Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20130511

that in foreign policy, the e.u. plays a phenomenal role in terms of it not voluntary assistance. nonmilitary preventative assistance is provided to a large proportion by the european union. 60% of foreign aid comes to the european union. when we talk about burden sharing, if we talk about being fair, we have to take those numbers into account. i do hope that this cooperation will flourish and i hope the europeans will take the military response abilities more seriously. thank you further explanation than remarks, which will help us continue with our work ahead of the summit. thank you again for coming to join us. [inaudible conversations] this first portion of the event includes an analysis of public opinion on drones and remarks from republican paul gosar to control the u.s.-mexico border and fight forest fires. >> good morning. thank you for joining us. my name is andres martinez coming to write with the new america foundation and one of the coordinators of our exciting future tense partnership, a partnership between new america have displayed magazine at arizona state become which looks at the policy implications of emerging technology. before getting us started, i want to say what you're planning this event a few months ago, i thought how appropriate we are doing that's. turns out i was wrong by a day. tomorrow is the official commemoration of the end of world war ii, at least in europe. the reason i thought that was appropriate was because obviously no other conflict has so altered the nature of warfare and particularly the way to disguise them became lethal to populations in a way it never had them before. also, world war ii of course has the pit mines the way in which warfare alters technologies but then come back home. that is one of the themes we are going to explore today that there's a broad fascination, a technology evolved tremendously in large measure to the mobilization and the conflicts overseas and the application of this technology for domestic uses. people are naturally unsettled by that, but there's also opportunity this technology affords them that is another aspect we are going explore today, not just the pitfalls and dangers that concerns, but the opportunities. this is the recurring theme i have familiar with and i see a crowded room, so this is a timely subject, one of great entries. as you make room for neighbors come a few of an empty seat next to you. thank you for that. also a couple house keeping reminders. the first being this event is being webcast on the new america site as well as c-span. obviously, everything is on the record and everything will be on the record from now because of all the drones in the skies. last night if you want to ask a question, wait for a microphone to people watching can be part of the conversation and listen to you can also identify yourself. if you are following on twitter, please use the hash tag ft drums. now if they could segue into our opening presentations, which is going to explore this question of what does that mean to us when we hear the term drones? what do we associate with? sort of a primal reactions to find robot as a substitute for technologies. i can think of no better person to set the table and connect the dots between the politics, the culture and the technology then will stop him. he's a great partner of ours come of our future times collaborationist national correspondent at slate, longtime writer and editor at slate where he covers technology, politics among many other topics. well, please get us started. [applause] >> banks, andres. and thanks to partners that new >> banks, andres. and thanks to partners that new america into all of you who manage to get get here, not just the here covered the hero person, which in the future won't necessarily be presumed. with a lot of great people, so i'll try not to drone on. chilcott that one. i do that for two reasons. one is that you can't than the others to raise the question when is the last time you heard the word used in any context other than the one we use today. there's a lot of debate over whether we should use it, but i suggest to you essentially the current context owns the word on i wouldn't worry with connotations. what i like to do if it's your birthday is about how you think about drones, which is not very much. obviously other talk about technology, it is received politically. the first thing i want to do is point out some of the dimensions we talk about today. drones are enormously various. the term drone is very old. in terms of whether we should use the word, we've been using it. this is good with aircraft going back for two thirds of a century at this point. it's not a new term. it's been moved over this technology. so we understood in the context of work and understood the payload. a lot of talk today about whether drones a robot when actually these pilots behind them. i would raise the question to you, that doesn't resolve the question politically because even if you're not afraid of a robot, you can be afraid of the person who is operating drone. another difference, i'm a big or small? people think of drones is these big things. i too will not resolve the political question because although the smaller are less powerful, they are not carrying the payload. it is invisibility. in terms of fear of being spied on, it would be a bigger threat in a lot of people's minds. finally, the question had been armed or unarmed out of the question is killed or spied on. that i suggest to you is the one that right now is the bigger driver of the politics of this topic. so let's run this video from the website funny or die unassertive captures. >> g.i. joe is back and ready for a new age of warfare. [inaudible] feel the adrenaline. ♪ >> comes with the back post to g.i. joe can set all day without back pain. >> g.i. joe, american hero. >> because there's not run a good place. i [inaudible] >> that captures the alternative to what used to be fine and military aircraft. there's lots of jokes about spot compared is the mayor, but it's all about assab rating to drown. it's all about and that is the context in which we've learned about drones. people take it seriously, this is code pink protesting john braining hearing. again the context as the victims are people overseas. they are foreigners. thus the presumptions. this is from the tv show homeland. under the characters on the other side is working against the united states because of the story, an american drone has filed a missile into a school and cut a bunch of children overseas. it's not a fair representation, but the understanding is the first is other people and so one of the care bears turns against us. then we begin to see some notions of americans being targeted. mcas los angeles, the drone impacting tpb of hijacking. the drone taken over by a hacker and a missile fire. the point is that can happen to you. in this case the hacker is an islamic fundamentalist in the united states. but then we had last year the bourne legacy, a movie in which not only is the target an american agent, the people firing the drone fassero dusted the government. but against the vat of uncle sam is the threat of popular culture. so i'm going to talk about public opinion to put some meat on the bones. i'm not going to belabor the numbers today. this is a fox news poll from late february. basically shows as the target of the military becomes more american, the support goes down. you can see how it works. the numbers go down. if the attack is on american soil, the numbers go down further. the basic structure of public opinion. some of you may remember this guy walked on senate for a filibuster. basically he says we have american drones in san francisco or houston or wherever. is absurd because it has been a demand its government would make no sense. david is government mandated health insurance. [laughter] andy borowitz had fun the senate oppose filibuster. majority americans opposed to being killed. the poll showed 97% of those surveyed strongly agreed with the state and a purse i do not want to be killed by a drone. you see down below white house press secretary jake ernie tried to make the best inside people are afraid. we did that come, but there's broad public support for killing somebody else. here we have the popular t-shirt, don't drone me bro. you probably can't see, but the people targeted our man in women and child. not a fair representation, but you understand this is what's penetrated popular culture and it has now been served. if you're afraid of the word company should be afraid of the noun drone. but the real problem. here's another poll, a gallup poll from march. this is after senator paul's filibuster. same structure as public opinion. as it becomes more american, the numbers go down much further. the lowest number used to be 45, number 13. presumably because of the filibustering people think about the idea drones may shoot, we have a big dip in public support for drones. okay, who is operating drones? this is a fox news poll from february. notice the difference in the questions at the first is do you approve or disapprove of the united states using unmanned aircraft on u.s. soil? not much difference between white and nonwhite republicans and democrats to address the question coming to think the the president of the united states and his son should do a quick a big gap opens up between whites and nonwhites, democrats and republicans and presumably because democrats and nonwhites think the president is one of us more so than whites and republicans in so there's less anxiety. it matters who's targeted in who is operating the drone. now we could on to domestic uses of drones. who's the target? again, difference of public opinion. search and rescue were going to help somebody. tracked on renwick criminals. 67% support that. they're probably not looking for a mere anybody like me. issue speeding tickets. no, absolutely not. that could be me. i think that's what's going on about the poll was telling us. we see another breakdown within the population. this is the margin of support. when we talk about speeding tickets, tracking criminals is not much difference demographically. on the control illegal immigration, whites are in favor. hispanics and blacks half for less than that the ied about who's targeted and by whom. it's not just drones people are worried about. this is a poll taken in the organization and what they show when you ask about unmanned military aircraft killing -- targeting killing citizens suspected of being terrorists, 32% are worried, but if you ask about your local police department can be where they might invade your privacy% to 40%. the smaller threat. you're not going to be killed. i'm probably not a suspected terrorist, but it's more widespread, more people identified with being a target of the drones. today we'll talk about people knew more, if they simply understood more, that's not necessarily true. in the military context of history. the more people know about military drones, they go up whether that's domestic or overseas, as long as we target suspected terrorists come at the numbers go up in all categories if you've read or learn more use of drones à la terry lee. the domestic context come you don't get that. hope the search and rescue, the margin to seven the third column if you're more familiar with the use of drones militarily. the margin was down by 14 points. i think that is because the respondent by thinking you are going to shoot the criminals. i think that explains the immigration numbers didn't go down in criminal numbers did go down. the job by 34% amongst people who know more but the usage drones militarily. this shows us that people learn in the military context is they are very affect this and that is not at all resolve because whether you support the mission for that use depends on whether you like to drones, but the mission. but that i will wrap up and that everybody get onto an exciting day of a lot of interesting facts and observations. thank you. [applause] >> and now we are going to shift into the practical rom. great thinkers at an institution like the america have the luxury of analyzing issues over time and think about where will the essay society three, five, 10 years from now. but will not get the the somebody who has to wrestle with a lot of issues in real-time as a legislator, a member of congress who has to draw lines and sat rules and ballot security imperatives with their individual liberties and veg. to moderate this conversation with congressmen paul gosar, i have the pleasure of introducing rosa brooks at the new america foundation edition to professor fletcher shyne university, columnist for foreign policy and a good friend. rosa, i am going to hand it off to you. >> i'm told i am not physically attached to this chair. thank you and good morning to you all. this is a terrific turnout in thank you all for coming. we are really thrilled to have representative gosar with us this morning. a lot of the action is now moving to capitol hill and he's going to be able to tell us a little bit about what these issues look like as a congressman from arizona fourth district, but also about how this whole discussion is beginning to play out on the hill and what the prospects are for regulation in the future. representative gosar, urls the one the unmanned systems caucus and document your bio, you are a person. you were born as a member of congress. in fact come to you at practice in flagstaff for 25 years. this issue is a good one for you because people's reaction to drones is the media. so are drones lake dentistry? without a lot of irrational fears, but frankly we should get over it and realize what properly thought about, drones are good for us, not something to be feared? >> well, my staffer once said dr. gosar commute from the roadway. value to the government i'm here here to help you. but there's a two-sided aspect of drones. i look at it as a colony of bees. what we have to do is flush out the detail as a dentist, duties in the detail and that's where we have to look at it. >> so give us some examples when they are doing their good wald things, what does look like? >> we have in my first term, in my first or the largest forest fire in arizona's history called the wall of fire. u.s. taxpayers spend $400 million but it out any plus $2.5 billion worth of assets. imagine for a second you were able to use one of the worker drones into a pattern of cutting as it makes it more efficient for the lumber company, more efficient to make money, but also illustrates to be built because environmentalists don't trust the logging company. you can actually build a pattern. the walker does it very, very quickly, but then you get confirmation from the environmental community. so here's an application that makes the worker puts it into real-life perspective. you can take it into an aspect of the canada reaching infrastructure or you can look at the rose and determine how you prioritize roads and repair and that the materials experimental and how they are weathering and working under stress. >> this is an important point and well has made it is thought