simpler >> we would like all of you to exercise your free speech rights of like to ask a question as moderator. we're here at the center particularly pleased the first woman to argue a free speech case and it took almost four decades to for another would argue a free speech case and against that backdrop what is your sense as to what areas of law women practice of our most likely? >> we have already said an agreement and representing public law offices more are there than private practice. but that does not say what they are addressing. but you are a journalist in the way lawyers is seldom are some people who argue in front of the supreme court may argue a criminal case, than first amendment says securities-law the week after that. i don't think there are that many faults and it is only one of the subject matters that is one of the interesting things. >> the only other category i would point* to from my own experience is the public interest groups that mitigates before the supreme court like the americans civil liberties union where justice ginsberg litigated and that rights groups in the '70s most arguments were made by women and men from public interest firms. but the specific legal foundation also sending lawyers to the supreme court i don't know one way or another. >> we have lawyers come a historians come a judge's all sorts of folks so we have this incredible panel and let's avail ourselves of the opportunity. we will get a microphone to you. >> you have addressed briefly the issue of women attorneys being treated differently by the court. i wonder whether women judges whether a judge's opinion might carry the same weight what about a man's opinion or where they would argue the case differently or would that be judged differently as opposed to a man judge? >> i will get into that. [laughter] >> the appellate court panel with only so many members on the court, you will take every vote where you can get it. every vote counts as much as any other and sometimes the court split support. you will get it decided maybe larger male or female you just want an argument. i don't see any difference once you are there, as a george on the appellate court panel, there is no real difference by the attorneys making the arguments themselves i did not see that. >> i never had the privilege of arguing before justice o'connor wrote the two the banal are extremely active questioners. [laughter] node difference in that respect. >> anybody else? >> my name is sarah wilson program currently a civil litigator. i worked as a supreme court fellow in the bid 90's with justice o'connor on the world history of the first generation of women judges for the judicial center. this gentleman has asked part of my question which is where the think the culture for litigators in particular has changed i think it has made a huge difference. >> there are more women judges as the culture for the advocates has changed. >> yes. it is very subtle but the culture is a powerful force this strategy has been long been minority groups but it is very much an unspoken thing in the court room it does make a difference to have two or three women on the appellate panel or a woman's trial judge or the way opposing counsel perceives you, it changes the nature of the game in no way that you no longer feel like the exception or the rule has one of the diverse factors in the room. what do you think? >> >> he probably get to a tipping point* where there are enough women with enough rules where it is unusual or noteworthy and that is a fact of life. >> let's answer this one than they would get to another one. >> >> we had one that was exciting we had arguments were the only advocates were women and with that from the happened in the last four or five years. i do see a shift and i think it is helpful for the reasons you are describing where women are not an oddity. klan does not feel they're going out on a limb to hire women. >> do you agree? >> of some of a. what has happened, the jokes that used to be told by women by mail judges, like justice ginsberg will you just settle for having susan b. anthony on the dollar? [laughter] that kind of thing is happening less. that is mild compared to others as they judges advocates they are not demeaned by dad. >> i am not the court to lot cut only my own arguments but a time in my office argues. i see a number of women arguing before the supreme court and women who are at council but last week there was the case where you just looked at everybody and it was not a woman in sight. it was noteworthy because there were 12 men in a row for it was the national football league case. [laughter] >> make a brief. >> justice o'connor it will sound familiar but the first woman federal appellate judge florence allied when she was a women's rights lawyer because she could not get a job anywhere else made a comment to a group of young women interested in the profession in 1920 and said neither for get nor remember that you are a woman. unconscious femininity is a native public life. i know i asked to write interview do for the oral history project what that meant to you morale like to put it to the entire panel and ask if you have any further thoughts? >> what did i say it. [laughter] >> if i remember, i think you said i am not really sure what it means exactly but it sounds write. >> i would say the same thing today. thank you. >> >> i think with all due respect had we agreed a little more than that, we will defer the have one or two women here. [laughter] i got a reprieve. the lady who has the microphone yes ma'am? >> islamic could you speak of the role of mentor shipping and in your own professional development and in turn are you specifically mentoring women or just young lawyers to work for you or with you? how do you turn around and try to change the role of women in the profession? >> are you a mentor? >> yes. i was mentored by a faculty member at berkeley one nablus that law school there and then when i am of boy year by eight justice ginsberg and others along with the way and they made a tremendous the ft -- difference. they both said to me whenever you do, get tenure before you start talking about women's rights. [laughter] but the great thing about that, that moment in history that was no longer true. not for them but it was for me. so the mentor's ship was usually helpful in that regard. i spent a lot of time to support young women to become what they wanted to become. but i have a special feeling for the young women. just because it is becoming so common. but back in the day i spent a lot of times. >> i had a couple of mentors and one was justice rehnquist and he was the playing a major role in my career and ken starr did as well. don't forget that the men still have most of the influence and the power so you want them to be your mentors to. not just women mentors because there are not enough in positions of influence but certainly i do try to mentor within. i recommended summoned to the solicitor general's office who was hired. it is important to pay attention to that but there are a lot of men who are willing to mentor women and more are interested in your talent and then your gender. >> that is good buy. >> that is my advice. as a law school dean i talk about this i was mentored mostly buy them because that is to were the judges at that time. and i tell more students now take your mentors where you find them. when men are great but men are great. but maureen did give us a wonderful woman for our office so we are pretty happy. [laughter] >> another question? >> i was recently interviewing formal inspector general of the army and asking what some of the things he told new commanders. he said he will have a group of people who are absent the equal and ready for promotion. ask yourself every time whether you are choosing of male or a minority or will then it may be simply with you if you feel the most comfortable and have the most in common. outsell was listening to you talk about women to sing family over promotion women virtually in every industry don't make dollar for dollar of their counterparts whether or not you think they are on selected to have chosen. i am from generation x i have a lot of female friends who chose their careers over a family. do believe among litigators actually do have equal opportunities to move ahead? >> >> he what opportunity and all law firms probably not at least for the situations i have seen, i do. certainly in my firm. i think women who are talented do just as well as the men that we don't get the same numbers because the choices people are making. there is one major factor that could happen impact on women and the fact is business generation. it is still the case a lot of the general counters staged general counsel that higher our mail i don't think they're consciously discriminating, but they are more likely to know then it just because men and women still tend in their social lives they choose women or men because of similar interest. i think there is still probably some disadvantage flirt with men not through overt discrimination but who you know, . that is already being diminished but also as more women become general counsel and i see it all the time. they may even leave toward hiring women. >> we have another question. >> good afternoon. i have a question about to the us campaign finance reversal last week i know solicitor general elena kagan. >> you had to remind me? >> i want to see your thoughts on the supreme court's decision last week ended you think the opinion puts the whole issue of foreign contribution into the elections? >> that is outside the scope . >> we had to be germane and i think you took some liberties. do have a thing germane to our topic? >> it is for fun to win than to lose. >> when i was in graduate school there is a book written by -- called a different voice that had a big impact that women were being