Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics And Public Policy Today 20151111

Jurors because of their race. Foster was convicted of killing a 79yearold white woman by an all white jury. Well hear argument first this morning in case 148349, foster versus chapman. Mr. Bright. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. The prosecutors in this case came to court on the day of jury selection determined to strike all the black prospective jurors. Maybe you could address first the question we raised on friday with respect to which court certiorari i should be directed to . Yes, your honor, we filed this originally certiori to the Supreme Court of georgia. Of course this court in sirius versus upton issued certiori in 2010 of the georgia Supreme Court in a similar situation. It appears to us from looking at this over the weekend that r. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company versus durham county, which the court has cited in 1986, the court said unless there was positive assurance that the decision was not a decision on the merits, then the writ went to the spate Supreme Court. And the georgia court, while it has rules and statutes and its own opinions that are not totally in harmony with one another, the rule, nonetheless, that a certificate of probable cause, which is what was denied in this case is to be granted if there is arguable merit to the case. Do you think that effects the scope of our review . Are we addressing arguable merit to the claim or adding on its own merits purchase i think what the court has done in all the cases is look through to the last decision, decision of habeas corpus court. In georgia rules an application is made for certificate of probable cause to the georgia Supreme Court and that is often denied summarily. It is denied summarily as it was in this case. I really dont understand that. You say we would be reversing the georgia Supreme Court not the habeas court, right, and all that the judge of the Supreme Court held is that there was no arguable basis. If we reverse that decision, tell the georgia Supreme Court, youre wrong, there is a arguable basis for accepting review, so we ought to remand to that court requiring them to accept review, it would seem to me. How can we reverse them on an issue they never considered . Well, thats what happened to r. J. Reynolds, a situation with an intermediate Supreme Court that ruled and North Carolina Supreme Court denied review. The question was do you issue the writ to the intermediate Appellate Court or North Carolina Supreme Court. This was decided. The justice writing for the court said, we want to give practitioners we want to end the confusion about this. And so it goes to the state Supreme Court. Theres no difference in our situation here. Youre saying in that case and other cases, in that situation we none the the less addressed reasoning of the intermediate court . You did in sirius versus upton case out of georgia in 2010. That was certiori Supreme Court of justice came up in our case. Is there an argument the petition for certiori could go to Supreme Court, a review could have been had, which sounds like georgia Supreme Court. On the other hand Justice Scalia said hadnt really directed their attention to the issue. Im not sure to me its an option to go to the georgia tractortrailer trial court or is that correct . Followed in brady versus North Carolina, 2015 case this year, in which once again there was intermediate Court Decision denied by North Carolina Supreme Court. I can remember back to 1960, thompson versus louisville where certiori was to police court in louisville, kentucky. No court in kentucky could take the case because the fine was less than 20. I think these cases, much more recent, decided by court 19 w86f this year. Putting together two rules you say weve established. One is Justice Blackman said to end the confusion the petition should be addressed to the Supreme Court. And then you said we have cases lookthrough cases. If the Supreme Court has said denied, nothing more than denied, we look back to the last reasoned decision. Those are both decisions of this court and thats what youre relying on. Well, they are not mutually exclusive. This court can look back through to the last recent decision in making its decision in this case, and i believe thats what it should do. At the same time the courts opinions appear to us on the Quick Research we did on the weekend over this, that r. J. Reynolds and subsequently case say that certiori would issue to the georgia Supreme Court and we list thad way. When it was docketed, it was superior court of bucks county. What if the state Supreme Court wrote a very short opinion and said were not going to determine whether there was in fact the only issue were going to determine is whether there was any arguable merit to this, whole issue whether it was a correct application is an issue we have to decide . I think in r. J. Reynolds, i think thats law, yes. Could i ask a question about an underlying issue before we get to the case. The superior court said on page 175 of the joint appendix that the issue of the batson violation was not reviewable based on the doctrine of res judicata. It later said, 192 of joint appendix, it will review the batson claim as to whether petitioner showed any change in the facts sufficient to overcome the res judicata bar. If you put those two together, you could argue that the Supreme Court decided only a question of state law, namely whether the situation here was such that there could be review of the batson claim. What is your response to that . Well, the state doesnt argue that. I think the reason for that is because the court said the court is going to address step three of batson and said the claim was without merit. Is it a question of federal or state law as to whether or not petitioner has shown a change, in fact, sufficient to overcome res judicata bar, what Justice Scalia quoted. Is that a state law question . Thats a state law question. Here the court decided it. If its a state law question and they decided against you, what have you got to argue . I thought you would say a federal question. In order to decide it, its exactly like versus oklahoma where the court the Oklahoma Court had to decide the federal question in order to decide whether it had jurisdiction othover the issue. The court held in eight the federal court had to decide the issue. It did, decided the issue, found the batson claim had no merit. It is decided federally issue explain to me why deciding the federal issue was essential toist deciding the state res judicata issue. Because it framed the question as being that it would look excuse me. They would look atbatson versus kentucky, if there was merit the court would grant the writ on it. On the other hand if they found there was not merit. You think they were saying whether res judicata or not is whether the claim has any merit . I think exactly. Thats a very strange application of res judicata, seems to me. I thought it was whether there were changed facts sufficient enough. Georgia law is that you can bring an issue litigated already before direct appeal. Right. In habeas. Right, even if it would, you know, produce a different result, right . If the facts are such it would produce a different result. Did the court in your judgment do denuovo review, step three of the batson thats exactly what the court said. Thats your ruling on the merits . I think the court said the batson claim is without merit. That seems like a ruling on the merits to me. I think it said after after considering these other facts. We think there were some legal errors made there. Yes, after considering these facts, the court said that the claim was without merit. The court said that it would again on the basis of new evidence presented so they did it all over, and i guess thats you must take that as what happened. They did not apply res judicata. This court said when the resolution of the state procedural law question depends upon a federal constitutional ruling, the state law is not independent of the federal client. This court has jurisdiction page 475. I dont want to belabor the point too much. Are you arguing georgia race judd cat, a is this. That is sufficient to allow them to wipe out and get to the merits of the claim. Is that your argument . Your understanding of res judicata law . Has to be sufficient enough the court did what it did in this case and rule on the issue. Thats what it did here. This is not a matter of adding one more leaf to the basket. We really want you to get to the basket but why is that in conjunction with Justice Scalias question, why is that an issue of federal law . Because the court decided thats an issue to decide the underlying state issue. I think pretty clear pt since the court raised this in opposition to certificate or brief, its not briefed before this court. I think thats the deciding case on this. Thanks, council. I think we have your argument . If i could just say what happened here, the prosecutors identified the affirms africanamericans by race, rated them against each other in case it came down to selecting a black juror. The reason concentrating on black jurors is that you had informed them you would present a batson challenge, and therefore it was necessary for them to see if there was race neutral for qualifying. To answer that, justice ginsburg, what the lawyers did, these lawyers practiced a long time in rome, georgia. They said the prosecutor always sfrix all the blacks on the juror. Thats been the practice. We think they will strike all the blacks in our case. Supreme court decided batson versus kentucky and we asked the court not to let that happen in this case. If the prosecutors wanted to avoid a batson challenge, they could have not discriminated. But secondly, with regard to information thats collected here, it doesnt seem like its information just to exercise strikes when they say it comes down to having to take an africanamerican, miss hart, or miss garrett might be okay. And the District Attorney himself said Marilyn Garrett has the most potential of the black perspective jo perspective jurors. In other words blacks were taken out and dealt with separate. Over the weekend, a jurys questioning ended on friday. A judge said, all right, over the weekend, you have a chance to decide who youre going to strike. They knew exactly who they were going to strike because the jurors are listed in order. The state goes first. If the state accepts, that juror is on. Theres no going back. Theres no striking people here and there. They develop three strike lists. One of those strike lists was a list headed definite no. These are the people absolutely not going to be on this jury. Theres om six listed on the list of definite nos. The first five were africanamericans. The sixth made it clear she could not impose Death Penalty under any circumstances. The judge moved to strike her for cause. The judge probably erred granting