that we need to separate the issue of the technology itself from the issue of the various ways we might choose to use those of us are a set of policy questions. i can certainly imagine unmanned aerial platforms, including disaster relief purposes in the wake of earthquakes, hurricanes, that sort of thing. even looking at potential genocides another atrocity oversees the u.s. satellite imagery during the balkan service critical in locating in tracing responsibility for massacres and i could imagine similar value of surveillance footage even more so when of our real-time kind of way. but i guess the challenge your obvious way is the technology itself has nothing deterministic and it enables people to do things they haven't been able to do before. then they give you an example of one of the tough ones i think. presumably i could build a sub for her by a remote-control vehicle using publicly available technologies. i can buy one at amazon.com for a few hundred dollars i can also take a legally registered weapon. an offense unto smart enough, i can connect these things to make my own but denies drones. you're someone who's known as a staunch second amendment advocate. should this change the way to think about second amendment issues? is this no issue at all? is god a legally owned remotely piloted vehicle. he put them together, or is this the thing we need to start going witty sidekick, this is qualitatively different. this isn't just one plus one is due. this is vile, something just happened here i would need to worry in a different way than our constitutional assumptions apply in a different way. >> this is exactly why we have to flush this out. i'm also the person that voted against the nba, thinking about constitutional obligations. >> can you explain? >> this is our cybersecurity aspect. afghanistan under hit the rules in this didn't even come close to a requirement supposed to protect my patience. i'm very keen about the privacy with american citizens are entitled by our constitution. i don't want people to be detained without being charged. i have a wrath of making sure the government is an arms length away. so these are the issues we find ourselves in. i also said that friend paul in the senate chamber when he was having a filibuster to have the conversation from the administration. it is one of those who need to have a conversation about to mobile to see some of that by the congress passing the 20 top faa modernization of type to see how they can articulate them but you can do with it. and what are the rules that govern not. >> dissent is the constitution is to be touched on for figuring this out. these obviously our technologies that are the framers of the constitution could not even have dreamt of. do we even have an adequate framework for thinking about that as privacy implications for the legal applications of these technologies in the hands of private citizens? .. >> clearly, somebody is there, and that's the nuance we're having, and the critical things, a terrorist, a u.s. citizen, we had the conversation. you methodically go through this and have the conversation in the public. you don't keep it behind closed doors. that's why you have to air it out making sure the american public. once aired out, the american public is going to decide and put the parameters in, and too long, you are a normal person, you know, i tell everybody i'm a politician, and things have to rationally make sense to me is is that when you share that with the american public, are they difficult issues, absolutely, but you have to have the conversation and sort them out by having a clear defying articulated conversation. >> do you think that this clearly defines the conversation happening on the hill? what's the prognosis of the likelihood we are or going to get a serious discussion op the hill to lead to actual legislative action? >> i think you are. i mean, just as the whole fact, and it's a libertarian base of a district. we have the conversations all the time. that's the conversation that you want to have is take that technology and say, listen, what part of that application can you use? like, for example, the forest industry, a pest control in farms, and border security, and i mean, arizona's front and center, look at the questions we are asking, so this is, you know, sometimes what i said is that, you know, be a leader in the discussion, ensure you turn up all the questions and start that discussion, and that's one of the things arizona's prom innocent about is that we came into the country kicking and screaming. we wanted to recall judge, and that's why we were delayed coming into the country. we continued that onslaught of questions, and asu, you know, helped sponsoring this today, is another key element of education. we have riddle, one the stop aeronautical schools in the country doing this. it's on the forecast, and it's on the forefront, and this discussion is coming home now that we see its deployment on border security, identification, and the commercial side of it. >> is this something -- i know the border control authorities already used unmanned vehicles -- >> just minimally. >> just minimally. is this what you see from your constituency, interest of private citizens talking about how to develop the technologies, put them to use commercially, are you getting that from local law enforcement? where -- is there a ground swell of interest at the grassroots level or mostly an executive branch, federal matter? >> no, it's all over. i mean, from, you know, from police and local dribbings, search and rescue, think of the example, the mass atrocities, but what about what happened over in colorado in an avalanche? sending one up with a thermal imaging, you can identify where the bodies are so that you get quick responses or if you have a hiker stranded on a mountain, look at thermal currents and drop food or first aid. there's a lot of applications, and it's happening right now. in arizona, we're seeing at the police level, talking to people, this is what we have for bomb squads, scares, the search and rescue, and people who are having the decision, -- the discussion, people bring them into the discussion asking what do you see, congressman, from your perspective? i see from mind the scenes that most colleagues have that discussion with their con constituents. is it early on? absolutely. we're going to flush some of these things out here, shortly, in regards to where the test sites are, what's the applications, what are we going to allow the faa, the military, the police state, the commercial applications to do? that's part of the legislative process. >> it's -- i did research for a recent foreign policy column on how easy it is to access the technologies just as a private citizen right now, and i was a little astounded at the level of sophistication i personally, with my visa card achieved by oring things off the web. i own three drones, two are tiny helicopters, my kids open three drones, two are tiny helicopter, the other a giant flying goldfish, none recognized. i don't think we'll mention the recent poll that recent magazine commissioned, and, obviously, as we know, the details on the polls, depending how you ask the question, there's a different answer coming up with the somewhat astounding revolution, if we believe it, 47% of americans felt if their neighbors or any other person or government agency for that matter were flying a surveillance drone over their property without their consent that 47% of americans felt they believed they had a right to shoot that down, so i'm careful with a little fish. [laughter] i mean, back to maybe irrational theories, are you concerned that in the time it takes our political process to sort of slowly chew over this stuff that there's a messy situation rising on the ground as private citizens engage in creative, but could be idiotic uses of the technologies? >> you know, we've seen it already. when you start seeing the applications of planes after world war ii, helicopters after world war i, and hell coppedders after world war ii, you see the technology. even in den tis ri. you remember the belt driven drill, like, oh, my god, i got to see that again, air driven, and now lasers. applications come. there's going to be sticky wickets as we call them, that we come across, and you bring them up not to be scared of them, but bring them up to shed the light of the air to the aspect for a discussion with those. i think that's going to come. that's the natural progression of human nature and new technology is, you know, finding out what it can do, what the parameters are, and how do we place it into the best light when limited in the negative light. >> congressman, you're on a tight schedule, but a few minutes, if you don't mind, any questions from folks in the audience here? let me ask if you could, when you speak, stand up, identify yourself and your afghanistan as well. sir? >> thank you. >> i'm a national defense university professor, and recently arrived as a fellow so this is personal to me and so op which you've not talked about, and maybe you could understand the way we feel in pakistan. a lot of people told me the fact that it has its own strategic objectives to main tape its own interests, and one is to harm its own people, and so what i fail to understand is that why the american public finds that it's easy to demonize pakistan for not liking drones for the fact it's killing, killing their children of the country. there's many, many children that have died, and it's consistent effort where, by one hand, you provide money, especially in the 2010 floods, for example, but on the other hand, children are killed. >> we talked about positive applications was technologies, but, obviously, to people in pakistan, the face of drone technologies is there killing people, including those who are innocent. is that speak to, in your mind, congressman, is that a failure of u.s. policy? is that -- is that something where we got the policy wrong, or we need to e review how we think about the so-called targeted killing program, whether by drones or something else, or in your mind, is that more of a we need to do a better job explaning what we're doing and why in >> well, i think there's a lot of different as pegs, i mean, personal accountability and personality responsibility are huge in my world. just to let you know, i'm the first of ten kids, five democrat, four republicans, one independent. when my wife met the family, my wife called her mom and said, oh, my god, these people hate each other. [laughter] with that, it's a responsibility of people to know they are not harboring criminals or international thugs, and i think that's the telltale of the communication or a community, so i think from that point, there's the agent of pakistan and harboring criminal, and there's app aspect and there's a way of doing technology in a way that fashions that drops can start to do is depict who are the people picking a civilian against a militant. that's a conversation here. i don't think that there are any right answers right now because there's plen tiff of wrongs to go around, but we have to reward good behavior, not honor bad behavior. most of today's program is focused on domestic res, but we are going to talk about the foreign policy issues today. in fact, i'm talking about them around 12:30. we'll come back to the issues later on. >> i think you can hear me. >> no. >> retired air force scientist. i started running drones in the 1930s, called kites. my model airplanes were drones, and 90% of the drones in the world are good, peaceful uses. we use them in medicine, run them down into your body all of us will have drone cars which we'll run in the next ten years, so reality is drones are here, and that's not going to go away, and most of the uses are peaceful uses, and they are going to increase the quality of life. it doesn't matter what technology you have in the world when it develops, there's some negative aspects. this is included. i hope you just don't emphasize the negative issues because they are a small part of the development of drones. >> i'm president of the dc area drone user group. we have about 320 members, about 320 intern euros in waiting who are -- entrepreneurs in waiting who are ready to open up in our country to be able to operate our equipment for social good and commercial purposes. there's a lot of talk about large institutions, large companies using drones for commercial purposes, but most of us are operating equipment that costs under $500, pretty simple to use, weighs under five pounds. how are we going to make sure that the costs of being certified age legally allowed to use this for commercial purposes doesn't exceed exponentially the costs of the equipment itself? we want to make sure somebody who wants simple wedding photography is not strangled by regulations and various other requirements. how do you see striking that balance so that the small operators are allowed to flourish and contribute to the national economy? thank you very much. >> first of all, if i had that answer, we'd already have a dynamic economy going right now. that's what the mission right now, problems in washington, d.c. are, how do we look at small business applications, how does an administration look at the backbone of the country as a small business person? i was a small business person. there is a happy medium, and, boy, tell you what, it's not just in this application of unmanned, you know, drone aspects, but it's across the board, and all business aspects. you know, we need to have tax reform that's more for investment, broad based, and making a co-investment policy in the united states. that's the problem we have right now in washington, d.c. so i wish i had the answers. we have to have that applications. companies are cutting edge, you can argue it's the small entrepreneur moving that across the boferred so there's the dynamic interchange, and i like and invite you to utilize your voice when you gather people together as a co-op to articulate that message and make sure that you have the ear of legislators and of congress like the big companies do. >> congressman, i know we have more questions, but we have to make sure you are not late for the next engagement. we should wrap up and thank you very much for joining us today. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> more now from the new america foundation event on drops. m iring's t professor and former fighter pilot says drones are revolutionizing the agriculture sector and do the same for the cargo transport industry in the next ten years and says the mill military's use of drones saved lives. she's joined on the panel by ceo of the association for unmanned vehicle systems. this part is about 45 minutes. >> going to drill into the state of the technology and for this segment, we have a very able moderator in shane harris. go ahead and come up. sharon -- shane is a national security writer at the washington magazine, one of thee top reporters on all things national security in town. he's the author of the watchers, the rise of america's surveillance state, a very good book, and i should thank him because in addition to moderating today, he was part of the inform mall brain forming sessions on putting together the day, and so i want to thank shane for his thought leadership on this subject, and now i turn the program over to you. >> great, thanks very much. that's a great introduction to the policy challenges we face in this technology, and now what we'll do is was said, try to understand what the state of the technology is and where it's going in the relatively near future because i think it is poised to take off, informative, and disruptive, but extremely exciting, so the two people we have here with us today to help us do that are extremely capable, and i'm excited to have them together. to the right, missy cummings, professor at mit, spent 11 years as a military pilot in the u.s. navy, one of the first female fighter pilots and wrote a book called "the hornet's nest," and we had the chance to be on panels before, and she's packed with amazing insights and information into this stuff. she's great, michael, remits just the tremendously growing use as the president and ceo of the association for unmanned vehicle systems international, which includes government agencies and members as well, not just cooperation, and previously, served as program manager for research and development for nuclear security in the defense department bringing a level of governmental insight to this as well. first question is asking both of you to take out your crystal ball here, and missy, starting with you, and if you looked out at the next five to ten years, of the landscape domestically where drones might be used, what do you see as probably going to happen as applications of the technology, and what's the more pie in the sky that might happen given the right circumstances in the next five to ten years? what does america look like in a world? >> what's happening now is a quiet revolution, drones revolution r the agriculture industry, an industry where we can't get enough people to do the jobs we need done, and farmers need the technology for health of crop surveillance, seeing what's happening with your tractors in the field who will also become robots. john deere has amazing set of robotic tractors. they need it for the bottom line. i think the next big revolution you'll see is going to be in the cargo industry, and a quiet corner of afghanistan that there are two little helicopters called the kmx helicopters, that have, by themselves, just trucking back and forth between point a and b carried over 3 million pounds of good by themselves with just a human looking at them through a ground control station on the ground. i think you'll see the civilian cargo community go that way as well. there's interest from fedex and ups to reduce costs quite a bit and possibly improve safety if you take the human out of the loop. >> next five to ten years? >> i think agriculture is happening now. inside ten years, there's a more mature industry. japan does all the crop dusting with uav, an entire country, so, in fact, united states, we lag a little bit in terms of the implementation of the technology. the cargo, you'll see in the five to ten years more military missions are turned over to cargo with the capability there to turn commercial missions over, but it's the regulations, the regulatory agencies, the faa, global regulations, agencies that basically slow that down a little so we're looking at more like 10-15 years for that. >> imagining, then, new kinds of aircraft, or imagining putting, sort of unmanned systems into the existing planes? still the same ups plane or look more like -- >> yeah, you know, the funny thing is what people do not realize is if you flew on an air bus, you are flying in a uav variant. any digital fly by wire aircraft is capable of being a uav, and some boeing aircraft are highly digital, highly automated, and the pilot is there just baby sitting the aircraft. it's actually not a hugely -- we could actually convert most commercial planes to uavs now with little fanfare, but what's going to happen in the future is now planes are built, they will be including sensors like waves to have more capability in bad weather, for example. >> we'll talk more about the technology capable of doing and what its limits are. michael, from your per speck sieve, particularly, how industry sees this, what's the next five to ten years look like? >> the next five to ten years, the real question is when do we get into the national air space because once that happens, we just released a report that the economic impact is 14 billion economic dollars that are infused, and look over ten years, numbers go up over a hundred thousand new jobs and $82 billion. you know, there was a couple res that were brought up earlier, if you don't mind. first of all, the webbization of unmanned aircraft systems, called uas's, look at the department of transportation or in this case, the faa, they are the authoritative body calling them uas. >> you don't use the word "drone" -- >> no, because if you go to the experts in this case, the faa, they call them uas's, and we call them that because there's a system, a human being, and we heard about accountability, and that is truly important of the accountability for all the systems. someone is operating the system, the system compromises of what flies, about 30%. the payload, and the communication that exists, the ground station, and the human being. that makes up the system. any time you see any of the systems, that's the operator. no aircraft manned or unmanned can deploy any weaponnization at this point in time, okay? there's no way that you can deploy -- you can't take the young lay toy, rosa, who has the fish, she can't take and put a weapon on that and use it. they are breaking the law. you break the law, you should be held accountability. that's a key issue that people don't understand is there are provisions in place, and -- >> couldn't do this either? >> that is correct. when you get to the point where missy brought up agriculture, people don't understand, there's a lot of information that is misrepresented or not disseminated that we have 7 billion people in the world, by year 2050, there's 9 billion people. there's not enough food to feed everybody. precision agriculture is within the first deployment of the systems, is going to be in the agricultural world, a tremendous ability for us to be able to produce more food, so who when you think you can feed hundreds of millions of people, you can almost do away with starvation on the planet by unit layization of the technology. that's the ramifications. that's the upside of had technology. it is huge. if you stop and think there's no privacy concern, and if there was no safety issues, and if that happens in the next three years or so, the ability for us to utilize this technology is unbelievable. the students involved with right now, and you look at the entrepreneurs mentioned here, it will be unbelieve l the effect you'll have, being able to understand how weather affects this planet, be able to understand how nature interacts with us in a way we never understood before. the research in the exploration that is available to human beings to understand how to do things in an effective, efficient, and safer way is unparalleled, like the industrial revolution or when we made a determination to go to the moon. this has real tremendous capabilities at the precipice of unlocking the door. >> in that regard, the big date is september 2015, which is when, and you both can chime in and the date by which the faa has to be prepared to integrate the national air space of the technology. michael, what does that mean, briefly, and for both of you, once we hit that date and the skies are effectively open, you know, how is that going to roll out? are we going to start seeing drones immediately over washington? what's that going to look like? >> the faa reauthorization bill says the faa is responsible for the integration by 2015, the september time frame. the faa's role is safety. anything in the national air space has to be safe, regardless of manned or unmanned. that's the paramount and only responsibility. the faa in this point in time is not responsible for privacy. that's a different issue that either the supreme court or the homeland security or other agencies are going to have to determine as far as that concern goes, but the faa is, right now, identifying test sites, and those sites will be utilized to assure we have safety in anything that goes into the national air space, so once we achieve that, them you'll be able to understand that it's okay to fly these things and take all of the advantages that i highlighted. >> looking at this and saying, you know, setting ceiling caps, who goes where? >> yes, but it's worth noting that this is only for small uavs, not integrating large ones on the scale we talk about for commercial aviation, particularly cargo, so, everybody appointments to the september 2015 as some imagine call date, only it's actually a small steppingstone in what's going to have to happen to have truly integrated uav integration integrated in national, international air pace in all classes. >> talk about -- what has to happen after they add step one? is step two what you talked about in order of magnitude more difficult? >> it shouldn't be, but the faa makes it that way. you know, and i poke at the faa understanding they have a hard job to do, it is their job to make sure there's safe integration, talking about a substantial a leap of faith, a psychological barrier in putting uavs in the national air space opposed to a technical barrier. we need regulation for sense and avoid right now. the faa says the reason you can't have uavs is because they can't see and avoid like a human can, and for those of you who sat in the front of a commercial cockpit, you'll know that you can't see anything from a commercial cockpit, so, in fact, the sensors we try to develop, we, in terms of the community, make commercial man aviation safer as well bus we put a protective bubble around an aircraft in terms of safety to allow aircraft to talk to one another. we are talking about big leaps in terms of integration and the infrastructure of technology than technology itself, but you talk to people in the faa who their whole life is mannedded aviation causing a crisis, an identity crisis for people in the military. look at the air force to see how much trouble it's causing me. if we turn over aviation to robots, that's what mean for us as individuals? what's it mean for mankind if all of the sudden our cars and our planes and our trains are highly automated. it's not just aviation, but many, many sectors of the transportation industry causing a lot of people heart ache redefining who they are and what nay are capable of doing. >> on that, i mean, you were a fighter pilot. >> i was. >> you come from an elite culture that prides itself op human endeavor and initiative. i mean, do your colleagues look at you, now with mit, in building the interfaces like you put them out of a job? is a pilot an endangered species? >> i'm a traitor by many people in the community, and salon.com, the pilot guy chases me around to harass me about putting the commercial pilot out of work. the hay day's over. the hay day of the fighter pilot gone. israel announced weeks ago that in 40 years, all fighters are uavs in israel, i'm here to tell you, it's really fun. it's really cool, and what makes me better than everyone in the room is that i flew a fight eric and i can land a plane on the aircraft carrier by migs, but it doesn't make me better than the computer. the computer lands the aircraft on the carrier by itself. the computer doesn't get tired or have a ramp strike at the end of the carrier at 3 a.m. the computer puts the target on the weapon it's supposed to and doesn't make mistakes for the visual target. there's been a lot of concern in the room about weaponnizing uasv, and i deaf knitly am in agreement we have to revisit the policies in terms of how we weaponnize any platform, but i'm here to tell you, as a fighter pilot, humans make so many more mistakes at the tip of the speer in the cockpit trying to drop bombs. there's a group of people, a lawyer next to you, on the radio with you trying to make the hard decisions is a much better form of warfare, and we hear, you know, scared of uavs, i will tell you in doing so we've saved a lot of lives. >> i want to come back to the issues we brought up about humans in the loop, but, first, michael, i want to ask you on picking again, the date of 2015 as the year we're off to the races, and maybe that's stretching it a bit, but give us a sense of how potentially big the commercial industry is. correct me if i'm wrong, right now, you're prohitted from using a drone for profit for commercial purpose. >> correct. >> the general census that there's a whole industry in the wings gearing up waiting to go so given us a sense how big that is and potentially over the next ten years as well, how it grow. >> okay, in the national air space, the faa reauthorization bill as dr. cummings mentioned, restricted to 400 feet, and 55 pounds or less so you are talking small aircraft. if you look at the firefighters, the first responders, park rangers, the law enforcement, many of the systems they have are less than five pounds, and it has operation times of anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour. these are, like, a police officers would have a k-9 dog in the back, doesn't use the dog all the time, just when he needs it for a specific application for which the dog is very good at. this is how uas's are used by the law enforcement. the fires identified, talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars and the loss of life that you saw with all these fires, what folks need is situational awareness. if you look at any devastation taking place, whether it's mother nature, mankind created, the first responders need good information for good decisions saving the lives of the people they are there to protect as well as their own lives. this is what the technology brings to bear. you talk about the 2015 time frame, agriculture alone, which, again, 80% of all of the value you get are on the agriculture and public safety side, the missions are articulate, detailed, and in many cases, you certify the platform as airworthy, certify the operators as certified capable, and you certify the operational environment to ensure there's not misuse taking place in the systems so they bring to bear a tremendous opportunity in doing whatever the mission is. the men and women that use these systems know how to do their job better than anyone else. what you're giving them is a tool that extends their eyes, ear, and their hands in order to do the job in a mother -- more effective manner, a tremendous capability. >> examples of large scale implementation of public safety. what about the entrepreneurial side of it, the drone user group in dc, we live in washington where there's bike messagers everywhere; right? >> right. >> are they -- are we going to see people deliver packages office to office with drones? >> you hit upon an excellent point is that the entrepreneur and geniusness that exists, once allowed to be taken