socialized and given rules differently than men. i raised two daughters one is the investment banker and the other is the academic researcher. if that is the case, is there a situation that you want to share with the audience why being able bud affected how you understood jurisprudence or a case were to approach a mitigation strategy? >> i have only been mitigating four months. [laughter] that answer is i have not had that experience yet to. >> i don't think so. who knows? i have never been m.a. and. [laughter] but i don't find by analysis will be particularly different than my competitors when we show up we asked the same kind of questions and that sort of thing. one thing that i will see among the young women more often is that they don't speak as an assertive way. not across-the-board but one of the things i say to young women come the speak up and make herself heard, look them in body. you have to be a presence in the room. for some reason, women are a little less likely to do that and i don't know why. >> i would say to the extent that women have led diverge and actual experience show lives than men, they will have areas in which they will have a better understanding of some situations or something important to add to the understanding that may be more to family law or i could name a whole list of things. the point* is one of the things happening that we are converging in our lives and such a way that perhaps we are more alike than different by the standards of 1800 or 1900 or what ever. but that is very controversial because although she said she did not say so but she views it as intrinsic that women and men are different. there is a question how much is culture or nurture? >> we have two more questions. i apologize. [laughter] >> good afternoon burper i have a practicing with the army for six years as a litigator. we have a lot of men. more men and women. find it comfortable going to both my male and female superiors board by some legal matters. when somebody asks of a mentor ship, to use the your subordinates come equally both male and female to be their mentor? does that become more even nor are they coming to the senior female leaders? >> anybody want to tackle that? >> we have a little trouble with mentor. i did not have one that i know what of. i did not know what the word meant until i was practicing law. [laughter] it just seems to be a modern thing. we talk about mentors and mentor ships but i am not a good contributor on this because i am not sure what it means and to my knowledge i did not have been a. maybe it just means anybody you learn from. is every professor a teacher? i don't know. >> it is people who go out of their way that really opened the doors to sell i would put it. that is what i think. >> a door opener? >> they help to prepare you and open the doors. that is how i think of it. >> we have all had some of those in our lifetime. certainly. >> my companions were a bunch of cowboys. [laughter] >> day you have been a vice for a young woman like myself with small children who really want to make it go of that professionally with litigation and? >> start with getting a good babysitter. [laughter] >> and a good husband too. >> a nice husband who understands. that is a good start. try to get a job that will enable you to do the job that also could be at home. you have to explore pretty carefully the job requirements when you are seeking employment. of what is expected. you can meet both responsibilities but it is hard to find the perfect set up. >> i cannot under it stand the importance of who your -- to you made your life a partner. the women who have been really successful said at least we don't stand in the way but they have partners who are extraordinarily helpful to them and supportive of them. just the history suggests those early women who were married to have a supportive spouse did better than anybody else. i applied ruth ginsberg in that category and perhaps justice o'connor. >> not to perhaps. [laughter] >> ruth ginsberg and i have has-beens who just thought it was great. they thought it was wonderful. my husband in new before we married that i planned to work. it was understood. it can be more difficult if we don't discuss before we got married. did you? [laughter] >> we have another question. >> i am a professor of government and apolo of the court 94/95 i have the privilege of attending the strip search case involving the 13 year-old girl. it seems justice ginsberg was perhaps the only person on the bench that day that really understood what was going on in that case. i had the privilege of asking her, it seemed like it was going to other way did she have the chance to change minds? she smiled and said she thought it would go the other way i wanted to ask your comments about justice ginsberg role in the outcome? >> i think any member of the supreme court bench at the end of the day can have influence on the other. and that is what we all tried to do in certain circumstances, persuade our colleagues by good examples and i feel sure she probably did that. [laughter] >> i think she'll agrees with you. >> yes? >> i would like to go back to a question that raised the issue of the latina comment. i guess i was surprised nobody addressed the issues, i am proud to say i was the first female a judicial follow her 24 years on the l.a. superior court and when i was first on the court, female jurors would say it is terrific to see a woman judge. that declined sharply. the thing that i associate with the client -- the decline of women judges but l.a. law was a very popular television program. [laughter] if you think back almost all of the judges were ribbon or minorities. it became much less of a surprise for people to walk into a courtroom to see a woman judge. that struck me with the debate over a discussion and the fact the problem that nobody ever commented the white male seems to be the neutral and if you are female or persons of color color, that to was all outside of the norm. i want to know your views on the issue of how important public education is to deal with the problems we're talking about? >> education is the most important in the country personally. >> that sounds right to me. [laughter] >> justice o'connor gets the last word. >> no. are there any other ready questions? we have time for one more. >> we have two hands up. if you are briefly will take them both. >> we will take your question and then the gentleman in front. please me prompt. >> it is simple how have you dealt or how would you recommend win-win deal with the old boys' club? >> that was mentioned all little by a ms. mahoney in the socialization of. young women know what i am talking about, how would you do with that? academia and press? >> i will just say you do the best you can and get out there and put on a good show. it will help. i think everybody can recognize good work when they see it. there may be some initial but if they get out there and do a good job they can recognize it for the most part. i don't know what else to say. >> which actually you could create day girls club which is important progress marginal council's become winded it makes sense. that is right. >> he will get the last question. >> justice o'connor talked about the great strides women have made over the last 100 years. reduce the some time in our history what about the strides of the african americans have made? some time in our history there will be a cycle backwards? >> absolutely not. we will not go backwards on any of these things. there are too many. >> terrific. >> over half of the other people are with been? you think we will let it slide back? no way. [laughter] [applause] >> justice o'connor when everyone to exercise your first amendment rights come at our front doors are always open. [applause] >> more regain the holiday, justice o'connor, general kagan, a thank you very much. [applause] >> good afternoon everyone and welcome to the hudson institute. i am a senior fellow here and it is my great pleasure to introduce michael chertoff our main speaker and also and mclellan who is on her way still coming down from canada up. she says it is the americans' fault that they will not let her land other than the canadians who will let her the despite the weather. michael chertoff is someone you know, today chairmen managing advisory firm of the chertoff group with offices in washington d.c. and new york also a senior counsel at the d.c. office and the member of the white collar defense and investigations practice group. he served as secretary of department of romance security leading to a 218,000% department. mr. chargeoff developed an interest in homeland security regulation and spearheaded a national cybersecurity strategy. and also on that committee of foreign investment in the united states. prior to define and mr. chertoff served through 2005 to the u.s. court of appeals before becoming a federal judge, he was the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of u.s. there will see the investigation of the task force including those from and run with jefferies killing. his career includes more than a decade of federal prosecutor services for the district of new jersey and also for the southern district of new york progressive federal prosecutor he investigated person prosecuted significant cases of corporate fraud and organized crime. he has a new book, homeland security which he will talk about. what may turn this over to secretary chertoff. [applause] >> imm pressed by the turn out. i think what is a record since the 1880 say record snowfall and the district of columbia it is year the intrepid mr. there is nothing else to do the super bowl is over you are tired of watching television and have cabin fever. i am delighted to address you and i want to think christopher and the hudson institute for hosting me for this talk. and there is as many as you would