that. She was behind black jurors in terms of striking. Counsel, at the time mr. Lanier said they werent striking the jurors because of race, they were striking them because they were women. I guess three out of the four africanamerican africanamericans who were struck were women. That explanation has fallen out of the case. How does that affect the analysis. He did accept women as well. Bear with me just a moment. The court had not held batson. Did not say it applied to women but could be used as a pretech, women, for striking on the basis of race. In this case, the prosecutor struck three white jurors and then three black jurors. Three white women and flee black women. Mr. Bright, mr. Lanier answered question when a jury in the trial, when he was asked whether he had done oh, no, on the motion for new trial hearing, whether he had done the same extensive background check on all the jurors, white and black. Did you find any evidence of that extensive black background . The the only what thats talking about, and the investigator said this in his deposition was the color, race coded color list, those first four lists you have in joint appendix, in which blacks are marked with a b and highlighted in green with a marker up at the corner saying green designates black. So your understanding is that he had only done an extensive search on the blacks. It was clear mr. Lundy had prepared a list of notes in which you talk about just the black jurors in the list. The state concedes in the brief that was focus was on the black joos jooshs. During the trial did defense counsel when he made batson challenge, in the in the paper but the trial, did he say this was part and parcel of the prosecutors pattern . He didnt say that i point this interesting thing out. When they discuss the batson motion before trial, there was never a suggestion there wouldnt be a batson hearing. Everyone knew what happened, all the blacks would be struck and then they would have a hearing. They put it in writing and relied on that. I was just surprised we didnt hear about this preparation for batson hearing until habeas. They didnt move for the notes and prosecution opposed that. They were very strict not giving up the notes. Then prosecutor testified on motion for new trial he did something ive never seen a lawyer did, cut a bargain saying i will testify but only if i dont have to show them my notes. Basic rules of evidence, you testify and rely on notes, the other side can see the notes. But here these notes were guarded until 2006 when we obtained them through a freedom of information. Said we never wrote, saw, authorized or relied on those notes. And you didnt call the prosecutor to test the veracity of that assertion. All they talked about was color highlighted notes. Joint appendix, 168, all they said was we didnt highlight it in green and we didnt tell anybody else to highlight it in green. Mr. Lanier says i dont have anything else to say beyond what i said at the batson hearing and motion for new trial. Mr. Pullon said, only thing he said, i didnt use those green highlighted lists in choosing the jury. Of course thats just the first few pages. Whats damming about this is not so much that but the definite no list, misrepresentation to the tractortrailer they wanted miss garrett, thats what they told the trial court and the relied on that showing the the batson motion. She was on the no list, each of the strike list, miss garrett was never in the running to be on this jury but they represented to the court that because of another africanamerican Shirley Powell was excused for cause, there were five when they got ready to instruct the jury but one said, turns out i know somebody in the family. She was excused for cause. The prosecutor implied clearly had it not been for that, that extra strike, miss garrett would have fit. They argued both ways, they wanted her and didnt want her. They give 11 reasons for why miss garrett would not be a good juror. Imp dent, does not respect the court. If you believed all those things she said, they would not want her. Those things are not really valid in terms of the reasons, because the reasons they gave here, many were demonstrably false, not supported by the evidence, including reasons given about miss garrett, inconsistent, completely incredible, applied to white jurors, some of these reasons applied to white jurors who had same characteristics as africanamericans who were struck. Lastly, whats so important, they didnt question the jurors about the reasons for striking. They gave reasons for striking. One question would have cleared up some of these. Miller l says the failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire about what your reason is is evidence suggesting the explanation is a sham and a pretext. Mr. Bright, i have found some circuit courts who have a rule on appeal or on habeas, which is if they can find one legitimate reason for striking a juror, thats enough to defeat a batson challenge. Do you believe thats an appropriate rule . Are you suggesting a different approach to the question . Well, it cant i would suggest it cant possibly be, because this court said, and Justice Alitos opinion, snyder versus louisiana, where shown to be motivated in substantial part by race, that it could not be sustained. Excuse me. I would suggest to you it shouldnt even really say substantial, because this court as it said so many times in unceasing efforts to end race discrimination in the criminal courts, then a strike motivated by race cannot be tolerable. Of course its pointed out here, this is a serious problem, not just in this case but other cases where people come to court with canned reasons and read them off. That happened in this case. One of the reasons given was just taken verbatim two of the reasons given were taken verbatim out of a recorded case. So you dont have the reason for the lawyer in this case. My personal preference. It wasnt his personal preference. It was the personal preference of some u. S. Attorney in mississippi who gave that reason and upheld by appeal in the fifth circuit. We would suggest the standard is at least what snyder said. When you have both you can always have, as miller l. Recognized. In response, if prosecutor has a laundry list of reasons for striking black jurors, some are reasonable and some are implausible, how should the court approach batson analysis. Looks at which is pretextural, the fact there is a laundry list in and of itself that the court should scrutinize the reasons carefully, be suspect of the reasons. Otherwise what the court is going to do encourage prosecutors or any party in the case, batson applies to everyone, encourage a party to give as many reasons as possible and hope they are acceptable. Dont you think this is a case by case thing . Suppose theres one reason thats a killer reason, this individual has numerous prior felony convictions, all right, and then the Prosecutor Says in addition this person didnt looked down at the floor answering the questions and didnt seem to pause and didnt seem to understand the questions. Under a circumstance like that, couldnt the court say, well, theres one reason here that would that is clearly a justification for preemptory strike. We dont have to have evidence the person was looking down at the floor. Batson says and subsequent cases says you look at all relevant circumstances. It may be if all the circumstances are there, the ones you said, you would come to the conclusion that of those two reasons there was a valid reason. But i would suggest that where you have indicia like we have here, we have an arsenal of smoking guns in the case. A lot of smoking guns original decisions by the georgia courts. It seems to me what you would have to establish to reverse the georgia courts is that the new smoking gun, assuming that all the rest were not enough to demonstrate a batson violation, the new smoking guns would tip the scale. Isnt that the issue, the georgia courts decided . When the new smoking gun tells you the prosecutor misrepresented facts and gave reasons that were absolutely false, demonstrabley false reasons and those were not clear before but you have them now, basson turns on the credibility all im saying and you seem to be agreeing, it is not the overall batson judgment thats before us but rather the judgment that the new evidence does not suffice to create a batson violation where none existed before. No, our position is when you look at the new evidence with all the evidence at trial, that all relevant circumstances considered together, considering a lot of reasons we now know from the notes, we now know from the notes there were misrepresentations with regard to reasons. The georgia Supreme Court, this is an example Justice Scalia upheld the strike on two bases, she was a social worker and her cousin had been arrested for drugs will she was not a social worker. Second secondly the prosecutor didnt find out until after the arrest, so it couldnt have been a reason for the strike. Youre saying to Justice Scalia, you have the notes, those notes cast doubts on some of the prosecutors justifications in the first round purchase they do that and show misrepresentations to the court and overarching goal separating out africanamerican citizens, treating them differently and putting them on this list of definite nos. Just to make sure i understand, all the notes in the prosecutors files were new. New to this case. There were three people, prosecutor and two investigators. I would like to reserve the balance of my time. Thank you, counsel. Miss burton. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. Two important factors in this case reviewing the entirety of the evidence. One, petitioner bears the burden of establishing clear ill ask you as well to address the certiorari question first. Respectfully i disagree on this issue, i believe norfolk western roadway, this courts opinion indicates or states that if there is and issue raised in the lower court and it is raised in the states highest court, in this case georgia Supreme Court, in this case Supreme Court denies review, on certiori from the lower court. The problem is i dont think this is discretionary review. The 11th court found its not under georgia law, read its opinion, seems pretty grounded in the state law of georgia. Yes, your honor. Thats a pretty hot button issue in the state federal courts in georgia. Our position in those cases and i think theres a case before rehearing on that same issue is that georgia statute, georgia statute says thats discretionary appeal. 