advantage of will be eye-opening. there's applications we have not thought about. you heard of taco choppers delivering tacos to you, but there's places in the world in the monsoon season, 85% of the roads wiped out, and now you deliver medicine point a to point b so people with pandemic diseases, you can e eliminate tt in totality. people will use these things, as you said, wedding pictures or putting new roof on a house, and the application that, we have not scratched the surface, but you allow individuals to do it in a safe way, and in the proper way, it will have phenomenal economic impacts. >> i come from a small town in the south, and i love rosa's comment. my family would be the first without a -- with a shotgun as soon as one flew over the yard. i come from a salt of the earth environment, and when my family heard it's possible for uav to deliver a can of beer, that changed their tune. [laughter] they had to think about it. you can see the conundrum, shoot the beer, shoot the helicopter after it delivered the beer, maybe both. i think if you want to know what's truly capable, see what happened in london a month ago. in london, at night, there was a formation of quad hell cometters with lights on them, and they got permission at faa to fly in a formation over the city of london in the shape of the new "star trek" logo to advertise the new movie. the entire air space over london was taken up by a flying formation of drones, and sounds small, but it's huge because there's another aspect of drones which is the entertainment aspect of drones. now we see formations for entertainment, you can go to oprah in new york, the theater using that in the operas, switzerland, see many performances of uavs, and i agree there's a lot of medical and critical life applications, but there's applications for the technologies, but they will just make you laugh. >> from hollywood and the film industry looks and there's amazing shots with drones. >> oh, yes. >> there's a huge cost savings there too. >> i want to point out, not just a cost savings particularly for the film industry, but a huge safety advantage. hell cometter flying, and i'm working with the navy now on turning helicopters into robotic helicopters, important for a good reason because the accident rate is high, and there was recently a group of people in a filming helicopter that crashed because they got into a high wind low altitude situation and couldn't control it. there's something in the human body called the near muscular lag. when you see something, some event, it takes you a half second to respond to that, and even if you're the sharpest pilot on the map et, yao still married to that half second neuromuscular lag. robot choppers do not do that. turning them over, low to the ground, slow speed conditions, turn that over to the robot, and safety will improve. >> this leads into the next point, the human operator behind it, how people interact with the robotic vehicles, but what we push towards is sending out fleets of the robots to do work on their open, and so we get into automation or potentially awe -- autonomy. starting with you to address it from the scientific perspective. what is an autonomous drone? what's that standard mean? >> so there's a debate in the community over what is automation and what's autonomy. i permly define that autonomy is when a robot has to reason under a great deal of uncertainty so the helicopter i'm working on with the navy is an autonomous helicopter because it's called by a person using a smart phone to say, come get me, i need evacuated, emergency supplies, the helicopter takes off by itself, navigates by itself, gets a landing spot by itself, navigates and lands on the side of the mountain. this is something a human cannot do right now, so we consider this a highly autonomous vehicle because it's having to make a series of decisions under a great deal of up certainty. uavs today are automated. they are not aton mouse because we are heavily reliant on gps, a pick of coordinates, the computer says i have to go from where i am to this set of coordinates, very much like using the navigation system in the car, there's a control loop that closes it, making the aircraft go in that direction, only it saves you on feel, and so there is -- it's automation, there's no clear line, but a slide, but think about as the amount of guessing that you do. the more guessing, the more atonmy you use. >> like, effectively sky net? the system is aware of itself in making decisions independently? >> sort of. you know, i hate to say that because that's the number one question i'm asked. are we going to sky net or the matrix. well, i mean, there's elements giving the systems the ability to reason on their open. the global hog, a huge reconnaissance uav flown by the military has gone lost link, and that's the biggest problem we have when flying the systems remotely. what happens when you can't talk to it anymore? the global hawk has, on few occasions, been able to successfully land itself after losing the link with the human. you can argue there's autonomy in there because of the uncertainty, and it's rule based, and it's a reliable system so what we have to do is understand the systems are not always in communication with us, and this is the biggest hurdle that the google car has to overcome as it tries to get entry on to the roads, that how do you resolve ambiguity in the system and be highly reliable under various conditions? >> talking domestic, but the military struggles with the question, well, people in the military say, we never create a drone that has the ability to select and fire on a target, yet, there is a lot of research going into the automation in between in that field with regards to lethal drones. i think probably in surveillance drones, that's app area where we feel more comfortable, maybe backing away and the machine doing its own thinking. talk about how industry sees this, the potential for automation or autonomy, are there companies that want to build systems that just don't require people to use them? >> again, and if i use the word "semiautonomous" or "automated," people are more comfortable with that because there's a human being in the loom and there is accountability. the technology is mature enough to have aspects of the system to do particular functions, but you always have the ability to enter in. as was mentioned, if there is a loss link or things don't go as planned, you have backup information saying these are the rules you follow, where you go to these coordinated or how you do it. safety is paramount. build safety into the systems. if you don't, you'll never use the systems. from a safety stand point first, all the technology that is in the system to ensure is operates in a safe manner, you have the ability to say, okay, i understand i'm accountable for this, and i can let it do the a, b, c, and d, and if i get information back from it, that tells me i want to redistrict -- redistrict, i have the ability to do so or make the decisions it comets to make because that's what we programmed to happen. >> is there a question of efficiency here? imagine the cargo example, like, you know, ten years from now, ups and fedex use uas's to deliver cargo. aren't they going to want to use as many few human controllers as possible or say, no, no, one controller per plane, just on the ground, not in the air. >> from a safety stand point, yes, they want efficiency to ensure it's safe. if with one human being, that's what they go to. as tuckses take place, they monitor that to ensure the goods are delivered, everything going as scheduled, and, again, the planes take off, land on their open, do interact with other systems to perform what the operation may be there kniferring -- delivers cargo or picking up human beings in hazardous situations. >> are the members in the organization, even those who are not with a view of technology, are there people developing things you look at saying that's never going to fly? that's no -- no pup intended, but, wow, that's too ambitious or too scary. i mean, a sense on the far end of the spectrum where it's way out there. >> as was mentioned, for the most part, most people are responsible and understand the boundaries of which the technology can be utilized for. there's some, though, that step over the edge or go over the line. i don't know how you stop that. there's misuse with any technology we have. we now have what we call bullying laws because people misused the technology that we have in the island for 50 years alled the interpret now. we had no vision that people used it to bully other people so you'll have to adapt as the technology becomes more mainstream into our everyday life of to make sure one is safe, and, two, it's use appropriately and properly and people are held accountable. that comes down to everything talkedded about mentioned by the representative. you have to be holding people accountable for whatever they do, weather it's driving your open car, can't go 100 miles per hour drunk and crash into people, that's illegal. do you want mean we should ban cars. same with the technology. you utilize it for all tremendous opportunities it brings to us, you have to do it in a responsible way. >> on the theme of accountability, and you mentioned google cars or driverless cars to be agnostic about it, what's going to happen when a driverless car runs over the girl on the way to the soccer game? if the future is driverless car, riff on that a little bit and how we sort of get comfortable with this idea of handing over this sacred american idea of driving to a robot. >> of all the public outcry going on for uavs that mean while the google car slipped in under the radar driving around, now, potentially in three states, florida, nevada, and california with little oversight, but you're likely to be run over by the google car before a uav falls on your head. i think, you know, i'm a fan of technology, and the vision of the future is an individual, i think, in 50 years we'll see the zip plane, the flying car that you can order to come pick you up and do the driving and flying for you at the same time so i -- and, in fact, nasa has a program on this called the person air vehicle so we're thinking about it, and in the research world, trying to get you your own car that flies, but there's a whrot of steps that happen between now and then, and the issue of accountability, if the uav, the air community thinks there's problems, believe me, the driving community will have similar problems, although, i think driverless cars reenergized the american bar association realing there's a new set of lawsuits about to come down from that, and i think that is actually going to be a key in terms of robotics, the car is much more front and center over the debate of the accountability policies because it's part of the everyday lie. what i'm concerned about is if in the early stage of development, the google car does kill a child, it will shut the robotic injury down, definitely the driverless car robotics down and could have deep ramifications for the air community as well. it's pop us in terms of academia, industry, and regulation industries to take it seriously because what we don't want to do is take a big step forward and have a problem like that that could be catastrophic. >> why would it shut the industry down? why one accident? >> if i may? >> yeah. >> first of all, understand why you want a driverless car, okay. right now, today, the risk acceptance of a technology costs called the automobile is there's over 32,000 lives lost, 6.3 million accidents in the united states, and over $256 billion a year in costs associated with the medical costs in the dammings associated with that 6.3 million accidents. the highest loss of life between people of the age of 16 and 19 is car accidents. 7 # 5% of those are not either alcohol or drug induced. this is those distracted drivers we talk about, okay? many of them have those belonging to you or your grandchildren, and i would contend to you that the distraction is not the texting, but the driving because all they know all their life is texting, and now they can't do it for an hour and a half because they have to drive from point a and point b, that drives them crazy, no pup intended there either. it's app aging population; over 22 million people over the age of 75 to get to point a to point b, another generation comes forward with an inability to focus for a longer period of time, and the purpose of having driverless cars is to get from point a to point b. i'm never going to give up my 64 mustang, well, we didn't do away with horses once the car came involved 103 years ago. as a matter of fact, it's a multidollar industry. we use them for pleasure, sports, for a lot of thingsing but we don't use them to go to work every day back and forth. the same is true with driverless cars. the cop jury excused we have, just in the united states alone, moved 87 billion a year just sitting on highways, and your car sites idle more than 94% of the time, sitting parks not doing anything good. the pollution put into the environment, you look at the amount of congestion that you have, there's a better way to get from point a to point b and whether it's a flying car or driverless car, in the future, that's where we go because the numbers support it, the saving of lives support it. you mention we lose one life, well, if i could take it down from 32,000 to 3,000, is that a smart thing to do? well, there's a tremendous capability there, and 10, yes, we have to have leadership that says when that first time it happens, because in many cases what happens is this is from a statistical stand point, going 40 miles per hour, the coeffect, the tire cofirst times to the surface says if you go 40 miles per hour on surface, it takes nine feet to stop because physics says that's what the vehicle can only do. if the human being is driving, they stop been 12 feet. if you have a driverless car feet, it's nine feet. well, if the child steps out at ten feet, the human being would have killed him, the driverless car would not. at eight feet, either kills the child. that's the reality we have that we accept humans to be faulty, and we accept the fact we have 32,000 lives a year that die. you don't accept machines killing human being, and that's what driverless cars, we have to understand there's a tremendous opportunity and capability hering but they are not going to be perfect. >> we'll take questions, but we don't accept technology killing human beings, and so when it happens -- >> when -- this is why, you know, that is the reality, the reality is that no technology will ever be 100% perfect, but my emphasis was on these next few years, particularly, in the development of technology. the american public and general world sense, we're still at that place where we are not comfortable with machines taking over the aspects of the lives, and accountability issues up for debate, and i think that in the next few years, if someone were killed by a driverless car, it would be a human set back for the community because we're just not there yet in terms of our psychological acceptance of the technology, and so we need to