know, if the canadian garment and part of the safety ministry. i had the pleasure of working together during the first year i was homeland security secretary here in the united states brought action the in many ways this know we have experienced the last couple of days is a very toxic reminder of one of the set the challenges we dealt with with natural disasters because as people rapidly found out as the snow became a reality house safe and secure you are any kind of a natural event is a function of how prepared you are. people who had water, battery operated radios, food, filled up gas tanks, were in a better circumstance than those who did nine. certainly a big snowfall is comparable to the types of disasters, what we saw recently, each of these events is a moment to reflect the importance of preparedness which lies at the heart of pretty much everything you do when they're terrace tax or natural disasters, the more prepared you are to deal with the event when it actually happens. that is one of the themes of i have booked entitled home and security. it was an effort on my part to over a period of one year in 2008 to write a serious stage a series of articles to look back where we were in 2001 and three had come too not only to average progress for the steps we may but also for the future. it is a time of renewed focus. in 2008 / 2009 perhaps understandably the public was preoccupied with the economic crisis and a lot of discussion about the overhaul of the health care system and a comparatively little attention paid to terrorist. but that is not because terrorism was not in existence or disappeared or vanish but it was because the way the media prioritizes what was driven by the latest thing in washington? that change in the autumn and winter of 2009. first three had a series of arrests carried out by the authorities hear an individual who lives planning, they arrested david had the who wasn't originally thought to be watching with respect to carrying out terrorist attacks in denmark but then tied to the mumbai attacks and the fort hood shooting that wounded over 308 and of course, the christmas day bombing plot which resulted in a great deal of controversy. once again, they seem to focus the attention of on the issue of terrorists. as they have a discussion and then made -- media and the appropriateness of our response, it is a good opportunity to look at what we did the first seven or 88 years after 9/11 and what we face now after the second decade of the world of which chairs the remains one of the most serious threats to our well being. let me begin by talking about the threat that we face. it is not terribly different from 2001 but we have seen some of dilution in the terms of the threat and our capability to deal with that track. abolition and dynamic adaptation, terrorism is not about a static said it if we can resolve how to put together a comprehensive strategy. it is an adaptive tripe days type of strategy looks to see how we respond and then in order to change the strategy and incumbent upon us to recognize what is consistent in the rate terrorists be gave. but also to recognize what is change. but seeing it the last year and comparing it to what we saw five or six or seven or 10 years ago, use the change as the evolution. it remains the case in 2010 as 2001, underlying the international terrorism which is what we principally focus upon when we talk about terrorists, the ideology, extreme with the outlook and purports to use a language of this bomb but in fact, he has won. but has the appeal to recruiting people who are disaffected because personal psychological issue for political alienation from society, or because is it based on the circumstances in a particular part of the world? that ideology is not consistent if you follow bin laden ends statements, they have a little bit of a characteristic of a person who tries to see with a parade is headed then tries to get to the head of the parade. if you think back to the earliest statements in the '90s, you recognize a lot of folks at that time had to do with the presence of american military forces is the islamic land like saudi arabia. the people and not a high issue on his agenda, but that changed when it was evident to bin laden and al qaeda that was particularly of applying to a subset of the potential recruits. we have seen bin laden recently and his number to talk about the interception between al qaeda and anti-globalization to try to go up the economic crisis in the west and the i don't -- ideology of al qaeda and its agenda. i would not be surprised to see bin laden take credit for the earthquake and the snowstorm. not to mock him but recognize that the core of what al qaeda is about it is not just a coherent ideology of what they are in favor of a but what they oppose. they are prepared to modify a their message a greater number of people into their corporate. as a consequence thinking of the ideology we face it is important not to confuse it with the religion which is different and has an admirable world view but the ideology is tactical and driven by the desire to make sure the latest fashionable thing has been incorporated. in 2001 morale reluctant the threat from al qaeda moving from the threat to the physical we saw the central area of planning, recruiting and training and launching attacks was particularly in afghanistan that changed dramatically after the american invasion in 2001. that was significant not only because it was a natural safe haven where terrorists for able to train and keep people in safe houses and also set up laboratories to experiment with various chemical and biological weapons. but dislodged from the physical space, it was a shock to the system. bin laden believed that americans would react to on american and perhaps the greatest strength is the resilience and persistence where people in the west regard it setbacks as the opportunity to engage in a crisis of self-confidence. for that ideology of bin laden, turning the wheel they fully expect will turn in their favor. their confidence and ultimate success, and this guy did as that maybe and therefore breed need to pay close attention two as reformulate our strategy. >> al qaeda retreats into the frontier areas of pakistan. over the next several years there was a back and forth with use of american power and four out excited to function in the frontier areas, during that period of time and number of plots were disrupted or destroyed because people who were the plot turns were lew the but particularly in the case through 2008 as the pakistani government began to purse to the prospect of various kinds of truces or accommodations in the frontier area, a greater safe-haven begin to be clear and that is what we spoke about in 2007 at/to the us and eight, a recognition within the geographic area, a safe zone have been created to be increasingly worried of a pipeline to move into the area of pakistan would be adopted and returned to their home country in order to carry out. if you look at some of the western plots that we uncovered during that period of time and cents, i will say you will not but many do happen in the rough frontier area. >> looks like it was for the better part of a pakistan the government has moved forward with with greater focus. but the taliban has caused a shrinkage of the safe haven and return to them to be concerned about their own. but it is not surprising the greater pressure on the frontier areas from pakistan has resulted in a tax on pakistan its shelf. but the immediate reaction is counterpressure and that is to what we're down the will of the public that supports government pressure so there will be able back and quiet in your own domain. but quote we have seen is nettle the pressure back and destroyed all but we have seen al qaeda is increasingly a franchise to broaden itself not only in self the shad and the middle east and encourages other groups to form that the state network type of alliance. this is what 24 sentry terrorism is. it is not about an organization with a command and control system, but a group of supports each other that may now be 100% all lined but closer in their world view and efforts, then that is what makes you comfortable. comfortable. abaab, ã coming from south america and providing safety and security for drug shipments that are being transmitted from south america through north africa ultimately to be sold this of course is an economic and arrangement beneficial to the terrorists and a taliban and afghanistan benefit from the ability to make money off the cultivation of opium in that part of the world. finally we have to look up the issue of home grown terrorism. this topic has been much discussed certainly the last four or five years and it's been manifest in many countries are on the world particularly countries in europe. it hasn't been a big problem in the united states until recently but certainly the recruitment of somali young people into the fight in somalia and what we saw most recently with the fort hood shooting and the investigation suggests homegrown terrorism may now be a greater problem in the united states. that's not to say at this point in time we have anything like the dimension, groome terrorism you see for example in parts of western europe but it is to suggest that again keeping with this theme of dynamic change we can't simply assume because we haven't had the problem and a significantly in the past we are not going to have it in the future. this means we need to ask ourselves what is alarming al qaeda or groups to begin to recruit sue mollyann to go to somalia or a u.s. army medical doctor with medical training. what is it that enables them to convert this individual who comes after all from the elite of american society and turn him into a terrorist assassin? that will require us to think hard about not only what we do