1975 habeas corpus act made it discretionary appeal because georgia Supreme Court was just getting inundated with appeal after appeal. Has the georgia Supreme Court said anything one way or the other whether its discretionary or not. In two cases, rechlt e versus hopper, smith versus nichols, which is 270 southeastern 2nd they both state those as discretionary. They have not answered a certified question on the issue. Could you give me reed. 219 southeastern 2nd 409. Thats a 1975 case. Are certified questions available in georgia . Could we certify a question to the georgia Supreme Court . I believe you can, your honor. I looked at the statute. The statute says in a habeas case, habeas, that the georgia Supreme Court must review it, must review it, unless its without merit. I forget the exact words i was looking for. I think its 91452, the statute, state habeas cases out of other appellate review and makes that discretionary. The georgia Supreme Court. Then i would be looking at the wrong place. You heard your brother here say he quoted some words. I dont remember the exact words but they were exactly what i read and from a statute in georgia. The Georgia State said, i just cant find it in my book. Sorry. The georgia statute said they can review the case unless its without its totally without merit. Something like that. Does that ring a bell . Does that ring a bell what im saying. It does what are the exact words. I dont know the exact words. Exact words certificate of probable cause will be issued when there is arguable merit. Yeah, thats it. I believe thats rule 36 of the georgia Supreme Court. 1452. If there had been compliance with that. Does that governor this case. I believe the statute would trump it. Does the word the chief justice just read from georgia law govern this case . The answer is yes or no. No. They do not govern this case. What in your opinion is the georgia statute that says those words you just held do not govern this case. I believe its 19 correct im certainly open to correction, 191452 state habeas taken out of other appeals, which are normally directly appeals, prisoner appeals and they are discretionary. I suppose that a court could have a discretionary view but provide by rule that in the exercise of our discretion we will grant any of these unless patently wrong. Maybe thats what happened here. If you use your discretion to enact a rule which says you will take cases of a Certain Court does the taking still remain discretionary. Its a nice question, isnt it . I think the taking of the case remains discretionary, if they find it has merit, is discretionary, the two cases i cited specifically referenced. Just decided you will uniformly exercise your discretion in a certain way. Youre saying there is no such uniform determination, they will exercise their discretion in a certain way. They are insistent upon their discretion being discretionary. Is that correct . That is my understanding. This law applies to not just obvio obviously cases but im sorry. Im so confused i cant even the state habeas process is different than the regular appeal process. Thats correct. On the regular appeals process they look at each case with discretion. On a direct appeal process, and certainly a capital case, it is mandatory review. In state habeas, a rule, internal rule that says, will take every habeas case unless it has no arguable merit, right . If i may rephrase. I think the rule says they will take a case if it has arguable merit. In the positive. Right. So what would lend us to believe that they didnt look at the merits and say there was no arguable merit. They just said were too busy, dont care if theres arguable merit. Do you believe they do that . I would never say too busy to take the case. I would never say that would be their reason but i think they would say they do have the records before them. We dont see arguable merit to take this case up. That is a decision on the merits. Theres no arguable merits . I think it is no arguable merit to the application that there has been error below, if that makes it any clearer. Now its clear. And in your view, cert should have been granted to Supreme Court. I believe it should have been granted to Supreme Court. Because of that discretionary review and the court has said in michigan versus long that if its unclear it comes from the state habeas court. Can i just ask one more quick question about this. You made reference, this is an issue thats being litigated in the georgia courts, is that right . 11th circuit. Thats correct. This issue. This issue. Thank you. What issue is that . Is it the issue of which court the certiori should be directed to . The issue of what . What is the issue . Am i right that the issue thats being litigated is whether the Supreme Court review in cases like this is discretionary or not discretionary. Thats correct. In those cases obviously coming up from federal court so were dealing more with harrington versus richter, sort of a different scope of things in that regard. This question is in both the georgia Supreme Court and in the 11th circuit . It is currently in the 11th circuit. I dont believe we have a case pending in georgia Supreme Court on that particular issue. I do believe there is an issue up here in a case jones versus chatman. Do you think this would k a case to exercise our discretion to certify the question to the Supreme Court . We would certainly like an answer from the georgia Supreme Court on that issue. I think the 11th circuit would like that as well. I think it would clear up both state and federal law for a number of things. Theres a statute that permits the georgia Supreme Court to accept certified questions. Do you know anything about the history of request for certification . Some states have a process but the state Supreme Court rejects the question. I do not, your honor. I apologize. What if we hold in this case that is not discretionary review . Georgia Supreme Court says it is depression area review. Who wins . Is it a question for us or the georgia Supreme Court . I think its ultimately a question for georgia Supreme Court as to what the state law is. I think me, too. Can i go to merits . Is that right . Look, you have a lot of new information from these files that suggests what the prosecutors were doing is looking at africanamerican jurors as a group they had basically said we dont want any of these people. Here is what we want if we really have to take one. All the evidence suggests a kind of singling out, which is the very antithesis of the batson rule. Im just going to ask you, isnt this clear a batson violation this court is ever going to see. I think it is. They donned undermine any of the findings by the prosecutor in his strikes, particularly mr. Hood and miss garrett. They certainly can be interpreted in two ways, in response briefed to this case. We dont know when we say this is why these highlights are there. Theres a reasonable explanation just as mr. Foster has given speculation on this arguments. Whats the reasonable explanation . The reasonable explanation is four months prior to trial, as was previously argued. Batson just came out, batson new, four months prior to trial, defense counsel files a motion, the strike of any black juror were filing a batson challenge. Two weeks prior to trial he files a motion and says theres Racial Disparity in 179 jurors. Thats the list thats challenged, 179. Theres Racial Disparity of black prospective jurors on that list. The day of trial he refiles that. I would be more surprised, quite frankly, if there wasnt some sort of highlighting. In other words, the argument youre making here is that the reason he highlighted all the black jurors in green and said what about the black jurors and all these Different Things was because he was preparing a defense in case of a batson challenge . Correct. If thats correct, was this argument made your main brief in the case. Yes. It was not. If that had been his reason, isnt that a little surprising he never thought of it or didnt tell anybody until you raised this argument in your main brief . I would say thats on state habeas, counsel. We relied on res judicata bar throughout habeas and then after that basically defended factual finding of the state habeas. Seems to be two arguments. One is this argument he never thought of, apparently, at least never thought to tell you until quite recently and the other, after years, so its hard to believe thats his real reason. Then theres a second argument he had about 40 different reasons. At least some of them could be valid. If my grandson tells me i dont want to watch i dont want to do my homework tonight at 7 00 because im just so tired. Besides, i promised my friend i would play basketball. Besides that theres a Great Program on television. Besides that, my stomach is upset but i want to eat spaghetti. Hes now given me five different reasons. What do i think of those proe reasons . In this case one may be valid. Correct. Which one . They all may be valid but they all may not be as strong as the first one. In this case, i think the important part the point is he gave 40 different reasons. The very fact he gives 40 reasons, selfcontradictory, applicable, totally different, i use my grandchilds analogy. I would say my answer to my grandchild is, look, youre not too tired to do your homework. I think any reasonable person looking at this would say, no, his purpose was to discriminate on the basis of race. Tell me why im wrong . I think because you have to look at the time period this was done. This was done a year after batson came out. Even throughout the transcript People Defense counsel and the prosecutor say we dont know where batson is going. In this case the prosecutor dealing with batson for the first time, the first time in history anybody has had to put strikes hes simply wrong. He puts down if it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors, miss garrett might be okay. That seems to undercut the argument they are just feeling their way and so forth. They have made a mistake of law in batson. Sure it was new but they are wrong. First let me say thats why there was a laundry list because he was espousing the every reason he had. With regard to mr. Lundys notes, the investigator who said if we have to use a black juror, shes the best one. Who is responsible for the definite no list. The definite no list nobody the only person that was asked about that was mr. Lundy who was deposed and said he could not identify who wrote that list. There are only three possible choices. Right. We know it came from the d. A. s office. It exists, says definite no. Correct. I dont think that was a ranking of jurors. When you look, they did score jurors throughout. They were five africanamerican jurors on the definite true. One of them was garrett, who as was appointed out, they said if we have to have one, let it be garrett. Then garrett shows up on the definite no list. 0nncorrect. Were we told that the only three people who did the investigation on batson were the two prosecutors on the case and mr. Lundy . So if mr. Lundy said i didnt make that list, it has to be one of the two prosecutors. It has to be one of the two prosecutors. One was not there on the day it was struck, the jury was struck, only mr. Lanier was. If thats not mr. Laniers thought process of this definite no list, i dont see that gets you to clear error in the