make sure that we are building as safest systems with the correct infrastructure as possible, and another 20 years, we will -- the transportation infrastructure of the country will look very different, but we're in a very -- it's a very hard place because we still got a lot of legacy gremlins driving around on the road; plus, the high end cars that park themselveses and radar in terms of cruise control, so it's a weird distribution of technologies and old has got to work with the new, and we're just not quite there yet. >> okay. let's take questions from the audience, and, please, state your name and your afghanistan -- affiliation, thanks. >> phillip weber, congressional budget office. can you explain the commercial prohibition more? does it end september 2015? does it continue? i presume all the things you -- both mentioned agriculture, cargo, there must be people interested in making a buck there. >> first of all, faa is responsible by the 2015 # date. now, with the sequestering that took place with the continuing resolutions, and the faa has not met most of the dates that have been established back in 2012, and i look at the faa, jim williams is now the uas integrator, working very closely with the department of defense with dhs, fcc and other agencies to ensure when we get into the national air space, systems will be safe. we talk about small, the small rule being worked on now today, and a lot of the safety issues that are being addressed that are segued into small working groups, that are addressing all of these issues, so it should could -- cull m nate, and they are working hard to do that, and when the date does happen, they articulate, 400 feet, 55 pounds or less, and utilization on how to utilize the systems both in the civil and commercial side. >> we did ask the faa in particular, jim williams, to be here, but they could not so you know. this side here, sir, yeah. go ahead. >> got a question. what is the future relationship between drone technology and satellite image ray and are they integrating in some way. great question because it's lost on people that drones are just a flying camera for the most part, particularly in the military and first responder world right now, and we don't have any new capability with drones that we have not already had with manned helicopters, manned aircraft, or satellites; right? they are much more cost effective, and that's an argument for why they might be -- why nay are being used more often. i have seen agencies looking at integration, but they are integrated, actually, in terms of satellites, uavs flown in afghanistan, for example, have satellite connection between them allowing the operator to control them in nevada all the way in afghanistan. with the imagery, it's -- it is definitely technologically feasible and a lot of three letter agencies were not using that in some way. >> just one other point. you bring up something that's outstanding is that there's no new leap ahead technology that exists with usa, and every factor is used by man systems and cameras that you see on the street, the cameras in banks, thermal imaging existing today, the gps, everything that existed today there is nothing new, no leap ahead technology. this is technology agnostic as far as -- as missy mentioned, now you can do it in a much more effective and efficient way, and that's what allows you to save lives, which is a big key factor in all of this. >> sir in the front, the back, and back to you, sir. >> thank you, you talked about the use of visual senses on uavs, and what about the range of other types of sores used to gather data on uavs? how do you see that market growing in future? we, for example, are looking at tagging of endangered spee seeses and detecting signals from the tags. how do you see that market growing rather than the live feed video imaging you talk about today? >> it's growing, and i love to use the wwf example. when i give a talk around the country about the drone technology of the future, i have pictures i show because i think that m impacts they have in terms of tracking and the poaching problem is tremendous, and there are -- go on the internet and buy thermal imaging cameras, remoes technology found on any other flying platform, you can put on a uav. the only real limitation today is weight because they are so small, and each gram you put on a uav will reduce, directly reduce the flight time. that's the only limitation. >> the duration of which they can fly, but, you, again, you will be able to, for the first time, explore nature like never seen before. this is the opportunity that that brings forward, whether it's in prereceiverring nature or better understand the migrating paths. .. this is 2000. it's like the invisibility cloak in the thing i love about as it's for every technology-based antitank allergy. do not send the entrepreneur will find a new camera to defeat a cloaking device. in terms of financial job creation, it is very. as a program manager for the navy, we are very, very concerned about the gps hacking problem. if i began my program, one of the day care is the focus developing gps technologies to operate completely gps three. this is another example of the innovations that have been because hacking happens. any electronic device can be hacked. no not for sometime so we we will develop something and the enemy will develop. >> that's an excellent point. not just hacking, but unintentional situations that could occur. this falls under safety. the faa will have to understand that in order for things to be safe to make sure the communication. that is a tremendous area of appreciation that everyone has. the banking industry right now will crumble if it doesn't have secure transitions or transactions. the sad thing is true with this technology. if you can't assure you that some level of assurance system will be either interfered, disrupt good or hacked into then you out either. >> thank you for the great discussion. intriguing, a little scary, too. [applause] >> the third panel on the use of unmanned aerial drones takes a look at two specific applications that take allergy. save an endangered species and monitoring the weather. the heads of the world by fund and noaa take part. this part is about 40 minutes. >> our next conversation will focus on a subject that has come up a number of times, which is the environmental context. you can go ahead and come out to this stage. in fact, the world wildlife fund example has dirty been mentioned specifically a couple times that now we get to hear from david w. s. in particular. first a vector introducer matter for the next conversation, suzanne goldenberg, who is the u.s. environmental correspondent for the guardian newspaper peer she's also the author of madam president about hillary clinton's historic route for the white house in 2008. suzanne has spent many years covering the war in iraq, afghanistan, lebanon, chechnya and has been a correspondent elsewhere. one of the things i like about it is is that her journalistic trajectory covers some of what we are talking about here, which is coming home and now we are looking not the application in leveraging technology in the environmental context and the conversation entitled nature's new watchdog. >> thank you very much. estimated to have fared, the conversation were going to have now, which carter roberts and robbie hood will focus on drums and specifically how the new technology can be used to protect wildlife insert it resent that, both of wildlife and human. robbie hood is the director as of seven and overseeing this coming introduction of drones in forecasting and their use of various levels to tell us more about hurricanes and other dangerous systems coming our way and also to talk a little bit how the technology can be used for people who are a the and instances of shipping. and carter roberts is the president and chief executive officer and have a bill to tell us in great detail how the technology is already beginning to be used on the ground in places like nepal to combat poaching, which is a war that so far the conservationist groups seem to be on the losing side up and hopefully this new technology can reverse that. i'm going to ask if you can start off talking about how the technology is going to be deployed hopefully and how important you think you might be, particularly in an era when we sing as you cut when it comes to forecasting. >> thank you very much. i noaa, collecting data is what we do. being able to understand what's happening in all parts of the plan that is really important and observations are. but satellites and rain rain gauges and radars and just about anything you can think about. so we're we are looking aqa aztec knowledge is it's another observing system to come into the picture systems were already using. so we're looking at very, very small short endurance ones although it to global readership would not fit and looking at those long endurance capabilities. one of the things to been emphasizing is looking at technologies that were very well fleshed out. the ones used by the military overseas and how can we take those technologies and rapidly deploy them for scientific purposes? we've heard of a lot of different things happening about the faa and privacy issues. our biggest hurdle is the cost. uis can be every system relative. it's cheaper than satellite and there's times when it could be very useful in helping us get detailed information over the ocean that we can't quite get to with other kinds of assets. also, the hand washable once or thinks he can watch from a ship, being able to work with is using science dollars, that is what we are hoping is one of the new frontiers will be able to tackle to get the cost down so many, many more applications can be used by a wider variety of people. >> carter, we've heard the world wildlife fund is really going forward with this technology in nepal and in africa i believe. what do you think it brings to the table? >> for the record, we were not the group peanut uavs and southeastern united states, but it's interesting. just this morning i was getting a whole series of the most the central african republic where rebel groups have overrun an area and allison and we fear that there could be a spring, but we don't know what's happening on the ground. so in our work, we are desperate or information. it exploded over the past four years. it's become a huge international issue in places like south africa, where for years about 20 rhinos were taken due to poachers. this jumped to 150 a year, 300 d., this year looks like over 800 it's become a huge crisis and the bad guys are extremely sophisticated. they have night vision goggles. they've got helicopters. they've got all kinds of unmanned resource that we need to up our game to combat what they are doing. so we are trying to do that in places like nepal and may be an mozambican elsewhere. >> from what i understand, you can use them to trap posters. what happens if they miss a cross-border? >> it's a really interesting case because the nepal, two years ago i went to nepal to drive across the country and release them into the wild. but at a $10,000 satellite collar on the tiger and released them into the wild and watched to the tiger move, established the territory and then we watched the color stop moving. that is the point where we went into the field, found the collar and there was no tiger. the collar is there in the tiger is probably in a bottle of wine, being used in china as some celebratory feasts. that's not the way it should work. i was just there two weeks ago where we were coloring one raynaud. i was at the head of the military, the chief word putting it another $10,000 satellite collar and most raynaud, but we know there's got to be a better way not just a comical the demise of nature. there's got to be a way to have real-time data on the poachers and a software system that enable us to mobilize people to get to the right place at the right time. so we just received a grant from google as part of the global impact wars that enables us to begin the test new technologies and practical, scalable ways. for instance, in nepal and the bpa rate now, we look at using cell phone to knowledge is so you've got a chip with the raynaud that can send text messages instead of being collected by satellite can be collect by drones overhead. >> what are the costs of these technologies? >> that's technology. it's a fraction of what a satellite collar with e. they are not backed up during the day. they are active at night and is a really remote places. but the real gain for us is the software and that enables to take data for animals, data from second poachers, get that information so they can intercept the poachers. that's the real game. ultimately, not just track the poachers, but track and to the trader. the real gain in syndicates is getting to the trainers. that's the way we interrupt this crisis. >> attracting them to better selling point? >> yes. >> when you are talking about the global hawk, the big systems, we have seen the forecasting explode over the last decade, getting more live data they were going to see more of that more intent today because of the change. what does global hawk bring into the picture and how can that save lives, say businesses? >> when we think of it as a force multiplier. every way we hook and different kinds of delivery systems, everything should be working together. lofaro is the cannot is the best resolution that would give us the information. satellites are extremely good, especially once a day or twice a day. sometime you need to get in closer. when i was famous for the aircraft butterflies through storms. a system can go out and stay with the story much, much longer. they can fly for 24 hours. now were able to stay with that. the satellite will pass over you have a stationary satellite. you'll feel up to get a closer look at a storm for a longer period of time. there's that niche we can't quite satisfied right now. >> what levels they were talking about? >> we intend to abide by whatever the rules and regulations are defined by by our government system. right now like someone said earlier, anything we use now is sent now is that the majority developed for a manned aircraft. we only use uis for scientific purposes. we don't collect privacy data evitable collect privacy data with the unmanned aircraft. it's all about science data. it's not the privacy issues that come into play so much as the line for. >> the places we talk about in the world are extremely remote. they are generally unpopulated. another place where i was in nepal has the world's tallest grasses. it's almost an manageable. typically the only way you move back as on top of an elephant. the privacy issues aren't that great because nobody is supposed to be there and what we are tracking is for people entering the park, typically at night. so what we really look for this in the poachers to remote places for nobody's supposed to be there. >> one concern such as the governments of india and the government of nepal and the subtype ologies and form control. >> whether or south africa or nepal starts and ends at governments because governments at the end of it to