socially in order to try to integrate and assimilate all of the communities in the country it's going to require us to think about how we deal with the process of using the internet as a recruiting tool and training tool in an environment where the capability to trigger and train lone wolves will become an increasing problem for security. so in many ways, what we have seen is the threat we face now are different than the threats we face five or six years ago in specific applications but not in terms of the fundamental core in fact many things said in the last year could have been set for six year ago about the prospect of what we face. but there are some things that are different. one thing that's different is we've gotten much better at preventing attacks. our intelligence is better, our infrastructure for protecting his better and while this is by no means a suggestion that we ought to pat ourselves on the back and say the job is done it does suggest we have made progress, that it doesn't do any good to say nothing has gotten better but at the same time we have to recognize the progress we have made has prompted the enemy to change its approach and that means we need to make further efforts. would have been a major alliance of the successful strategy? >> we have to begin by singing and body alluded to this earlier, but the battle begins not here at home but it begins overseas. if you can eliminate safe havens, if you can eliminate those people who are leading the effort to carry out terrorist attacks in the west that is the best way to eliminate the threat. connecticut to the we've taken overseas in places like afghanistan, pakistan and iraq have served to reduce the threat and have served to disrupt those who want to carry out the threat. that's not to say it forces them to give up or eliminates them but it does push them on the run, particularly in those instances where we are able to work with our allies in the region to keep the pressure up. the second element of the strategy that has worked, again it's not a total solution but it is certainly an important ingredient in the solution is enhanced use of intelligence, better integration of intelligence and better use of some of the screening and scanning tools we built over the last several years that make it more difficult although not impossible for bad people and bad things to get into the country. let me give an illustration of this point. a. in 2001, if someone wanted to come to the country by flying from an airplane if the had a passport and visa that was pretty much all they needed to get into the country and the last line of defense was the border patrol -- i'm sorry border inspector who came face-to-face with the person seeking admission looked at the papers, had a conversation or interview and then made a judgment on the spot where they would get the person or not. much has changed in the last eight or nine years. first of all the process of getting people begins much earlier and not only do we have visas in place now but the ability to collect commercial information from the airlines that tells a surprising amount about the connections travelers have with the people who fund them and the people who communicate with them and perhaps even, and addresses. we can now determine not perfectly but certainly much better than eight or nine years ago with a traveler is connected to someone who we know or have reason to believe is a terrorist finance year, terrorist trainer were serviced communique and that is an important ingredient helping us judge whether they should be allowed in the country. likewise our requirements for the documentation are now much elevate it over with a were before. not only to be of more robust requirements for passport security, ten years ago you could have crossed the border from canada into the united states by waging a birth certificate or a library card come simply raising your hand singing i am an american citizen, let me in and he were allowed in. now we require either a passport or document that is secure. so that's another big step forward. biometrics, it was the case ten years ago that we only intermittently took fingerprints from nine americans coming to the united states, not every american -- nine americans to come into the united states gives his or her fingerprints of the border with the get a visa to get his or her fingerprints when they get the visa. the value of this is not only get better enables us to determine whether someone is using a false identity because we compare their fingerprints over a period of time with travel documents but we are now able to compare fingerprints with a latent fingerprint, that is to say the figure of residue that we are able to pick up and save houses were battlefields all over the world. that means if someone has been in a safe house or his build a bomb and has left a fingerprint someplace they have some risk but we will have lifted the fingerprint, put it in a database and be able to identify even though we don't know the name. again none of these is foolproof or perfect. but the addition of each of these layers of security has dramatically decreased the threat from where it was. now what has been the terrorist response? again is to adapt. that is why you see an increasing the emphasis on the part of al qaeda and similar groups to recruit westerners, people without a prior record, people who are citizens of the country to which they are going to return to the people who as far as the terrorists are able to determine haven't left traces of around the world and that is why we increasingly need to know the upgrade our capabilities but do a better job sharing with our allies overseas to make sure that our information collection and analysis capability keeps track with the effort of the adversary to continue to avoid the traps we have laid. in the area of protection we have also done a lot more than we are used to ring. we obviously have earmarks shalls now to a greater degree than we had before although not as many as we need. one area where i think we have frankly not been as successful as we should be is the area of cyber secure. recently there was dramatized series of intrusions into american companies that captured the attention of the public and the media but i want to tell you that the issue of intrusion into our secure systems and commercial systems has been a problem for years. we have talked about it for years. in 2007, in 2008 we launched a comprehensive national cybersecurity initiative which was designed for the first time to bring together all the capabilities of the american government and the private sector to build a comprehensive way to deal with the cyber threats. president obama recognized the importance of this in one of his early speeches but it seems this effort has been somewhat becalmed and this is an example of an of an area where failing to keep pace with a threat will result or could result in a virtual world to the kind of catastrophic loss we saw in the physical world on september 11th. finally i would like to talk about the area of response which is the fear of the three lakes we typically talk about them. we talk about responsibility because we've recognize we can't prevent everything and we can't reduce or eliminate every vulnerability, and if we failed to prevent an attack and is an attack in fact is successfully carried out the consequences that are felt would be direct result of the amount of preparation we have put into response and mitigation. simply put if we can sustain and attacked because we've mitigated the damage, because we are reserving its then we basically wanted the attack and while it's not as good as of right of prevention in many cases it is the best we can do. the classic example of this is by yo threats. we see a lot discussion of biological threats that occur in nature whether it is avian flu or h1n1 pandemic we saw beginning last year. by those that work in the area know that as troubling if not more troubling is the possibility of a biological attack. the wmd commission which is jointly chaired by senator gramm and senator talent recently issued a report in which they were quite critical of the status of our preparation for dealing with a biological attack in this country. and if you look at this issue closely what you will see is prevention is only one part of the strategy of dealing with biological attacks. and the ingredients of a body with an occur in nature. the difference between the of the to launch an attack and an ability to launch an attack lies in the know-how of the person who's trying to carry out the attack. if you have the know-how and the capability you can get the ingredients relatively quickly. not only that, if you get the ingredients it is virtually impossible for us to prevent bring them into the country. you can fabricate the with mize version of a biological attack mechanism and small file which we would be very unlikely to catch of the border. in fact she could in fact somebody and send an infectious person across the border. so how we deal with biological weapons requires not only better detection but the ability to respond with countermeasures effectively and quickly. if you look for example the possibility of an anthrax attack which this country dissever in 2001 be a very small scale what he recognizes we do have countermeasures that are effective against the anthrax but they are only effective if you get them to people in a very short period of time. now we stockpiled the countermeasures. we know how to make them work so what is the obstacle to what would be in my view is very important step in mitigation and response namely the ability to get people a remedy or countermeasure quickly. the problem is we have not built a delivery system that can move the countermeasures from the stockpile into the hands of people as quickly as possible. this