striking of mr. Hood or miss garrett. What do you do, this seems an out and out false statement. The reason its given, one of the reasons for garrett being struck was her cousin arrested. Then the prosecutor doesnt know that at the time of the voir dire. He doesnt know until after voir dire that the cousin was arrested. How could it possibly be a reason at the time of the voir dire . I dont think the record bears that out. The highlighted notes that petitioner wants to say these were used during voir dire, these were used during strikes, page 56, angela written outside before miss garretts name. Mr. Lundys onnotes he said he wrote down things prior to voir dire what he knew about individual jurors, he wrote down as to Marilyn Garrett Angela Garrett is a cousin. Im sorry. Didnt the habeas court accept he didnt know at the time of trial, he just knew lundy didnt want her. The habeas court actually credited the fact mr. Lundy advised that was his explanation for why the prosecutor didnt know about the prior arrest, right . No, i think the state habeas court credited that was one of the facts of the strike. Still in deep water. Excuse me . That mr. Lundy didnt want her. He never credited or never said that he knew about the arrest. Actually mr. Lanier testified twice he was aware at the time of jury selection that he knew about. Mr. Lundy did but the prosecutor didnt. No. In the motion for new trial, mr. Lanier, the prosecutor testified and said i knew during voir dire, mr. Lundy told me that, joined appendix 105 and 112. Didnt he also testify this is on 14 in the reply brief, it has come to our attention since the trial of this case that Angela Garrett was arrested . It says on that page on that part of the transcript, which i cannot explain to you in contrast to in the notes it is noted she is the cousin prior to the jury selection unless that means, and ive read it several times, since that time shes been dismissed from her job. Again, its unclear. What about giving a reason for dismissing her that she was close in age to the defendant. She was in her 30s, he was 18 or 19. When he unusually strikes, mr. Lanier initially explains his strikes, he does state her age. Hes not trying to say shes 23. He states her age as 34. Throughout the overall theme was we dont want younger jurors. Were looking at older jurors closer to the age of the victim, 79. I think though not the most articulate framing of it, its more of a generational she was younger. And that, the age i dont think was a make or break factor. Working at head start with underprivileged children a make or break factor. A similar white juror also struck for that same purpose. Wouldnt you agree in a lot of these batson cases youll have reported justifications, which could support a valid preemptory strike. The question for a court, well, did they support this valid preemptory strike. Nerd, what was the prosecutor thinking . Batson ruled about purposeful discrimination, intent. It doesnt really matter there might have been a bunch of valid reasons out there, if it was clear the prosecutor was thinking about race. You agree with that, right . I think if the intent was to strike based on race. If his intent was to strike on race, it doesnt matter he could have had a different intent that would supported a g peremptory strike. So, the question of whether someone or other might have been properly struck by a prosecutor isnt really the question. The question is on the total amount of evidence before us, including all of these prosecutors notes, what was going on, with respect to each of these peremptory strikes. And then you have to deal with not just, oh, it could have been this, or it could have been that, but you have to deal with all of this information that ma it really was, was, they wanted to get the black people off the jury. I dont think the notes show it. What the notes showed with mr. Hood and miss garrett. That theyre contemporaneous notes taken at the time of trial with each of these jurors are the reasons they struck them. Theres no derogatory comments within those notes. Where there are other reasons that are plausible but could be phony, surely, its the judge that hears the testimony who is best able to judge whether assertive reasons or phony reasons or not. Isnt that right . Yes, sir. Its sort of hard for us to do it on a cold its harder, harder. But not impossible. Just, of course, raising a very good point in the run of cases. But not in the case where all of the intent of discrimination was not before the judge at the time. Again, i dont think theres i dont think theres clear error here on these notes of racial discrimination. Their strikes are sound. As to mr. Hood, you would not want mr. Hood, on the jury, regardless of his race. Based on his reasons. For what reason, he gives a laundry list, like i said, may well have been that we were in 1997, and youre just putting out everything that you can, because youre not sure what theyre supposed to be. Why werent the notes turned over earlier . The notes were not turned over earlier. Although it was brought up in a motion for new trial after the trial in 1997. And the prosecutor, mr. Lanier says, i will give my notes to look at for the court if defense counsel will do the same. Defense counsel chose not to do so. That issue was raised on the Supreme Court direct court of appeal, ruled that work product didnt have to be turned over. When we got to habeas procedures they found that they were under law. And they were rightly turned over. I dont think there was any argument at that point. And later, we can ask miss garrett about the issues that troubled for example, her cousins arrest. Theres an assumption that she has a relationship with this cousin. I have cousins who i know have been arrested, but i have no idea where theyre in jail. I dont know them. But he didnt ask any questions. Does that show pretext . Im not going to inquire because she might get off the hook on that . Well, i think a number of times, and i know this supports precedent on not asking questions. If particularly in voir dire of people. But as to a number of issues, i think when youre in voir dire, and youre asking questions, you dont necessarily care what the answer is. Because with regard to mr. Hood, if he had said, yes, i have a son thats been arrested, its not going to bother me a bit that you prosecuted my son. So, assuming that in my mind is decidedly different than murdering people, or attacking them the way this case was this case was about. I can imagine why cant you imagine a father saying stealing hub cubs he should have been punished. And he may well have. Its a risk that supports its a risk caa prosecutor c take. In my mind, hes going to go back and think, oh, i dont know. I want to ask you a different question before your time is up. Id like to you respond to the question that Justice Alito initially asked. And that is, is there an independent state round here . Okay. Youre familiar with the record. I read on page 192 of your record. The decision, the first paragraph supports the view, if you would like to hold, i think, that this is based upon race jud ju judecata. The reason i reach that delusion because the notes submitted by petitioner fail to demonstrate purposeful discrimination, on race is the basis. Okay. That sounds like baxson to me. Then he goes on to say, in addition, theres no good reason give now or then. Then he concludes, accordingly, the court finds the renewed batson claim is without merritt. So if i read that paragraph, i would think that the reason the judge found in your favor he considered the batson claim in your favor. He didnt have to. Thats the ground he did go on. But at first, why isnt it ambiguous . And if it is ambiguous, then why dont we take, you know, i think its long in all of those cases, if its ambiguous, then arent we required to assume that the judge wins on the federal ground . Okay. Now, thats both alitos question. Its what i think is the hardest point for you to overcome. And i want to hear your response. I agree its unclear. Thats the end of it, isnt it. That is the end of it. I think its unclear. What other issue what do you think is the res judicata law i think res judicataa then it goes out the window. In the court finds they can review the evidence anew, then i think you are beyond that bar. I dont understand what you just said. Say it again. Okay. If you have if the issue has been decided on direct appeal, and you cannot go back to it, obviously cant overturn the states highest court. But when you have new evidence such as in this case, and it is strong evidence that the court feels like it has to go it has to look at that evidence. In this case, it did, then i think youll be under the res judicata bar. I think thats how the decision is framed. Decision talks about claims that are not reviewable under res ju judicata. It lists many claims. This is in a separate issue, the batson issue, that there are merit determinations being made about it. The court is very clear. First sentence, last sentence, the court finds that the prosecution did not violate batson versus kentucky. Last sentence on the merits, the person the petitioner loses. As much as id like it to be an adequate state law ground im not sure i make what do you make of the statement, this court notes the following claims are not reviewable based on the doctrine of res judicata. The first one it lists is the batson claim, does that suggest thats what the court did, its barred by res adjudicata id like counsel to if anything, its an alternate ruling. Supreme court has said, georgia law allows the claim to be revisited when new facts develop because its based on facts that did not actively exist at the time of the appeal. Its essentially a different claim. Thats what the jury has. New facts, essentially a different claim. Yes, sir. Making it right or wrong is a matter of conclusion law. But that is the law. That is the law. Mr. Bright, you have two minutes remaining. Thank you. Very quickly, let me first say, with regard to what Justice Alito quoted, that has just come to our attention, since the trial of the case that miss garretts cousin was arrested. That was on may 1st. That was after the death verdict will be returned in this case. Secondly, if you look at the joint appendix on page 56 and 57, where they give the reasons for striking miss garrett, theres no mention of her cousin whatsoever in there. Thats the time when she should have been mentioned after the strikes were made. And yet theres no mention of that at all. And then six months later, theres a motion for new trial, and now the prosecution is adding new reasons that it didnt give at the batson hearing. Its saying she was a social worker. She wasnt a social worker. Its saying her cousin was arrested. They didnt know that at the time they instructed the jury. Theyre saying shes low income. But you cant add reasons on toer. P perpetuity. A person has to stand or fall within the reasons. With regard to questions, i just want to make one quick point on that because theres not much time, but with regard to miss garrett and Martha Duncan who were both teachers aides who were in schools literally in the same neighborhoods. Miss duncan had kindergarten students, miss garrett was head start. No question, what kind of children did you have, miss duncan . To me, within the neighborhood, miss garrett lives 18 or 20 miles away. Miss duncan her school is 250 yards away. And she lived a half mile within the school. Both of them answered answer aed they werent familiar with the area where the victim lived. Then, some more questions, after those answers, would have provided a difference. But instead, miss garrett is treated as a liar. And miss duncan is actually accepted and actually served as a juror in this case. There are other examples with mr. Hood, if you asked, what about your child arrested. Put on probation. 