enforce the laws on the book. they are the ones that need to catch the poachers. we want to blog about engaging governments around their air restrictions, radiofrequency restrictions, security issues on the ground in a lot of places we talk about our border areas. we are also releasing into the river. this incredible relative to the alligator at the long narrow cell, almost endangered are we releasing these are the river and satellite collar struck them as they move. the river close to india in a few years ago one of these floated into india. seven notice the radio antenna and the whole area lit up with accusations, which is a little improbable, but nevertheless in every single region we work, we stand with that government and that being a government initiative and as for piloting the sweet spots of technology in terms of practicality, costs, replicability, we're also piloting how best to work with government. >> i want to ask you about international collaboration. >> weighty scientific experiments come always have to get permission of the country we are going to, even with manned aircraft. one of the exciting things i think is interesting about uis is uis is our design to bring data back in real time. in the early part of the career of work for nasa and participated as a hurricane research experiment where he flew aircraft the top of hurricanes. and there on the aircraft you've got 40 scientists are talking to and it's an exciting experience. with a started working with uis, being able to sit in front of a computer monitor can have the data be able to chat with your local scientists across the country really brings the experience to a bigger audience and will bring science data and discovery to even greater populations across the world and younger students. to put a camera is going to be the same thing as saying that provide that to other students and citizens of the world will be very exciting. there's a flipside ever making data more readily accessible to others. >> in terms of international collaboration of some of these developments -- >> at noaa, a lot of the government agencies are working together to get access to national interspace. they're still still are commiserations and the international community for civilian air control. many countries now are open-minded about bringing a cavities for scientific research. another area with a lot of international connection behind it is doing the studies. so in my country, all those countries have interest in what's happening with climate change as new shifting burst open. there's already discussions at the international level about how could you share access for the data through doing more experiments. there's a lot of discussion that needs to happen with the authorities i, but the scientific level, we're all pretty excited. >> as well as to go -- [inaudible] >> it's really, you know, some of the greatest in the world on border areas. it's interesting. and the wildlife, which is inherently a global issue. this criminal syndicates move across borders quite seamlessly and the trade -- we may have a problem in africa, but it's driven by demand in places like vietnam and china and thailand. so we've begun to work with government. we cohost a wildlife trade equivalent to vanderpool called traffic who runs the program for us. this has become a huge international crises and secretary clinton called for a major intelligence review to work with other countries on sharing intelligence so we can unlock the mysteries of the very shadowy networks that operate across orders and often he is for us the trip and all parts to buy guns and other materials. this has become a high-profile for the state department and we see much more collaboration across the country, but we have a lot of work to do. we are not winning this title together. [inaudible] >> it's interesting. when senator kerry hosted by the biggest briefings on wildlife trade right before he left and the focus mostly on the slaughter of elephant. we look forward to working with him on this. he's been one of the stalwarts on climate change in the wildlife trade issue. >> i want to get that to the issue. what kind of information do these nations want to get out of the area in play now with climate change? >> it's basically understanding of it happening. each country like canada is that economic sense and protection of the country. most of them are all concerned about what would happen was more oil drilling and if there's an oil spill how you tackle the problem. it's so much more complicated because of the harsh climate. as the ice diminishes its opening up opportunities for other ships to pass through there. if we can't predict the weather well enough, this frees up suddenly. there's a lot of safety issues as well. all of the countries are really did in what's happening and what the changes will bring to their country in the long run. >> what happened three years ago -- why would we have now? what is the size of the spell out anything using technology. what about it? >> it was a little different because it happened in the gulf and their a lot of manned aircraft, too. we are doing experiments to bury the different centers on uis so they can fly into two regions hardest to get to. one thing, specially collects in alaska are all the time because there's so much business that they are. we'd like to get to the point where we would have access to some of the smaller ones would be nice to have those and noaa weather stations so if something happened like some kind of marine debris rolling in the ocean you could find it easier by using the assay could count on the ship and take a look at being able to look at the size and detect distant stars latitude and longitude. [inaudible] >> this is not a particular plug because at noaa with the cat investment in systems, which are a lot of observations we collect at noaa are ocean they fear those kinds of systems normally run 300 to 400 to 500,000, but that is three aircraft in the control station. >> we would like to know more. is there a way drunk could be as? >> we have a small project but cannot the motivation with the debris coming in and how its effect in hawaii. also being able to find these things. one of the hardest things with fishing gear, fishing that another things tumble tumble through the ocean and gets bigger and bigger with time. it's hard to find. but which had a look at a multitier approach where you can look at satellite and they are finding some of the debris and then you could maybe take a ship out there imply something from the ship to make it easier. for i was trying to connect the system soon make them the most efficient they can be. >> there certainly endangered wildlife, but what other uses can be made of this technology in terms of establishing a baseline -- is it advantageous? is that an application you see? >> very much so. there's a whole litany of animals that live in a servo places that we and others are using the technology brothers walruses in the art trick, just yesterday i was a piece about and put cranes in the united states. that is all super important. the other thing important for us is tracking human is in these areas. a lot of which place where talking about, one of the greatest ways in which habitat is to start is by conversion to agriculture. a lot of the biggest companies on merit but also government want to effeminate illegal projects in the supply chain because those are the ones that have the greatest impact. not just tracking the animals, but also tracking productive uses of land. tracking deforestation by a company is often illegal. tracking station in parts of the ocean that are far, far away and been able to relay information to be part of a database so companies make decisions on purchasing based on what's legal, was not to be able to have data reaching their commitment. so that whole array of monitoring animals also monitor in land use is enormously important in the lighter example shown earlier is being able to track their size, track their carbon content and track who is doing -- making changes is going to be an important part of the work. >> they attacked about deploying technologies in the near future. if you're to take us to the end of the decade, given that the money is finite, what areas do you think we can expect these technologies to be deployed on a more routine basis? >> resources are finite. if anybody wants to make a contribution, we welcome that. one example would be africa, would be in the congo where you have these deep intact forests here the rule of law is variable, where we don't really know -- we can judge from satellite land cover, but that's a very different thing i've animals are poachers were timber companies on the ground. i would redact there would be a regular systematic use of uavs in the area to develop information, bring it back to law enforcers on the ground and be able to monitor changes in that region and respond real-time. >> to think that is something in the budget are some things of the conservation group? >> bon terra has to be in the budgets. our role is more to assist the government didn't do their job for them. when it comes to apprehending militias on the ground, we can't raise a machine gun and take people down in the forest. the role of government. we can assist with training how to develop better monitoring protocols. another example would be in the south so sick with the richest fisheries on merit is a lot of fishing being undertaken. we now look with bumblebee tuna, starkist and others who say we are not going to buy any more products that come from illegal fishers. every fish is going to have a barcode and i predict we'll see more and more use of technology and how that role as some of the biggest fisheries on earth. a third one would probably be in the art that. it's amazing to the united states, but most of the citizens are to where to want the lesser seen places on earth. it's changing in front of our eyes. both amazing resources. we need real-time information to guide an exceedingly complex government system out there and if i had to pick a third, that he appear the government is began to a system on the basis of information and make really smart choices. >> my top three are very, very similar. being able to do monitoring and high impact weather monitoring at the three biggest areas. one of the things we are excited about is they do a lot of ocean cruise to monitor the coral reef and activities in the ocean, but also to look at climate change, air quality and chemistry. if we can add you a yes to that ship and increase the distance, were actually saving money. something we can use for rapid response if there is a legal fish and chip we can into action. the third one -- the second is so much marveling at to learn about the arctic. satellites have done a good job, but when you put the data together to get a picture of the annual things happening and being able to understand what's happening on that day today is something that if we could fly out there. that's one area where you won't find a lot of manned aircraft because it's so dangerous. the discoveries of the polar regions will be important. finally, we think there's much we can learn about being able to forecast weather systems and not just buy something in a storm that also paid out over the ocean and look at thorns developing as they come across the united states. trying to catch when they first give high detailed information, we need very encouraging that we can improve intense the forecast on the five to 70 level to to look at as it's developing over the ocean. >> conservation would work together. >> idea because i think one of the things right now with civilian federal agencies that deal with the environment and science and conservation, none of us had very deep pockets to invest in tech allergy. if we work together, we have the conversation with the usgs and with interests in the art. the ways they can operate systems together. but keep in crosshatch if one agency is investing, then i can invest and hopefully together will bring them together. >> of course the interest in working together. others reflect being they did a drawing of data at work and it's got a tree with a gorilla and that and somebody cutting the tree down. i've got my face up and i said no, that's not exactly what they do. if we got information the hands of government officials to make the right decisions. what they picture you stay standing depends upon the government and making the right decisions. a lot of work is about collaborating with government, getting the right data to them at the right moment in time. governments don't always do the right thing. but if you could information, it gives us a better chance. others reflect in the previous section the question about the boston marathon. we do not want to document the divisive nature. what we want to do is engaged decision-makers when there's time to keep nature intact and that's the greatest challenge with this information. hardwick at the real-time so what not just writing another sad story, that helping governments make decisions whether that's catching the bad guy before more bad things happen in the future. adding a mac [inaudible] >> jean kilby with a company called aero international. you mentioned, mr. roberts, that the governments are cooperating in the arctic for policy day. does that include russia? >> absolutely. something called the arctic council is a new entity created by the eight countries that control most of the art take that are beginning to at information joint decision-making and governance around a set of issues from species to fisheries to minerals to oil to navigation like some are beginning to tackle this one by one and it's actually one of them are promising parts of the planet. the antarctic is a very tight system built around it. there are historic reasons for that. the arctic is just beginning to emerge a new government system. it's largely about green issues in the real issue is how we put that data on the table at the same time and make smart choices where to fish, where to drill for oil, were to keep areas intact instead of making decisions one by one. the next pick meeting will be in iceland in the fall and i have high hopes, but a lot of it is data. >> there is a subcommittee looking at usaid dvd for the arctic. >> i'd be interested that there's obviously some social stigma attached to uis and particularly the word wald. i wonder if you've had to push back based on the association people have of these machines with warfare or survey on, either internationally or domestically. thank you. >> and now, so i certainly we are concerned about that. our experience to date has been every time there's a story about the work we do, businesslike narratives about dangers in all rest. more generally, what with cotton is a positive response to the possibilities. every time i launch a major initiative, which can combat the worst bus of things that can happen. we want to make sure the public support and support from government has always been this question you raise that overwhelmingly they respond because they get or head handed to us in the wildlife trade issue. we are so outmatched