is one of those examples of the problem which has a very easy solution if we have the willingness to accept the solution. the solution is to simply take the counter measures we currently have and distribute them in advance. q. but when schools, and firehouses, and other public buildings. you may actually distribute them in advance to first responders, to people who are critical to response efforts to public health officials and you tell them to hold on to the countermeasures and if and when the time comes to have to be used you will communicate and then people will use the countermeasures. that would in a fairly short order fashion eliminate the distribution problem of a large majority of the people that were in their. the question as we have done it. the answer is not because we haven't tried. we ran a pilot program a couple of years directly three years ago when the u.s. government to see whether this kind of advanced distribution would work whether people what respect the need to keep the countermeasures without using for some other purpose whether they would not what they would lose the countermeasures or somehow misplaced them and what we discovered after we ran a pilot and checked back in about a year is much better than i need for some of the people knew where the countermeasure was and hadn't misused in some fashion, hadn't lost it and in fact followed the instructions they were given. this ought to have been whispered for beginning a more widespread process of advanced distribution. unfortunately some people in the medical community disagree with advanced distribution. the of the medical model which operates an ordinary times that says you should not get a prescription drug to people unless the people have been seen by a doctor first and that is obviously a very good role in ordinary cases. it is not practical however between the time we were not in anthrax attack and the time then we have to distribute the countermeasures to tell everybody to go see a doctor. that is not going to happen so this is one of those areas i think we need to look at the traditional ordinary medical model and ask ourselves whether that works in the context of preparing for emergency. this is something we urge pretty much literally the last day of the push of a demonstration and i hope it is something the current administration is taking a very hard look at because the time that it will take for someone to learn to read the mize anthrax or similar type of biological weapon is much less than people would like to think, and when that happens and i believe it will happen some point, if we have not taken the steps in advance, it will be very unhappy day for the people who face what will be a catastrophic terrorist incident. let me close by saying i have no doubt that after the event of the last couple of months which have spiked interesting terrorism other issues will come on the public radar and the media will move on to different topics and in two or three or four months if we have been lucky enough not to have another effort to attack us the issue of homeland security and terrorism will once again begin to recede from the public view but in many ways it is that phenomenon, the waxing and waning of public interest. that is the greatest challenge we face and homeland security. the kind of responses and defenses we need require sustained investment over a long period of time. it's not a matter of a flash in the pan response. it is a matter of building the capability, training, countermeasures and systems that take months if not years to put in place. if we keep our eye on the need to have that sustain an investment i believe we can keep ahead of the enemy. but if our ability to sustain the investment depends upon whether somebody happens to be in an news headline or not and if our strategies reactive rather than anticipatory but i fear there will come a point we will have an attack and our response will not be adequate. we have lived through that. it was called september 11th. nobody who was involved on that day and the government and had responsibility for dealing with terrorism the lever for get the feeling of frustration that occurred when the attack came and we didn't have the appropriate response in place and i think everybody who lived that understands the importance of not letting that happen again. thank you. [applause] scaap while we're waiting for minister mclellan secretary chertoff and i'm glad to call people out and then have to bring the microphone to you it's important awards people can't hear you on the recording. we have a number of questions appear. let me start with a gentleman in the front row and due to the side. >> negative stephan. i had the pleasure of working with you at the dhs office of intelligence for a while and subsequently in the state department called the counterterrorism communication center which brings me to the point made earlier in your speech about the recruitment of american citizens like the fort hood attack and so forth. the key to that used to the willingness of muslims to accept the al qaeda narrative which is united states is killing muslims as part of that. the counterterrorism communications center was designed to respond to that narrative and rebut in significant ways but i'm not sure i am seeing that kind of activity going on right now also ensure the intelligence community and cia in particular would be interested in your comment on that particular issue. >> it is a very important issue. i know the people with the state department have the heart and the right place. here is what my concern is. the lowest effective counter narrative comes from within the communities within which terrorists try to recruit. when people in the community pushback that has for this expense and there is positive developments. a couple of years ago at al-zawahiri ran a virtual town hall meeting on the internet and in that town hall meeting, he got quite a bit of negative reaction from muslims among others those who had seen the bombing in algeria of a school bus and asked them what could be killing innocent muslim school children advanced islam. likewise there have been scholars who have supported the ideology of al qaeda have renounced and ironically often renounced it because as one said when we see the reaction and the devastation caused in the muslim land as a consequence of what we did maybe it was a failed strategy. so within the community is where you want to build that capability. unfortunately, when the government doesn't it tends to have an inherently, create skepticism on the part of target audience, so to me i think the right answer is to use our financial ability and assistance to seed, s-e-e-d the group's to get their message and but we also have to engage in the community and say look it is your sons and daughters getting pulled into this. it's up to you to make sure you give that counter narrative and counter education. >> there's a gentleman over here in the corner. raise your hand what you? >> um i'm from the is really center as part of the center what i want to know from your experience about the dilemma between the civil liberties and the need for security for the homeland because that is something you didn't address in your speech and in israel it is a very big issue on the biometrics the database we start implementing israel. how did you address when was the limit between the need for security and the need for civil liberties? >> this is an issue raised pretty frequently and there is no question there are times you have to make judgments about the trade-off between security and civil liberties but i have to say a lot of times i think what is presented is a false choice in other words what is viewed as a trade office and much of a trade-off and i will use the excess blood biometrics or fingerprints. i think the use of biometrics is a way to identify people with the use of secure identification, which some people view as infringement on civil liberties. i think it enables civil liberties. anything that allows me to be confident that nobody can pretend to use my identity or masquerade, not only increases my security back to the increases my privacy because when people steal my identity they not only create a security risk but the act we eat my privacy and personal liberties. that's not to say that everything we do can be resolved by saying that it for this both the goal of security and civil liberties but it is in many cases civil liberties objections on closer inspection i think are not well-founded. now there are clearly times we are required to put up with inconvenience and trouble in order to do with security issues for example nobody loves going through the magnetometer at the airport and taking your shoes off and having to arrive 30 minutes earlier than you would if you could stroll into the terminal and walk onto the plane. i think we all recognize we would rather get to our destination safely and make that minor sacrifice of 30 minutes. and there is also a point at which you wouldn't sacrifice your civil liberties for security. but that is an issue that ought to be debated and of the public decides, for the simple, there's some civil liberty are not prepared to sacrifice that is well and good provided we accept the consequences of that and often the the date doesn't involve that trade but it involves people simply trying to assume a way or argue away the security benefit if a particular measure as a way of avoiding the tough choice so i guess my bottom line is this. in many cases what is perceived as a civil liberties threat on closer inspection negative and arguably enhances privacy and individual freedom. in those cases we ought to have a serious discussion about how important it is to protect ourselves in this particular respect and if the public decides they don't want the protection and it's not worth it