180 of 180 restitution. And he went off to went off to the navy, served his country honorably, got an Honorable Discharge and came back. Thank you, counsel, case is submitted. President obama laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknowns and led remarks at the annual Arlington National cemetery observance today to honor and thank all who have served in the armed forces. The president noted problems that some veterans have had in accessing health care through the department of veterans affairs. And says improvements are occurring but is not satisfied. You can see the entire event tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan. There are 102 members of congress who are military veterans, seven fewer than the last congress. The house has 82 veterans. 62 of whom are republicans, and 20 democrats including three female members. The senate has 20 members. 14 republicans and 6 democrats. No served in world war ii. Three in the korean war. House democrats john conyers of michigan and Charlie Rangel of new york. As well as texas republican sam johnson. Johnson and rangel will retire from Congress Next year. Two things are very different today. First of all, we have a Justice System that does not these trials were not held according to what we would consider to be modern law. Here say is perfectly acceptable. Innocent until Proven Guilty had not yet it was not yet in place. There were no lawyers, by the way, i should say, at the time. The courtroom is an extremely unruly place. So thats one piece of evidence. Also, we dont happen to believe in witchcraft. Or prosecute witchcraft today. Sunday on q a, author stacy schiff talks about her book the witches. The interesting part about the accusations, especially given the way we think of salem, is that wealthy merchants were accused as witches. Sea captains were accused as witches. Homeless 5yearold girls were accused to be witches. This is not an incident where all the victims are female. Five male victims, including a minister here. And we hang them. In addition to the myth, theres so much encrusted myth that i felt was important to dispel. Sunday night on 8 00 eastern and pacific. The Brooks Institute recently hosted a Panel Discussion on isis foreign recruitment and International Violence to encounter extremism. Experts talked about the different cve approaches and the strengths, weaknesses and lessons of those various lessons. This is an hour and a half. All right, everyone. Welcome. My name is will mcaccountant. On the organization of the islamic world here at brookings. Today, were going to talk about countering violent extremism. Brookings is doing this with the program on the partnership with extremism at George Washington university. Joining us today is Lorenzo Bodino to my right who directs the program at George Washington university. To his right is rashad ali who is a senior fellow. To my left is angela king, Deputy Director. And to her left is Daniel Koehler, who is a fellow on the program of extremism at g. W. And founder and director of the German Institute of radicalization, and deradicalization studies. Okay. So the countering violent extremism discussion has been going on for several year news. If the phrase sounds vague to you, its also very vague inside the u. S. Government and foreign government. No one is quite sure what this thing means. I remember some i was working at state department, i asked another agency to give me a list of everything that had been justified to the congress. As counterviolealcountering vio across all agencies. Everything from building Forward Operating bases in afghanistan to English Programs for a young mother. Essentially, it became a way for the government to protect and their program. In an effort to become much more focused we are here today to talk about one slice of this thats often neglected, that i think honestly is the most valuable. In the effort to spot or counter recruitment for terrorist organizations. And that is Early Intervention. And so, i wants to begin our program today by asking Daniel Koehler to tell us what Early Intervention programs are. How they differ from other programs, say, radicalization of foreign fighters, what have you, then well get to a more wide ranging instruction. Daniel. Thank you for the introduction. Early intervention in countering violence extremism is an unusual term. Usually when we look at other states in their countering violence policy, we see there are three tools that they usually use. The third one is preparation. Anything that going for prevention, for radical groups can be seen as a tool. The second level is repression. Containing an actual exist iing complex. Anything that is related to core group and sting operations. Then we see the third level which is called intervention. In most western European Countries. So Early Intervention would mean that we actually have someone who is in the process, in the early process, of the violent potentially violent radicalization process. But has some connection to it. Has some connection to a radical group. Some connection to radical ideology. Its on a path thats considered dangerous. So it is part of those tools where deradicalization programs, programs part of it. Early intervention programs are tools that usually focus on the social effect of the environment of those persons who are about to become a violent radical. We know theres a phenomenon call called leakage. That many persons leak some kind of sign directly or indirectly to family, colleagues, employer, Anyone Around them. And these persons are usually the first ones to notice a change. To notice a potential threat and danger. And in most cases, the socalled gate keepers, the socalled gate keepers, do not reach out to the authorities, do not reach out to the police or anyone else because they feel a strong sense of loyalty, obligation to their friends and family members. They fear what might happen to them. They fear that maybe theyre making that work. Maybe theyre responsible for their son or daughter being put into jail for 20 years. So we need to figure out a way to give these family, friends, associates, gate keepers, tools, third party mentors that can turn to for assessment, advice, counseling but also, between authorities, between social services, Health Services to give them an understanding. An assessment of why this is happening in the family or in the environment. And these Early Intervention tools are those who focus on friend, family, colleagues, to give them a tool as early as possible to reach out for help. Later tools will be deradicalization programs for returning for fighters for all those in prison, in prison inmates, and these focus on individual levels. And Early Intervention levels to me or the effect of social tools. There are many out there. Specialized trainings for teachers. For police officers. For community leaders. So, daniel, to my mind, these kind of programs make a lot of sense. Because its a small population that youre working with. They have already demonstrated theyre interested in radical ideas, but generally, they have not committed any Violent Crimes yet. So youre working very, very close to the problem. And the game is to try and make sure that these folks dont go over the line. And commit a criminal act, particularly a violent criminal act. But lorenzo, these programs have been its they havent caught on in many places. Particularly here in the United States. When we talk about countersing violent extremism, it runs the gamut, as i said. But this is not really part of it. Working in this space is usually from my experience often not too people who are entertaining radicalizing are thought to be a Security Risk better to let Law Enforcement than having the Early Intervention. Give us the theme. How does that compare . Its very different. First of all, let me thank you first for having us here. Its very good to have this conversation on the way we partner together on this and try to mainstream the debate that comes to the u. S. , and experience that comes to europe and bringing people from the European Experience. Because some europe 15 countries have seen 10 or 15 years of this kind of intervention. Everybody makes whatever they want out of it. All of the focus in the u. S. Has been focused on the large idea, the message for americans. The engagement to communities which is also extremely important. And the europeans have done that kind of work, the core intergration work. The lack of intergration, whether its linked to radicalization. Its very large for the europeans spend a lot of resources on it are very difficult to assess. Very difficult to prove negativity. That what youre doing to stop people from radicalizing. I think what we have seen the last few years, the europeans have focused more on the oneonone interventions for some of the reasons. In the u. S. , as you correctly pointed out, that has not been the case. Weve seen a lot of messages, with is more with the foreign partners, or engagement of communities which is basically what cve has been on the domestic front. You can explain what we mean by engagement of community, what that ends up looking like . Yes, this is basically dhs, the fbi cells have been doing for a long time, which is building trustbased dialogues and relationships within communities. We have to specify the days probably one of the points of contention. And one of the most debated points is that cve is unfortunately limited for the most part to the muslim community. Its limited to targeting what is traditionally known as al qaedainspired radicalization. And isisinspired radicalization. Of course, theres debate whether or not its correct and focusing on forms of extremism. It should be 99 of resources are devoted really just inspired. I think in the u. S. , were limited basically we had been limited mostly to engagement. Were starting to see signs that theyre working on oneonone intervention. The very tailored interventions. Which if successful, are quite cost effective. And its much easier to prove the effectiveness, not very easy, but