technologically that anything we bring to bear on this is seen as a positive step. >> out-of-favor noaa the question comes up but not as much. i think it's the kind of mission we are trying to do. it's a societal benefit to most of the things we do. we tried to be sensitive that this is an issue for the whole community. we're all in this together and why we put the best image forward. >> if you are talking about the kalahari desert, the privacy issues aren't as great as they might be in downtown washington d.c. and that's another reason we don't get the kind of issues you raise. >> the things and mainly funded demonstrations more than actual purchase, but we are looking at things 500 feet over the ocean to get a better understanding of the boundary layer between the atmosphere and ocean with 12,000 feet, 40,000 feet. they completely depend on the application we're looking now. what kind of censors the platform can kerry and how the data are used when it's brought back. what i try to tell people as it is how are we going to use the data that defines whether we need to use an unmanned vehicle or not. >> hi, william angel again. given the wwf and noaa's use of aerial platforms to collect data, if you could use him in aerial systems to decrease the cost of information and data in surveillance, how about which more effectively accomplish your goals? >> one thing we have to look at all the time and definitely a noaa we have a lot of observing assays. this new type elegy, we have to prove we are good if not better and cheaper than what's on the table. if we were to buy a global brand-new, we probably couldn't share or cost effective because relearn how to use it. we partner with nasa is taking retired vehicles and modifying those. where possible to some of the other occurrence. a lot of what we do is we have aircraft that fly a lot into hurricanes in the atlantic and gulf of mexico. my you've got a vehicle you can take over the ocean to start but cannot weather out over the pacific and start moving around from place to place. but just to clear the little bar complicated. >> the global impact we received from google was all about experiment. it was experimenting with different technologies and the rates we thought would be simple, technical, repeatable, scalable. when i was in nepal, the guys on the ground kept saying to me, don't subject us to a really sophisticated technologies we can't keep using in the field because they're such a range of technology. sample the better in terms of repairing them in a clash or bad things happen and also for people to use them in remote settings around the world. the simpler, the better. that is our starting point is how to do something simple, crack debow, if true of lots of people using them in remote regions. on the imac >> thank you boasts a much. it was great. >> for help from the new america foundation on the use of a red aerial drones. georgetown law professor and defense adviser, rosa brooks suggested was might be other means as the u.s. pursues terrorist threat across the world. she does so in casualties and problems associated with drones occur during conventional military operations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are going to go ahead and start with the remainder of our program. i know there's a lot to talk about, but in the interest of staying on time, we are going to reconvene here. i hope you enjoy the empanadas. i'm still thinking about the last conversation about the use of drones to track poachers and animal populations and i found a fascinating and found myself thinking about the extracurricular activity of coaching 8-year-old play soccer and wondered if i could deploy some drones to help with that hurting task. so a lot of you are here in the morning and that rose up then. rosa brooks is going to give a presentation entitled will be coming from the pentagon's history with drones. rosa is a fellow at the new america foundation as well as professor of law at georgetown university, columnist for foreign policy magazine and is now going to give us a presentation. >> thank you, on-base and welcome back from the empanadas. but congratulate you. there is fierce competition for his dna. so i am going to shift our focus a little bit. most of the day we've been talking about the nonmilitary and domestic applications of drones, a.k.a. unmanned aerial vehicles, whatever you want to call them. i'm going to keep talking because one word is always edited three. we been talking about domestic and nonmilitary application. i will shift here and talk about the issue in the news much more, which is u.s. strikes overseas, particularly in the context such as pakistan, yemen, somalia and maybe a few other places as well. perhaps molly, the philippines, battery. when they start by trying to recapitulate for what is and isn't different about drones because this is one of the situations we've heard a lot where it's really hard to disentangle what is an issue of technology in a policy that may be enabled and facilitated by technology, but it's not the same thing. first let me talk about some of the reasons people get upset about drones that are red herrings, not the right reasons to be upset. reasons to be upset but not at drones a fetch. and then things we should be concerned about and has much more to do with policies enabled by these technologies rather than tech elegies and enough is those. so when we talk about drone strikes, civilian casualties. we often talk about the videogame type towing qualities they seem to enable and worry about whether this leads to a moral disconnect from killing and we talk about the ethics of long-distance killing is that this is something different from other things that have gone before. i suggest is a mostly red herring, civilian casualties. the drone strikes cause casualties? yes, they do. airplanes found by human pilots that drop alms cause unintended civilian casualties. special operation for this cause casualties and it is absolutely reasonable to say we think the military strategy intact takes the united states is pursuing right now is causing far too many civilian deaths and suffering. that discussion we should have and i'm inclined to agree with it. we should distinguish that because it then it came as a weapons delivery technology, drones are better than the alternative have been able to tell the difference between an intended and unintended target. are targeting is only as good as our intelligence. if we have come intelligence that says those people are militants, terrorists, what have you, if intelligence is on its obligate the unintended target. we were misinformed about the wrong people here that's not an issue of the drone technology. if we target the wrong people because it's, but it's self-destructive, not in our national interest to attempt to kill every last vote of a can possibly find is also a different issue of u.s. policy and strategy and tactics, not an issue of technology as such. i'm also not super inclined to give a lot of credence to the anxiety that drones or bad. the history of military technology is a history of the evolution of weanesigned to do exactly that from the spear rather the sword to the crossbow to artillery to machine guns. i don't think is qualitatively different nor does it create quality of a different moral and ethical concerns. a pilot client or a thousand feet is pretty long-distance. if anything there's some evidence that people at the other end of the tech elegies is more up close and personal safety because the nature enables drone pilots to see him in cases in no way a pilot cannot see over an extended. a time in their gone and supervisor kids soccer game. so there's actually a lot of evidence there pretty high rates. poster max stress disorder among drone for exactly that reason that it may be up close and personal in nature in may. this areas in which i don't think drones presents a new issue. but they reduce the perceived cost of using lethal force particularly across borders outside of traditional battlefield. not as much as people think a nation with sophisticated air defense is more than a match, but certainly ungoverned spaces or nations as weak air defenses are consenting states they enable the sentence we can use force across borders at no risk to ask him a no risk of death to american personnel. cheap lower cost. drones are cheaper than counterparts. they are certainly perceived as cheaper as we develop more they may become less cheap and finally because they enable those doing the targeting to do a better job of ensuring they don't have the people they don't want to hit. they create the illusion they are lower cost in terms of civilian casualties and other alternatives. the likely unintended deaths if you use other means from a special operations raid are a lot higher in these things combine to make policymakers think if there's a bad guy who we would like to get rid of any foreign country country family can do it in a way that risks no american lines can we do it in a way that minimizes the risk of casualties to other alternative means and for fewer dollars, why not. it reduces the threshold for the decision to use force in foreign country in a way that makes it more tempting and we've seen that. this is a classic mission that we began when we had fewer drones available, use them in touch with them and circumstance is to go after smaller number of higher-level target than what we've seen in the last two years. in particular, president obama has spread outside of that battlefield in an expanding universe of targets further and further away from any notion of terrorist mastermind an increasingly further and further away from any meaningful link to al qaeda or 9/11 or any imminent threat to the united states directly. take al-shabaab in tamale. not a particularly likable group as far as i know and not a group and they went thanks for sending remotely and in the interest or attack the united states as such. ambitions are primarily local. we've got to take algebra makes it relatively easy so it enables that mission. so here's what we should be worried about. in some ways the issue of civilian casualties, long-distance killing not because they're not important, but not unique to this technology. their broader issues of strategy or decision to use force in the first place. if those are red herrings, what can we care about? i'm going to arbitrarily distinguish them into two categories, but they're obviously connected to each other. one of those is a set of strategic concerns and the other is concerned about the rule of law. so the strategic thermostats use strikes more and more, i never thought i would be favorably quoting former defense secretary donald rumsfeld, but he famously asked during the iraq war, how do we know if we are creating new terrorists faster than we can kill them? that's an obvious question to ask about the expanding use of u.s. drone strikes. even if we are right, if intelligence is good, even bad for the children, families, friends, networks. does this actually makes sense if our goal is to reduce long-term threat of terrorist attack against the united states? does this make any sense? because we do know there is ample evidence these are extremely unpopular, perceived as causing many, many civilian casualties airfreight and if you think that could rain down at any moment. it's not a lot of comp relationship the u.s. is trying to get the right people and cause a lot of resentment and anger against the united states. as part of a counterterrorism strategy. this is the deepest and most troubling piece of this. when drones fair use, they're just another weapon in subject to the same roles. with a blog of an immense methods of warfare for centuries now in one way or another. .. >> it's not a problem of drones, but the nature of modern warfare and how we define it. you see a guy on the street, and you take your iphone, hit him on the head with it, kill him, and the police come, and you're arrested, probably charged with criminal homicide, but you say, he was my enemy, it's not going to do you good; right? it doesn't matter. it may surprise authorities as well. the police kill somebody saying he was an enemy of the state, still against the law. no question about it. in ordinary circumstances, we know that. you know, we know what is against the law and what is not, but, obviously, sometimes the ordinary legal rules do not apply. when we're in a war, when the law of war is the body of lay that applies, combat at that particular times in a war are not only permitted to kill enemy combatants, but under certain circumstances, they are more or less required to do so at risk of being punished themselveses. we have a different set of rules related to the willful killing of human beings and degree, if any, of due process that goes along with that. that's not in and of itself a problem, to have one body of rules were one set of circumstances, one body of rules for another set of circumstances, one body of rules that says it's not okay to kill somebody, and here's the circumstances where it is. it's not necessarily a problem as long as we tell the difference between one set of rules applies and when the other set of rules applies; right? in law professor terms, this is the law of war of so-called the latin way of saying special law that applies to special circumstances, special circumstances being armed conflicts, and the rest of the time we're under next general law saying you can't kill people. the problem is that right now, we do not know how to categorize threats posed by geographicically defused nonstate actors like al-qaeda and fabled associates. we don't know. they are sort of like war in the sense that some of these organizations can possess the means of lethal force on a scale we previously equated with state action. on the other hand, they are sort of like crime. they occupy a little of app inbetween, and for a long time, we were paralyzed since twins in the sterile debate between, well, is it just war or is it crime? well, if it doesn't look like crime, therefore, it's war, or if it's not war, it must be crime. the fact is it's a little bit of both, and, yet, we have legal frame works that are all or nothing, one or the otherment the problem, though, is that if we have a law of armed conflict, under the law of armed conflict, u.s. drone strike, and if we think that's the body of law that employee applies, they are lawful. if the law of armed contract applies, when the u.s. strikes a target in yemen or pakistan, kill a combatant under the law of war while they sleep. cause collateral damage as long as it's proportioned, that's okay. if it doesn't apply, they are extrajudicial executions, violating human rights law, and depending, they probably violate the domestic law of the country, the domestic laws of the united states. trouble is right now, we don't have any principle unions of being able to say clearly which it is because we have a concept of armed conflict that stretches from world war ii up to whatever is happening right now in yemen, and i would put it to you this if our notion of armed conflict is so caucasian, that world war ii and what's happening in pakistan or yemen is described, it's not doinged goo. it's not a useful construct. this is the long term challenge; right? the long term challenge is not a challenge that has to do with drones. long term challenge is a challenge that has to do with thinking through do we need a different set of rules, a different set of international norms governing the cross border use of force for the threats that are war-like in some respects, crime-like in other respects because right now we have a kind of radical indetermine where people with a straight face tell you radically different stories in the same event one saying there's nothing new here, a routine use of force with an arm conflict and one state combating another state, enemies, and what's the problem? there's not review or judges on the battlefield. there's nothing new here. the other folks say, that's not what we have here. what we have here is simple murder. we have here, you know, an abuse of power and deep, deep challenge to the rule of law. i don't think we have a principled means for being able to say one person is wrong, the other is right, that, to me, is the most scarily thing of all. we need a new frame work for thinking about these problems, so i'm out of time and adam is waving stop signs at me, so i will stop, although, there's much, much more to say. we're not doing questions, adam, are we? no questions permitted. [laughter] just everything i said, write it down -- no, i'd be happy to talk about it more because there is much, much more to be said, but, for now, that's the end. [applause] >> at a joint secretary meeting monday, members needed to back up the diplomacy with military efforts knowing europe would lose celt and infliewps in the world if there were no real commitments in security and defense and call on european member states to shoulder the burden with the u.s. and other allies. 