that as well and good and we accept the consequences. what we can't do is assume away the problem worse than it is never going to have them or try to pretend a security measure doesn't work because it isn't perfect and it was those false arguments i think will often be plowed our ability to resolve these kind of the dilemmas to beat spaghetti could keep your hand up. >> my name is charlie, council of homeland security committee and michael chertoff, i want to thank you for your many years of service and the capacities with our government. i went to first make an offer than ask a question. one of the issues we as a committee are looking into is how to deny access to firearms and explosives to terrorist suspects and how the watch list might be married at to attempted purchases to snuff out plots like some of the once you talked about and be off line if you have time i would like to talk to you about what your views are on that and whether we can work together on that. my question goes to your experience as a prosecutor and a judge and as a secretary of homeland security what are your views about the debate going on about how to detain and interrogate and prosecute terrorist suspects. >> i think what i'm going to say now is consistent with what i said when i was of the path of justice from 2001 to 2003 at the department of homeland security team 2005 to 2008. i believe first of all we are at war. i believe that means we use all the tools in the toolbox. we don't use only military tools. we don't use only law enforcement tools. some tools are better suited in some of my circumstances and others in other circumstances. if you look at what we did during the years i was in the bush administration, we did use all the tools. sometimes we prosecuted people in court. sometimes we put people in the military system. sometimes we move them from one to the other. it depended upon a lot of circumstances how serious the threat was, how efficacious one system was or another for various purposes, whether the person was a u.s. citizen or not, that tends to make a difference. and of course what the state of the law was because the law changed every period of time and the required us to make adjustments. generally speaking my view is you should never take any of these possibilities of the table. what needs to happen is the people making the decision to look carefully at the tools and meet to assess what is the right set of tools and right circumstance and then use them. i don't have a cookie cutter one-size-fits-all answers for each particular possibility. >> we understand this to hopefully mclellan will join soon. if you will come to the front. >> i am shelby williams, president of the peace center and i ron 37 students hear from israel was you have heard from one and we have been debating with the variety of different people about the issue of the sources the terms of inspiration. the question has arisen to what extent will a settlement between israel and palestinians affect the central message? ai no bin laden changes his message but his recent concern about global warming doesn't seem to resonate quite as much as perhaps the anti-israel the message would be. in terms of the importance of the settlement of the issue how do you drink it? there is a feasible partial solution xm dingley gaza strip. how do you view this issue has a big issue in fighting terrorism with a terrorist message? >> i think the settlement in the middle east and passed between israel and palestinians would be a good thing and certainly would move some of the grievance for some people but i think it is a mistake to believe that there is any solution that is going to take this issue off the table. again i return to the ideology in question. the source of the grievances that have been cited by people carrying out terrorist attacks is very long. we've had a number of cases where people put together plots to carry out bombings in denmark spurred by the fact that cartoonists in denmark had cartoons viewed to be insulting so you are never going to find enough things to get away to alleviate the grievances some people are going to have. that doesn't mean it isn't worth having a settlement. it would eliminate a certain number of terrorist attacks in israel as well as a certain amount of grievance from the world it would be a good thing for a lot of reasons. but i think we would be kidding ourselves if we believe even a settlement between israel and palestinians would eliminate terrorist acts by some palestinians and hezbollah or hamas who nevertheless believe it is not enough and likewise we have had a rough settlement and cashmere for decades now and never the less other groups continue to carry out terrorist attacks india so there is no magic bullet, nevertheless there is always value in reducing their fourth as long as you are realistic about with the expectation is on the other side of that process it is worth pursuing. >> another question from the gentleman in the front row. >> michael levine with fox news. one is jumping off the earlier question. what is your overall assessment of the debate itself about the current handling of terrorism cases? >> i think it is worth discussing and debating issues like a city good thing to close guantanamo? what are you going to do with the people quite frequent send them to the u.s.? what does that mean to hold them? what happens if they get released? i think those are all important and worthwhile things to debate. sometimes the discussion degenerates into i told you this, no you didn't tell me that and that becomes a little bit more heat than light but underlying this is a fundamental set of issues that hasn't really been discussed. what is the vision about where you do with guantanamo? why should it be shot? what would you do with the people there if they were not able to be returned to their home country? how much risk are you prepared to take some dig them back to their home country? if you move them to the u.s. where do you put them? what does that mean for the local community? we saw an instance where initially there was a decision to send khalid sheikh mohammed to new york to be tried and all of a sudden the authorities in new york said no, no, we were not consulted. this is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. what this tells me is we need to have a serious discussion and debate before some of these decisions are made. and the second thing it tells me as congress needs to do some work laying out the legal framework for how to deal with terrorism in the 21st century. some of that work has been done in the legislation passed. but flexible we still don't have a set of procedures for dealing with the detainees who want to challenge their detention. the supreme court held a couple years ago they are entitled to do it but the supreme court didn't set any rules up. recently a judge janice browne in the d.c. circuit wrote a very powerful opinion saying it is time for congress to tell us as opposed to making the district judge's fabricate the rules were fashioned rules on a case by case basis so to me there is a real lot opportunity but obligation on the part of congress to put together a set of legal rules and legal framework that is going to sustain us for the next ten, 20, 30 years. >> [inaudible] -- the questions you raised about the 9/11 trial and whether guantanamo should stay open, things like that. >> the bush administration looked the possibility of closing guantanamo. it is very hard. there are a significant number of people there who are dangerous who still regard themselves as at war with the united states and the west. some of them perhaps can be sent to home countries that you can be confident will make sure they are incapacitated. sometimes a with a face a legal objections to going back and they can't go back. our position was, and i believe to be true, you don't want to bring them into the united states. once you bring them to the united states soil they will have a series of rights or set of rights under the immigration law we that could put you in a difficult position of being ordered to release somebody and not be able to deport them and the last thing we want to do is in port terrorist into the u.s.. we could have -- we have carefully thought out plan strategy for how to deal with it. i event seen that yet so under the circumstances i think it is probably good news the administration has put the brakes on closing guantanamo. but in the and we are still going to have to of this debate and we haven't had a yet. >> you say the need to step up to the plate. why do you think that hasn't happened yet? >> i remember attorney general mukasey said a proposal to congress in 2008 to start to deal with some of these issues and it went nowhere. it is a hard issue to talk about because there are a lot of strong feelings on different sides of the debate but i will say this. in the early part of the decade there was a lot of -- congress stepped up and pass the patriot act which was a good thing and then maybe some of the appetite for getting involved in the controversy the mashed. that is why we have elected officials. it's not to take d.c. decisions. it's to look at heart problems and there are members of congress who've been very active in pushing congress to take these issues. i know senator lindsey graham tried to get this on the agenda. senator mccain and other people on both sides of the dial. but i haven't seen enough willpower yet and i'm not enough of a student of congress to explain exactly why that is what i can tell you the clock is ticking and not making a decision in this case is going to be making a decision probably not a very good one. >> the gentleman here in the front row. >> good afternoon, secretary chertoff. my name is todd riggins. i'm operating under the urban revival media which is a blog id one youtube. i would like to