easier, than some of the larger programs. And the European Experience tells us that. So we have very different models that well talk about largely, depending on what the degree of government, and a variety of other factors in the u. S. , were starting now to talk about utilizing it. I think traditionally, we have seen a Law Enforcement approach. The traditional use of sound, very harsh. Techniques and the fbi is in charge of the investigation. So, with the european approach, you simplify things as individuals that are clearly radicalized and very criminal states. The european approach is to try to prove that people can do a preradicalization stage. The fbi approaches in some cases, to try to push the individual, a kind of sting operation. And the right condition, progress report, or controlled setting, you have the fbi controlling everything and eventually arrest them. Two different factors. But theres a growing realization in the faith that that kind of tactic cannot be used all the time. Its very effective, particularly from a prosecution point of view. A very high success rate in court. But it cannot always be improved. Were seeing more and more minors attracted to isis ideology. And its difficult to use for a variety of legal and ethical reasons to use sting operations when it comes to minors. The numbers are also very high. We hear from the fbi a couple weeks talk about 900 investigations, open nationwide. And individuals linked to syria and mostly to isis. Thats a very big number unprecedented from the past. And its difficult to tackle all of these cases with traditional Law Enforcement tools. I think thats something that the department of justice fully understands and is trying to explore some of the tools. Just to give you an idea, just this morning, we have meetings with the department of justice, with a particular working group that is trying to find a prosecution. Because they understand that they cannot arrest their way out of this problem. So the idea is, and instrumental in this seamus was instrumental in this. Obviously, not all of the tactics that can be used in europe can be used to be transported and adopted here in the u. S. There are a lot of ideas that with the proper caveat, with the proper adjustments could be used. Daniel, i want to come back to you just to get a sense of whats going on here. Because i know, in terms of Early Intervention programs, its uneven across the continent. Some countries embracing this. Some not. Which÷v country would you holdt as the exemplar in holding that, and why . Thats impossible to answer. You cant have a country like germany, for example, where they have almost 20 years of experience in work against extreme nazi groups, and they have at least the last count was they have 12 to 15 specialized deradicalization programs in the area of countering violent extremism. You cant have a country like denmark where you have a very state, focused, policerun organization, where everything runs through the police. You cant have a country like sweden where they have one or two organizations doing that work in dopgs wicooperation wit government. In countries like the uk where they have a strong complement of attendance depends on the political culture . Absolutely. Depends on whether or not ideology should power the program, and its not that popular in denmark. Its not that popular in the uk. Very strong in germany, for example. I would say deradicalization or intervention can be ranked or classified according to three criteria. First of all, ideology. Technically spoken, do we have a disengagement program, with ideology, getting someone out to do or to stop committing criminal acts. Versus deradicalization, really trying to get the dismantling of radicalization. Changing the world. The second criteria is, is it stable or unstable . Is it run or organized by a government body like police, social services . Or is it nongovernment based. And thirdly, is it active or passive . Is it actively reaching out in prison groups or in germany, some have a list where the neonazis live. They just go there and knock on the door and ask do they want to lead the movement. Or are they passive conflicts, those wanting to get out . In europe, weve seen a very wide and broad array of different programs and organizations. I would argue the most promising the Public Private partnerships, because usually, there are aspects that are being done more effective to the government. And on the other way around, more effectively done to other organizations. We have seen several attempts in germany, sweden or the uk, where the government body started to call a hot line or a program, incorporati incorporating idealization, in programs. I would say germany and denmark are definitely on the forefront of that. Thank you very much. Lorenzo, i angela, i want to give people a look at how this program works. Id like for you to talk about how an Early Intervention works with somebody who hasnt yet broken the law . And i as wonder if you could say a few thoughts about the role of ideology. Not necessarily in terms of inspiring somebody, but when youre doing these kinds of interventions, do you really need to deal with the ideology, or do you focus on other things first . Well, its been a little slow going. We dont have those programs right now. But with what weve done, were out there doing interventions, doing countermessaging, doing cve. And for us, personally, we have not found that its successful to immediately go in and aggressively attack ideology. What we do is share very real, raw human experience. And connect on a different level. I think its important to mention that we really have to be aware of what propels people into these movements. Whats broken . You know, what is the underlying issue that made them feel they were missing out on something. That they needed to belong. A variety of factors that really push people into it. So when we go in and we talk to an individual, we have an understanding of what drove them there. That kind of gives us the foundation and the base that we work from. We draw on our experience. It was completely learned by former violent extremists. So, instead of justifying the individual, instead of attacking the ideology head on, we ask them personal questions. You know, what has affected them in their lives. What is important to them. What are they interested in . What are their goals . And from there, we fall back on our own personal experience. And share that in a way that shows them that they are not alone. That theyre not the only ones. That it is absolutely possible to disengage, to reradicalize. Theyre not concerned with deradicalize necessarily. The referrals we get come from a variety of places, whether a parent with a child, maybe getting involved. Some government referrals. Human rights, and then we have people who contact us on their own and say, listen, i am thinking about getting involved in this. I have a certain belief about a certain thing. Or i have this experience thats really pushing me in this direction. But i dont know im not sure. Can you talk to me about why i shouldnt . Or what are the consequences . You know, things like that. So its been in that way that weve been able to go out and start having some successful intervention. And these are literally some of the people who, by their own account, are on the verge of committing acts of violence, who then are prevented from doing so. Are you doing any of these interventions purely online . Or is there always a real world component . Both. There have been cases where we have traveled and facetoface sitdown intervention. We get contacted a lot by a social media by our websites. And we definitely dont have the funds to travel the country, you know, to do a personal facetoface every time. But part of what we offer is oneonone mentoring. Whether its phone calls, text messages, social media. And we you know, get these individuals involved. For instance, we have a group that consists of almost 30 former violent extremists. And these individuals, some of them have been disengaged and deradicalized for decades. Some have just come out in days or weeks. We are using that as a means of support. As a means of talking about the issues. Some of those issues that propelled them in in the first place. It provides kind of the support that daniel talked about. Whether its a family, or community, you know that kind of support, but is not there to say youre horrible because you believe these things. S, let me share my experience and how i got beyond that. And finding that common ground. Have you ever encountered anyone who was radicalized purely by what they have read . Theyre normal in every way, highfunctioning, but just consumed a lot of hate literature . Or is there always Something Else underlying it . Every case is different. Some of the information that were finding now is that not every person suffered trauma or abuse or has Mental Health issues or anything like that. Some people came from perfectly stable loving homes. And for some reason, felt the need to belong in that way. And its different. You know, some individuals, a small percentage, were actually raised in the extremist environment. That were taught violence. You know, there are individuals who were raised to in a prejudiced household. They were taught racism literally as children. Some will grow up and rebound against that. And others will grow up and look for a place, saying this is it, this is what i know. This is what i was taught. And there are individuals who will have maybe one experience from that point on, pun intended, it literally colors their view of the world from that point on. And then there are some who will just read, you know, history. You know, Say Something has happened unfairly in history. One group is being represented more than the other. So, its we cant classify it all across the board. It really literally is case by case. Thank you. So, rashad, i want you to help give us the uk perspective on this. But i also want you to talk about the role of ideology. Again, i think for many people, when youre thinking about Early Interventions, the first thing that would come to mind is you need to take on immediately the ideas that political radicals would espouse. Have you found that to be the case in your experience, when year talking about radicals . Or as angela said, you look at it on deeper, societal issues that have drawn into this viewpoint. Ill start with the latter question. I think with the experience, what we have is i look at trends just to make it easier. As you mentioned, there are those that have a political perspective, a political landscape, they buy into a narrative. And they look at the world as very similar to kind of old school narrative. You have the evil west which is hegamonic. And america and its allies, just suppressing the natural you know, the natural aspirations of most people. And in this instance, the conflict used to be communism in the west and now its islam. And