21 of the 27 european unions are nato members following remarks, the secretary general answered questions on syria, the relationship with the europeanupon and priorities for the defense summit scheduled for later this year. [inaudible conversations] >> we have an exchange of view with the secretary general of nato on the future of european defense and nato perspective. i welcome secretary general rasmussen to the joint meeting of our committee and the subcommittee on security and defense. i also welcome nation of parliaments, six countries represented, and seems rasmussen briefed in the nato-chicago summit. exchange of views particularly facing nato and the uif of the afghanistan anover, but also in the lives of the important discussion of european defense at the european council. i would underline these two issues operational challenges in areas ranging from smoal -- somalia and the need to improve european defense corporation are critical issues especially at the time of economic constraint and political uncertainty. i would remind the european parliament has been consistent in arguing e.u. and nato are compliment ri organization for european euroatlantic, and global security interests. concerns, describe the role of each organization. i emphasize it is important to talk provisions and invest in european defense before declining budgets and caps in the exaits undermind our ability to take care of security especially in the neighborhood. i mention this fact that the assemble european cup sill provides important opportunity to further and deeper defense cooperation towards the implementation of permanent structures corporation for the greater views of the corporation and how, of course, building lasting partnerships like the one with nato. let me express concern about escalations in attacks in afghanistan as we enter the fighting season. we saw the tragic loss of lives last week of seven nato soldiers. how do you think the -- [inaudible] i stop here and leave you the floor for your presentation. thank you very much, and welcome, again. >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. it's really a great pleasure for me to once again meet members of the two committees and chairpersons from foreign relations and defense committees and of national parliament. we meet regularly, actually, so i'm glad to see many familiar faces and i'm looking forward to another lively discussion so let me make just a few points. i'm fully committed to a strong and open europe. i firmly believe that europe must have a strong common security and defense policy. i'm pleased there will be a european council dedicated to security and defense next december. it will actually be the first time since the start of the global financial crisis that heads of state and government focus on this vital dimension of a strong and open europe, but let me also be frank. if european nations do not make a firm commitment to invest, to invest in security and defense, then all talk about a strengthened european defense and security policy will just be hot air. it won't bring us closer to the strong and open europe that we all want, so as we look ahead to december keep three things all in mind. first, we, europeans, must understand that soft power alone is really no power at all. without capabilities to back off diplomacy, europe will lack credibility and influence. it will risk being what can can be and should be. our shared experience in the western balkans is case in point. restoring stability there required a mix of hard and soft power. we saw this with the con flyings of the recent agreement between -- [inaudible] the agreement was brokered by the european union, and i commend the splent work, but both wanted assurance there was the security to implement the agreement. second, continuing decline in european defense, european defense budgets will inevitably result in a declining role on the global state, and europe will be unable to prarp in crisis management. the only way to avoid this is by holding the line on defense spending, to stop the cut and to start reinvesting in security as soon as our economy's recover. meanwhile, we need to make better use of what we have. to be more together as europeans within the european union and within nato, to deliver the critical defense capabilities that are too exceptive for any individual country to deliver alone, finally, having the right capabilities is important, but it's not enough. we must also have the political will to use them, to deal with security challenges on europe's doorstep to help manage crisis further away that might affect us here at home and to better share the security burden with our north american ally. for this to happen, european nations need to develop a truly global perspective, a global perspective. we must not become absorbed by our economic woes. we must look outwards, not inwards, and we need europe and north america to talk more regularly, more openly, and more frankly within the unique transatlantic forum that is nato, and between nato and the european union. in conclusion, the european council in december should showcase a europe that's both able to act and willing to act. showrld encourage european union and nato to do more together to consult more, coordinate more, and cooperate more. to get us there will require strong political resolve. as well as in this house as well as national parliament. i'm confident we can rise to the challenge because we owe it to our taxpayers and voters to give them the best security that money can be, and with that as app introduction, i look very much forward to a stimulating discussion this afternoon. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, secretary general, for your speech and offer myself, want to give my regards to you that you're able to come to us again, and have this discussion with us again. the first one to the floor. [inaudible conversations] >> translator: thank you. >> i'm always good. i am too late and them i'm too fast. [inaudible conversations] >> translator: thank you. i won't take any questions away from you. i would like to begin by thanking the secretary general for his regular welcome and useful attendance at our committee meetings. thank you for your extremely clear message on european capabilities and the joint security and defense policy. i have taken note of the fact that you would like to see the policy develop in a vigorous fashion. your speech is very much along the lines of what the u.s. and it called on europeans to do more, to do better, particularly when it comes to budgets and capabilities. that is, indeed, a major concern for us all. we'll all familiar with the relationships with the nato, and we know that these political and institutional difficulties could not be resolve the in the short term more easily given what can we do to explore coordination between the two institutions, what do you think are the possible or existing areas where we can work more closely together, and let me finish up with a comment on a recent trip to northwood. we visited the hq there. we met with the maritime command, the nato maritime command, for atlantic and the nato presence in the indian ocean so i am thinking about the post 2014 post afghanistan period, nato is looking to fresh horizons at any cost. is that a reasonable approach? has that been properly coordinated with other international organizations? is there cop -- consensus within nato on this approach, and in what areas does nato map -- plan to become more active? thank you. >> translator: thank you. i, too, thank the secretary general for his presence, and i begin by saying i we regret last sight -- saturday a number of soldiers deployed to afghanistan, our con -- con doll lenses. the european union should not just bage economic force as well the european can be effective and credible in the way it tackles the new threat, and so it must be responsible in the positions it takes. we do, however, struggle to mobilize forces. firstly, on syria, in nato, what analysis have you drawn of the operations in syria? how may it effects security in neighboring country like turkey, what are the options, what are the lessons that can be drawn from the exclusion in syria? what might the impact be on syria? second question, i would like to pick up on what was said, what is the scenario for afghanistan post 2014? finally, to what extent is nato working on smart dissents? how is this compatible with the pooling and sharing approach that the european union is applying to its common security and defense policy? thank you. >> translator: secretary now has the floor. he is a member of the european parliament, a member of the polish center to under defense minister. >> it's a great pleasure to see you again and to talk about the contributions of europe to nato and european unions. i have three remarks. first one is about ethnicity of the cooperation, not only in operations, but also in the strategy that may weaken. our commitment to secretary of of -- it's obvious that we should in europe deliver more in the fear of capabilities and in the fear of operations. there's changes of strategies of the beginning of last year as well as the priority as far east, and the regional wait for contributions from europe. my question is about how do you see right now the performance of smart defense? it is crucial that we, last year, and it is one of young for the crisis. my second remark is about the relations, a working dialogue between you that was establishes several years ago is a working dialogue, working dialogue without special legal regulations or for everybody, i believe, it should be maintained for the benefit of european union and for nato. what is the perspective of the the -- the third is about the necessary corporation between the european defense agency that is crucial, not only for both institutions, but, also for capabilities of particular now, states, especially in the sharing in smart defense. to what extent we can say that it needs to initiate and harmonize right now because they should be hair moppize in the progress of both. thank you very much. >> translator: thank you for that very interesting speech. you said nato was a unique transatlantic forum there's no doubt about that. what i think is most encouraging is nato concentrated on the new challenges of cyber security and the like. yet, there's a general view that nato is last season's thing. the usa turning in on itself has, to some extent, downgraded nato. my question to you is to what extent is the united states now less interested in europe, and my second question, the cure peen enthuse yam far that, and my question is in nato for in research institutions close to nato, has any research been done into how much taxpayers' money is being used for the upchemoof old buildings, old equipment, defense infrastructure which is now obsolete? in this crisis, i think there might be more enthusiasm for polling and sharing, but my question is, can you tell me, is there research into this? is it possible to do research, and into how much public money is wasted in this way? glt thank you, chair. i'd like to thank the nato secretary general for setting out his position. can you hear me? i would like the thank the secretary general for his comments, brief succinct comments, but were very powerful words. he spoke of the need for europe to make a greater investment in its own security. it is true that burden sharing, the two-way street in connection with nato, this an age-old question that predates the fall of the berlin wall. many years later, what i note is that despite it all, nothing major has changed as things stand, the u.s. is clearly setting its strategic sights on the pacific. i've just come back from india. i could sum up political sentiment in india on europe by saying the following. india believes in the u.s., believes in major states, but not in the european union. i'm summarizing, simplifying, but that's more or less the message. there are threats facing us, vownting us, greater than ever even if public opinion is not aware of this. look at what's happening in syria. of course, we do not wish to see a military intervention there, but it might be necessary if certain forces lay their hands on chemical weapons, and so it would be interesting to hear your assessments of the situation. now, ahead of the e.u. summit on security, i'd like to hear from

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,American Bar ,California ,United States ,Nevada ,Alaska ,Turkey ,China ,Mozambique ,Syria ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,San Francisco ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Iceland ,India ,Nepal ,Hollywood ,Poland ,Georgetown University ,Switzerland ,South Africa ,New York ,Canada ,Japan ,Philippines ,Afghanistan ,Congo ,Florida ,Boston ,Massachusetts ,Lebanon ,Mustang Well ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Pakistan ,Iraq ,Thailand ,Israel ,Colorado ,Central African Republic ,Somalia ,Capitol Hill ,Yemen ,Berlin ,Germany ,Hawaii ,Polish ,Americans ,America ,American ,Mozambican ,Phillip Weber ,Jim Williams ,Mcas Los Angeles ,William Angel ,Terry Lee ,Carter Roberts ,Robbie Hood ,Sharon Shane ,Suzanne Goldenberg ,Jake Ernie ,Jean Kilby ,Paul Gosar ,Indian Ocean ,Shane Harris ,Donald Rumsfeld ,Andres Martinez ,Hillary Clinton ,Missy Cummings ,