speak to you for the opportunity you are here and i heard you try to make a last-minute. i have a question followed by complementary sidebar. the question as to the consolidation of the department homeland security headquarters in southeast d.c. and west campus of st. elizabeth. i have a colleague who is vehemently against the consolidation because she believes it is not necessary because the virtual technology that we now have that can spread resources around the region and perhaps cover the security aspect of the organization more completely. he also does not believe that consolidating is good for the community of a lie disagree but he doesn't believe also from a security standpoint it is a good idea to have all of your eggs in one basket so to speak. i wanted to ask you to speak to that and also before you answer i would like to compliment you in the abstract way. i attended an inauguration party in january in georgetown for dr. gallo and when you walked and it was equivalent to a los angeles opening or hollywood party to see your friends and so on. so i was the same party were there. sing q4 thrilling me. >> glad to oblige. let me take the second issue first. we don't put our eggs in one basket. there would be redundancy element built into the process of pulling headquarters to get there. there is redundancy in terms of the servers and cyber capabilities without getting into classified matters there are redundancies in terms of the key personnel and that is part of a hour continuity of operations plan at the dhs. i do think there is enormous value in bringing the headquarters together. i can tell you the community by and large is very supportive and putting the leadership of the district. and frankly we look at the possibility of building headquarters in virginia now and the district really wanted to have that because they felt it could be the cornerstone of economic revival in the area and including some additional transportation including abn additional enhancement of a subway as well as the economics activity of the merchants in the surrounding area. i think in terms of security it has to be a very good location. as to the point whether you can have a virtual headquarters, you know, i have been involved in a number of the largest institutions over the last ten or 15 years and people always talk about you don't need to be one place -- of the body can communicate by e-mail or telephone and therefore we can all be widely distributed. and it is true that to some extent e-mail and telephone to allow a certain amount of virtual community. but with all of my experience i have never seen a substance face-to-face interaction. when you were in the room with people it is different than when you were on the telephone and even on a video conference and human beings being what they are and maybe this is going to change in 50 years and we will all have avatars and everything will take place in second life, but in the world in which we currently live, did a real impediment not to have the leadership in one place to build a set of community and allow the kind of informal interaction that i think is part of building up a spirit of community in any organization. so, i am a very strong believer in the need to bring the headquartered components of the dhs into one place. it will be good for the dhs and will build unity of spirit and of eckert, and i actually think it is calling to help the local community quite a bit. >> i have a question in the corner and then i have one next to the camera. >> richard white, hudson institute. thank you for coming today. a question about the way the u.s. government is restructuring how it deals with the cybersecurity threats. as we know the administration conduct extensive review and had to deal with several models about how you would distribute the role in the mission for cyberthieves particularly the civilian side in the united states. i wasn't sure how you assess the results and whether you have any thoughts about which agency should be in the role. >> well i'm not sure we know weeks ackley with the results are. i can tell you where we were as of 2008 when we put together the national cybersecurity strategy. recognizing there are different functions insider security. some are appropriate to the defense and intelligence community in terms of the domestic government what we call .gov. dhs had the authority and we felt could build -- should build the capability to manage the process for the .gov domain. and also to interface to the public sector. the big challenge and unanswered question is how to deal with cybersecurity in the private sector and here i will offer a personal opinion. i don't believe the u.s. government ought to sit on the internet and run the private sector security except in a very limited number of cases where certain private entities seek that kind of protection and because the government contractors are operating them in the it's appropriate for the government to play that role. i do think we need to find a way to have the government -- ipt support interface that happens to fit. interface with private sectors of the benefit of the government capabilities can be shared with the private sector. but without having the government actually operating in the private-sector domain directly. i think that raises, to make reference to the earlier discussion a civil liberty versus security trade-off which would be probably not the best one. one model that i suggested, it is not the only model is to create a trusted friend parties. entities in the private-sector that have proper classification levels and security clearances that can be the interchange between the government and private sector in terms of conveying necessary information and skills but not necessarily giving the government the direct control over the levers of the private sector. the architecture of how this will be developed is very complicated and could give rise to a lot of controversy. so again i think it's something we would do well to debate and get out in the open. if there are people who believe the government should directly sit on the internet we already here with that case is and maybe it is persuasive. but i don't think is an option is to ignore it. it is a hard problem. one of the things i see in the book, and it unfortunately remains true is one of the ways we deal with problems in the government is avoid them. it is the musical chairs half yearly of government which is i know the music is going to stop some day. i hope i'm out of the room when it does so why don't fall down because i don't have a chair. that is a good model for a child's game and a bad model for government. the hardest problems are the ones to be tackled. i did we took a good running start at tackling cybersecurity in 2007, 2008. i think the administration currently recognizes the problem and i know a lot of good work is being done. i do think though that we have got an increasing tempo of our dealing with this problem because again time is not on our side. >> with a gentleman here by the camera. >> i used to be an intern. my question on cybersecurity and how we can improve the power to deal with it. with cybersecurity it seems the ghs always becomes a reactionary agency. now cedras security is a bigger issue you need more people to start doing the job. going forward, what do you think of the good idea of the dhs being ahead? it is something of the justice department when there is terrorist issues where you wouldn't need linguistic people than you go forward. what are they? good things for good man power technique the dhs can put forward [inaudible] >> you are right there's a tendency to be reactive and i think the original point when i was speaking was all too often it seems our strategy is driven by what is in the headlines last week. the insider security on will save in 2007, 2008 we began process of really taking a hard look at where we were and where we ought to go. we've done things before 2007 but i think we had a sense that there was a lot more that could be done. i don't think that -- i always get asked the question was used to get asked the question who is in charge? it's a complicated question to answer because at one level the president is in charge although i think presidents are often surprised to find there are no limits on their power not only within the federal bridge but in state and local government and private sector. in the civilian domain when you deal with a lot of divided authority among different agencies what we find it generally works is a degree of coordination with someone standing as the coordinator but not necessarily being the commander of all of the assets and that is because the legal framework tends to divide power and there's all kind of good reasons to do that as opposed to centralizing it. that being said, i think the conclusion we reached in 2008 was that was worth having a coordinator on the civilian side. dhs had the authority and relationships with private sector to be the appropriate place to put that. i think the intelligence community and military were quite happy to have the dhs be the interface with the private sector but at the same time there was a recognition we needed to bring together all of the alliance of the command to come intelligence, military and dhs and the department of justice said they could coordinate directed these together and that we would do that through a cybersecurity center which would kind be the focal point for this kind of effort. it's an architecture that is designed to give you a unity effort also you do not have unity of command. i still think that is the right model. there are some people who suggest the white house ought to be the operator not all of this all we think the white house is appropriate as a policy-making location. experience has shown when the white house -- and this isn't specific