they buy this and they look at everything in the world through that. With palestinian, through the political lens, if you like. They look at any conflict in the war against iraq, because of various economic, societal reasons. Actually its a manifestation in the middle east. So, all of everything. Then you got others who actually are not politicized as such but they have various political grievances. In the sense they may have had a question that they face in their life. Questioning that sense of belonging to society, they had may have had grievances related to racism and past experiences or disenfranchisement. And then the narrative appeals to them because of those things. Theyre approaching it because actually they already feel they need Something Else. You then have others who have neither necessarily have the specific problematic set of grievances, or a embracing a form of religion which automatically separates them from everybody else. So, therefore, theyre separated from other muslim. Theyre seen as not being true muslim or not. They are analogous to what we see. And from that, and then the way they look at the world is nothing it is really truly represented in the purest way that should be enforced in society. That actually the purest that comes from a very direct engagement of scripture, tells them exactly what is right. What is wrong. And therefore, they have the theological look at it. And then you have, i guess the other trend of people who actually do suffer various different illnesses. They suffer various other issues. And therefore, those things have pushed them towards embracing a black and white perspective, and that is appealing in that context. Obviously, im describing this for a general but actually most people will be a mix of those things. Therefore, when tackling and engaging an individual, you should be able to ascertain what are the push pull factor. Is it somebody embracing ideology, its an ideology which is aimed at when reading scripture, i dont know if you have that when reading scripture if youre reading scripture in that way, it should be enforced. And the government is going to enforce that as scripture. And then actually, i guess the only way you can engage with that is to break down the methodology in the way they approach the scripture. On the other hand, if someone has a particular world view that is very, very theyre low, then the only thing you can do is make them realize the complexities in the way we were made up. And this actually works in the uk in politics as well. I guess literally at the lens. Because actually, they are then figures who went in. That is an indication in the uk. Not the most popular politician in the uk. But at the end of the day, once they start to see it as a complexity to their world, then you can have more complexity to the way you see people and society. They do need that. And i guess that was the uk approach is something that is a multiprong approach. So the former measures we have, the contest policy in the uk which is the broad countdown and measure. Which has what we call the four ps. Protect, outside of the u. S. Embassy in london. Theres propel, which is when those do question, how do they respond. And pursue, which is investigations, intelligence gathering. Finding arresting people and prosecuting them. And prevent. And prevent then is this what we weve spoken about, individual kind of engaging the people who are either vulnerable toward radicalization, or who have become radicalized. Therefore, that works in space, and also primarily which is people have been whether its by police, the public in general, as an example in the cases we have, as an example in the uk, where theres communities, and weve had individuals come into the mosque also like they had in syria. They will contact the authorities and say. And the authorities will send someone who is appropriate to engage with that individual to make an analysis, a diagnosis, and then put a plan together. But theres been some criticism on the program, right . Huge, huge. I think this is very important to look at because actually, i think there are some very good questions that you need to ask. The first is what are we talking about so there are natural concerns about how do we determine that. What types of process, how do we know this is the case, ambassador of science, et cetera. Which is a reasonable kind of consent to have. The second is engaging in radicalization, especially in somebody who has a theological foundation. Actually, what youre going to do, there are a number of different approaches, in some ways, youre going to engage the religious proclivities. In the state, the church, but in reality, our policies are founded on sector, liberal values and therefore, to what extent engaging with individuals can persuade them. And then that comes down to the logic behind that intervention. That actually that individual is starting to experiment doing the engagement. Or if you have an individual who is truent a young kid is truent from school. And we think actually weve seen them around, then we have an engagement, that intervention. And the same thing applies, actually, we should have an Early Intervention. To see a beheading or talk about how evil effort is. And whatever it may be, that actually that may provide some form of intervention. And the other side of that, i think, is more the problematic part. So as i mentioned, theres a difference we see which is the investigative side. Prevent. The one side is prevent. It actually has nothing to do with the investigation side. Nothing to do with the surveillance side. Prevent, which is brought on to this idea of actually the state, and therefore, what we should do is monitor everything, which is good. But then it becomes actually the state must be using this it must be spying. It must be targeting the whole community. And therefore, all of these things come into this. Now, some of these things can be easily dismissed. 25 , roughly, of individual referrals in the uk actually are referrals that have nothing dotodo with this. Actually have to do with right wing extremists, et cetera. The overriding methodology, there isnt specific engagement. So it isnt although its described as tied to communities or government, and yet some of the people have its not surprising that an organization, which i wont mention, which has previously supported and the american terrorist for yemen is very critical of the program. With the al qaeda resistance to americans. Therefore, got to understand there are some which buy into these. So, it is its complicated, but actually, theres good and bad reasons for it. On the whole, i think a lot of it based on propaganda. Daniel, i want to turn back to you. The Counter Terrorism part of my brain hears about Early Interventions and saying, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Youre focused very narrowly on people who may become upon demonstrated. They really like the propaganda of a violent group. Thats the one you really want to focus on. But then, the american part of my brain speaks up and says, well, wait a minute, i mean, these folks are entitled to free speech, like anyone else. This isnt exactly criminalized in the speech. But it seems to get right up on the line, if not over. Im trying to figure out how to strike this balance. And i gather from your comments that a lot of it has to do with the unique political culture in each country. And if we were in germany, they would have a different answer, versus in the United States. But how do we how do we find that . How do we keep this focus on a very narrow problem, without running afoul of the proud tradition of free speech that we all value in a Legal Society . I think that is the core question of how you make deradicalization and programs work. As you mentioned deradicalization has the build in it, work usually is supposed to work in a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and religion. But we know on the other side, that starting when something criminal happens, a criminal act, on the prison system, is much more effective, is much more expensive. And we know that there is a process leading to that criminal act, leading to violence that is dangerous, inherently dangerous to democratic society. Because it embraces an ideology. It spreads an ideology that is actively attacking and trying to destroy the democratic part of society. So, neonazis in germany, for example, have always tried to hide under that freedom of speech. Freedom of political opinion. And even though the German Version of freedom of speech, its much more strict than in the u. S. , obviously, for traditional reasons. So, i would say that this problem, figure out this problem, when an inherently dangerous process starts, in balancing it, against what is morally acceptable in terms of the program, its essentially a question of how do you structure that program . For example, i get the fact that im very critical about governmentrun active programs who try to change a political religious world view, for example, in prison. And there are programs that are more or less coercive in prison that says youre free to participate. If you dont, dont expect to be dont expect to get any special, beneficial treatment, anything like that. So, then, on the other hand, there are nongovernmental programs that can have Close Association they should have for the government but they have their own political fluff. They say we are part of the society. We are part of the society at large. And we are passive. So that comes to pass. And we say, we have a home version of how democracy goes. We have a home version of what pleuralism is, what democracy is, if you come for help, this is what we expect. In these conditions, deradicalization can be people are free to go to ngos, they are free to choose. They can go to another ngo. A couple months ago, i worked with the new dutch program, and they are currently building a new deradicalization program. And they have set out a very interesting framework they have very specifically set out the framework where they work, and how they work, in close cooperation with ngos. Especially trained experts, and theyre very strong. And theyre realizing people end up in prison before doing something more sharply before doing something. We need to figure out, specially in northern america, what actually is the point where we figure out the point its not acceptable. This kind of ideology, this sort of propaganda, is really trying to destroy that society that were actually living in that protects you. I think that deradicalization programs where they are public partnerships, they can benefit from both sides of it. They can say, you are protected in a certain area. But what i do now is directly aiming at abolishing these central principles. These constitutionalized. If this system that youre propagating, would be realized, 100 , right now, in the u. S. , would any person who is not part of your group, racial group or religious group, have different, or same rights of how we can treat them from today, tomorrow, try to force them to the country, would you put them in camps . Would you grant them much lesser rights of speech . Would they have to pay an extra tax . Would they get killed right away . So these indicators are very essential in figuring out where youre going. Thank you, daniel. You know, its i can feel the response in the audience from americans. That this is a very european perspective. It is. Yeah. And in this country, we let an awful lot of stuff fly. I wonder again, rashad, how does the United States, which is barely barely put its toe in the water in intervention, how does it find that way . I think actually its a couple things. In the uk, its a balanced process. So there can not be any coercive approach towards individuals. Either they choose to engage or they dont. If they choose to engage then its a process with the whole deradicalization. In that sense, it is something that the state supports lends its support. If theyre radical, why do they engage . This is the question, why do radicals engage . I dont know if i should make any comments. The thing is why do people take steps forward because they fundamentally believe they have something to offer. And maybe they believe they have something authentic to offer to give back to humanity or society. Or that its either benevolent or an improvement. They want to engage for the radical world that is generally better for the u. S. , for their community, or for the country. So, actually, thats one reason, they want to present it. Secondly, with a lotp2x of individuals, obviously, they want what theyre doing known. Human beings arent black and white, there are generally a set of complexities. The reason you have leakage is because people also want an intervention. Its the same reason why people who talk about suicide. Because they are feeling and when they do, we know we should take it seriously. But actually, theyre reaching out as well. So, theres those factors. In almost all cases, you have a high level of people. I do think there are Early Interventions and the problem really is it seems like were controlling the politicaretty an of people. In that sense, i think theres a very reasonable part in the uk. And why its impossible in the u. S. Because theyre talking about extremism being illegal. Or liberal. Or banning organizations that promote or undermine democracy or human rights. There are lots of people that go from the right and left wing, especially in the uk who are fighting against that because it is quite a horrific conservative requested idea. On the other side of that, i think theres a moral imperative, a Civil Society, as a whole, to stand up and do something about this. And so, what really a partnersh between government that you mentioned this earlier and between Civil Society so they actually we as Civil Society can engage in the preventive process in countering these arguments and governments support and facilitate that. If theres a sociopolitical economic interest in doing so and the argument put out on an economic basis alone we should do something. On a social moral perspective, we cant sit back and do nothing. Weve had a huge number of migrants out of syria and iraq. Between 1 million and 2 Million People at the european borders. People are talking about are we taking extremists into europe and all sorts of debates . Weve exported a brigade of 5,000 extremists to go and join isis. On one hand we have a moral responsibility to not send terrorists abroad, which is what weve been doing. And hence my point earlier that actually we have contained, incubated these things. Angela, im trying to find this line or this balance between public and private. Youre Deputy Director of a private ngo. If you can, talk about in abstract if you like, whats the right relationship between an ngo that does Early Interventions and the government . Or should there not be one at all . Are you trying to get me in trouble . Not at all. We can all play a part in interventions and disengagements but we have to define the roles and whats needed and who is best suited for each different aspect. So, for instance, the easiest example i can give is when i was an adolescent and becoming radicalized, i was headed toward violence. Im always asked what would have stopped you . What could have been done . What kind of person could have approached you . What would you have heard that would have changed your mind. Ive thought about this for years, and i know the kind of teenager i was, it would have taken someone with real Life Experience that actually understood what i felt, what i was going through, the obstacles that i faced, the issues that i dealt with. So i think when we go out and look at these relationships, there has to be support. There have to be people that can go out and act. There have to be all of these different aspects of it. This may be unpopular, and i apologize if it is. I do not believe that relationship between ngos like mine and say Law Enforcement should in any way be intelligence. It should not be telling on people, giving up information. If were to truly go in there and do this work, we have to create communities of trust. Another example i can give, when we get feedback, for instance we recently produced four psa messages. We targeted individuals currently involved in the violent far right in the u. S. We expected a negative response but in essence what were doing out there is saying, number one, we have been there. Weve had the experience. We know what its like. So behind closed doors when youre feeling like this really isnt what you thought it was going to be, you know, there are things that you just didnt understand, those feelings of guilt or shame or doubt are creeping in, we get a response from some individuals that is so intense, so filled with rage, and well hear things like youre the worst traitors of all because you knew the truth and you walked away. Those are the kind of responses that are telling us were striking nerves. Were doing a good job because those individuals that are voicing that, they are probably the ones that are having those doubts. Theyre the ones entertaining them and they feel ashamed. They think theyre going to get caught. They dont know what to do. So when we look at things like that and start to build these relationships between government, between ngos and people on the ground, we need to keep this in mind. Im going to be a lot more successful going out and doing some intervention work, some cve, because im a credible voice. Because ive been there. And especially with the far right in the u. S. , were dealing with people that cling to conspiracy theories, paranoia, they already dont trust the government or Law Enforcement. So we need to be very clear about those lines in the relationship there. So theres always room for collaboration. We all have a part to play. We just need to define those roles very carefully. Thank you. Daniel, you had a point you want to make. I want to comment on this problematic or highly debated question of the relationship between an intervention program, the clients and authorities, security agencies. I know that there are programs run by intelligence agencies who just use that for hard intelligence gathering, names, addresses, group structures, anything like that, which actually hurts the idea of intervention but also hurts the families. It puts the family at risk or the social environment at risk and its accepting risk to burn them by simply getting a couple of names. But im very positive about counterterrorism acquisition programs. Many people think, i suspect in the u. S. , that it is seen as a weird, soft approach to something that should be handled by the pros, by agents, fbi, intelligence. So if you look at how do deradicalization programs operate, many include former military, they know what theyre doing. They do Risk Assessment in an area that overlaps. You can identify concrete aspects like reduce manpower of a terrorist group. You pull out human skills and knowledge out of that group. The group needs to refill that gap. Needs to invest resources in recruitment and train other people within the hierarchy and its proven that this organizational cost that you put onto these groups by getting people out can even cause a complete collapse of a terrorist group or radical cell. Plus, what i would call soft intelligence gathering. Im not talking about individual names and addresses but for example you locate where a new recruiter is active or a new group is active or a new topic of recruitment is active or a new style of jihadism has emerged. Obviously thats something that you can pass onto the authorities. You gain a lot, especially knowledge about radicalization process, about connections that you can use in training and skill building for probation staff and police and for teachers that is very, very influential and very important, and you make the work of Law Enforcement much easier and much more effective by providing that additional angle. Working with families and people who want to get out themselves closes the gap of that network of Counterterrorism Network and actually it helps to remove a blindfold of that area, that social area where radicalization occurs and you can actually help the police to become much more effective. Thank you. I want to open it up for questions. Before i do, i want to ask lorenzo a final one. Im in a think tank. Youre in a think tank. We have to think in our tanks about what kind of policies come out of this stuff. You and i have been thinking a lot about why it is we dont have intervention programs in the United States for political radicalism. Even angelas program, you were telling me, is unique in this country. I know working on jihadism theres the word organization in d. C. And some others that work on it, but its still in an early stage and there hasnt been a lot of support from the u. S. Government for these kind of efforts. I got my own ideas as to why. Im curious why you think there hasnt been a groundswell in the government for these kind of programs . Thats a very good question. I think theres a combination of overlapping reasons. Theres not really even a debate into building some kind of intervention when it comes to the right wing extremism. The debate is just on jihadist threat. Something that again we can discuss. We have seen a lot of talk but in reality very little resources, very little action. I think theres a variety of reasons. One is the fact that at the end of the day the threat has not been as big the domestic side at least as in European Countries. We have never seen the sense of urgency that exists in European Countries. If at the end of the day you look at which European Countries are most active, those are touched by some sort of an attack. Is it worth doing . I would argue yes some small scale intervention. Im saying that has somewhat prevented the initial trigger, the dutch have been very active. The b