to any particular administration. when the white house becomes an operator, that is usually a recipe for some kind of a serious problem. and you don't want to have the white house be an operator particularly in the area of seifert where you are dealing with issues that are very delicate from political san points -- standpoint. we need to stick with the basic architecture we put together into the to the system, 2008. the current administration are more or less in the same place. they have a sidebar coordinator in the white house but it seems to me this is somebody who is going to be a policy-making coordinator and not an actual operator which i think is probably the right decision. >> the gentleman of the way in the back with his hand up. >> mr. chertoff, it's good we had this opportunity to talk to you more than just a one-way lector because another speaker hasn't come in but i congratulate hudson and also the moderator for his to give up a lot of time asking you questions. you mentioned that one of your first top priority of solutions is to base abroad in foreign countries, which means more wars which in my opinion i've been in this country since 1970. this country has always been strong one way or the other in terms of military operation, and my opinion is a lot of that does cause such source of tourists were of the germination of feelings that lead to people [inaudible] given that and you're putting a high priority that u.s. would continue to be in some kind of war for ever and not going into isolation my personal feeling after watching this country from 1970 until today it would be better if the united states went into isolation for decades and 20, 30 years. >> here is the lesson of 9/11. there was a time 50, 60, 70 years ago people are due to oceans predicted the united states and we could isolate ourselves. in 9/11, and one of the reasons i think it was a pivotal event in american history is the first time in american history to be since the war of 1812 the enemy can onto our shores and found us and the was a very vivid lesson that isolationism is not an option. you can't retreat far enough to isolate yourself. let's look at the historical fact. 9/11 occurred before we run our afghanistan, before we were in iraq, there wasn't guantanamo. all of the things which are sometimes cited as being some spurs to recruit or inflaming people against us. this didn't exist prior to 9/11 or exist prior to the bombings of east africa, prior to the uss kuhl. in the 1990's, we were basically minding your own business and bin laden's the original grievance is we went to saudi arabia to help defend kuwait against invasion by saddam hussein. for those who believe we somehow caused these things, we would have to pull out of the entire world, and even then if you look at the plots against the cartoonists in denmark we have to start to sensor television, since our books, censored newspapers. we will never be able to appease enough to satisfy the people who want to strike. i have to say the experience we have seen in either having ourselves or our allies strike against safe havens has been that has produced very positive results and frankly again if i go back to even some of the ideologues who have now turned against al qaeda even though they supported the ideology, one of the things the site as a cause for their turning against al qaeda has been the strong reaction that came into afghanistan and the fact that the community in which al qaeda was operating actually suffered because al qaeda launched an attack against the u.s.. so i am a believer soft power is important. i also believe hard power is important as well and you cannot expect a commander of respect of the world if you are not prepared to defend yourself against others who come looking for trouble. >> i know i just i nice complement for being quiet but let me ask one question from the chair if i might. mr. secretary, when you were in office one of the big issues that can oppose immigration reform. and your president was in favor of it, and you had strong congressional leadership that was also in favor of the data was difficult to get done. the current add mustard and with its strong democratic leadership said they wanted to kiss on and your successor is charged with trying to carry this forward. do you have advice on tackling immigration reform just sort of your perspective on what might be done to move this forward and why it is important or perhaps why we shouldn't talk with at this time? >> well, you know this is more a question of the legislative process. than it is homeland security. i would say the lesson i learned from our experience in 2007 as first officer is a comprehensive bill i think would satisfy most people on both sides of the all but not everybody. and certainly significant minority on either side object even though for diametrically different reasons. the one lesson i take away from our experience for a couple lessons which i think are reinforced by what i've seen the last year are these: first of all, it is very important to push with enforcement notwithstanding the failure of the comprehensive approach. because i think what enforcement was designed to do and has done to a significant extent is to demonstrate to the american people before we come to you and ask you to allow us to find some way to accommodate some of the people who are here illegally or set up a temporary worker program, we better convince you that we are prepared to enforce the law we the way that it is now. in other words we are not going to simply come up with some kind of proposal and then failed to enforce the parts that are hard and go with the parts that are easy. so i think the down payment on the credibility which came with enforcement is hugely important setting the table for this. that is one of the reasons why i did was remarkably important to finish building that fence. we said we wanted to build about 650 miles of fence along the southern border. i believe there is now 643 miles that have been built and it was very hard to get that done. there was a lot of a legal objection, a lot of complaining from the local communities on a kind of not in my backyard theory and a lot of ideological opposition to the fact is congress voted for it, congress funded it and by getting it done we demonstrated to the american public that when we commit to something we can live up to the chemical and. that's the first listen, you've got sure you are prepared to live up to commitments. the second lesson is on the other side of the spectrum on the reform side. we'd think it was important to deal with the problem comprehensively but it strikes me that we may be better off in the future dealing with in stages in other words to one slice of reform first, see what goes and then go to the next slice of reform. one of the things which i think even the current health care debate demonstrates is also in theory a big problem needs a comprehensive solution it is very hard to persuade people who are naturally and perhaps appropriately skeptical about government to do everything all at once. sometimes a big meal is best digested byte by byte so what i might suggest is until you look at the proposal and begin for example with a couple of slices. a temporary worker program, some kind of a temporary visa program for people who are here illegally that who have not otherwise committed a violation. but instead of an immediate pathway to citizenship, give them like a three or four year temporary visa. have a temporary worker program, see how it works and if you go back to the american public and say this has worked for three or four years and is now extended or modified perhaps you get a better audience. >> there's a young lady here. >> i am the second year student in israel. i also serve in reserves for the medical corporation of the home front comment. and you mentioned before handing out medicine for civilians, for citizens. we actually do something close to that. most of the citizens get a gas mask and a syringe that has adrenalin but obviously you can't distribute any medicine to any disease out there and my question to you is where is the line? where do we stop? also called the measurements we are taking and airports -- some of my professors claim, and i agree, italy escalates the terror because the element believe, but you are achieving -- when you stop that thing they find another way. >> to questions, the first is they are happen to be a relatively small number of countermeasures that address most of the things we would worry about as unlikely biological threat.

Related Keywords

Kadima ,Hamerkaz ,Israel ,Jerusalem ,Israel General ,Turkey ,California ,United States ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,San Francisco ,Berkeley ,Mumbai ,Maharashtra ,India ,Egypt ,Hollywood ,Ramallah ,West Bank General ,West Bank ,Chicago ,Illinois ,New York ,Moscow ,Moskva ,Russia ,Canada ,Algeria ,Afghanistan ,Virginia ,Gaza Strip ,Jordan ,Pakistan ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Denmark ,Town Hall ,Saudi Arabia ,Pennsylvania ,Somalia ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,France ,Madison School ,Italy ,Kuwait ,Americans ,America ,Canadian ,Pakistani ,Canadians ,Israelis ,Israeli ,Palestinian ,Somali ,American ,Danny Ayalon ,Janice Browne ,Susan Brandeis ,Jay Edgar Hoover ,Ken Starr ,Tzachi Hanegbi ,States Janet Reno ,Carey Durham Kilgore ,Mabel Walker ,Maureen Mahoney Dustin ,Ruth Ginsburg ,Warren Harding ,Sarah Wilson ,Mahmoud Abbas ,Shelby Williams ,Michael Chertoff ,Al Qaeda ,Ruth Bader Ginsburg ,Todd Riggins ,Barbara Babcock ,Maureen Mahoney ,Michael Levine ,Temple Mount ,Los Angeles ,Ruth Ginsberg ,Ahmad Tibi ,Boswell Dewey ,Gerald Gunther ,Lindsey Graham ,Myra Brad ,Louis Brandeis ,Susan B Anthony ,Yasser Arafat ,Elena Kagan ,Sonia Sotomayor ,Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ,