tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN February 29, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
[applause] we will leave the campaign stop at this point. the house is about to gavel in four short speeches on any topic , legislative work starts at 2:00 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. february 29, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable mac thornberry, to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one
hour and each member other than the minority and majority leader and minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer,
for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, exspree -- mr. speaker. every day we are reminded by current events of how essential water and sanitation are to our very existence. whether it's flint, michigan, droughts in california. the challenges of safe drinking water and sanitation for underdeveloped countries. this dominates the news and is at the root of an increasing number of conflicts which will become only more serious. water policy is one of the most critical areas that this congress ought to be able to address on a bipartisan basis. the facts are stark, opportunities vivid, and public support is strong. that is why i spent a great deal of time focusing on issues
of water and sanitation since i first came to congress. legislation for water is not just critical for humanitarian reasons but protect the environment. it represents heps avoid conflict within societies and between nations because of water
scarcity or shared river basins. i worked on legislation reforming flood insurance. rewriting the corps of engineers' outdated principles and guidelines that should inform their practices on water infrastructure and environmental management. and i have worked for a decade on the creation of a water trust fund. unlike surface transportation, which has a highway trust fund and a source of revenue, the federal government has no similar mechanism for water and sanitation. the status of our water infrastructure is appalling and getting worse. while support from the federal government has been in decline. in fact, there's been a slow, steady retreat on water infrastructure spending since the carter administration. the american society of civil
engineers has rated our water infrastructure a d. we have almost 170,000 drinking water systems around the country, and while the useful life of pipes can be sometimes up to 100 years, we have facilities that date back to the 1800's. a water main breaks every two minutes. the american water works association anticipates the need of a trillion dollars over the next 25 years to replace the most critical of more than a million miles of pipe. while congressional appropriations have declined to less than $1.5 billion a year. a tiny fraction of our needs. the total mileage of sewer mains in the united states is unknown, but it's probably between 700 and 800,000 miles. many of these pipes were installed right after world war ii and are approaching the end of their useful life. the sewer systems with aging pipes and inadequate capacity
mean almost a trillion gallons of untweeted sewage each year that is discharged into our waterways. the total needs oferte next 20 years for both sewer and water are almost beyond our comprehension. but the current spending is clear -- is completely inadequate. the public and scientists are finding more problems which will argue for even higher standards. that's why i have developed bipartisan legislation for the creation of a water trust fund. i have been working on this for years with different bipartisan partners. given that there appears to be little appetite now in congress for any tax or fee increase, i have adjusted the bill so that the revenue comes from voluntary participation by companies that have a keen interest in clean drinking water and adequate sanitation. indeed, their very business depends on it. they would be able, for a tiny fee, to voluntarily identify as being supportive of the water
trust fund, a little seal of approval, would raise several billion dollars a year. this could be used to deal with the problems of low-income ratepayers that make it hard for overall rates to be increased and to leverage more investment at a time of remarkably low costs of borrowing. we could have significant investment in deal with some of our greatest problems. this is by no means the entire answer to the looming crisis, but we shouldn't wait for the next flint. or the problems in drought stricken california, or some other municipal break down. we should start now. i urge people to co-sponsor my bipartisan water trust fund egislation, h.r. 4468. let's get started. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. speaker, on december 22, 2015, zachary allen greenhoff a veteran of the u.s. army lost his life to an accidental overdose of heroin in the city of west haven, account k -- connecticut. the press accounts after his death unfortunately tell a story that is far too common in this country. during the time that he served in the army, he suffered an injury. which caused great pain. it resulted in prescription of painkillers, and that pathway started which led to an opioid addiction and unfortunately him losing his life on december 22 to an overdose of heroin. the center for disease control tells us that in 2014, 27,000 americans suffered accidental overdose deaths across the country. a drastic increase from 2013 and this trend is happening again all across the country. in the state of connecticut, the office of the chief medical examiner reported its
statistics for 2015 which showed that 723 individuals ost their lives, including mr. greenhoff, to overdoses of heroin and opioids. and again this is a trend line which shows that it was a 20% increase from the year before. so we are in the midst right now of a problem that is sweeping across the country that is affecting states that are republican and democrat, blue and red, and we as a naion need to get all hands on deck and come to grips with it. president obama in his budget that he submitted a few weeks ago made a promising start. he proposed $1.1 billion in new funding to law enforcement, to folks who are involved in treatment whether it's detox centers or treatment programs, whether it's programs for education and prevention because we know from talking to people in the field you need to get as early and quickly to young people to make sure that they understand that this pathway which is has exploded across the country is something that people need to know about
and to avoid. in new london, connecticut, where this event occurred that i described, over a carries of two days in february we had a summit involving law enforcement, providers, we had the director of drug policy from the white house, come in and -- the good news is there is a lot of good work that's being done at the local level, not just in new london county, connecticut, but across the country where people understand that this is a problem that requires everyone working together. and-n all those factions and sectors. but the fact of the matter is that president obama's proposal is not until 2017. we need help now. we need to get an emergency appropriation just as we would if there was a hurricane or an earthquake or a wildfire that was sweeping across different region reegons of this country. we -- regions of this contry. we need to understand emergency appropriations for our military which the speaker and i will be voting on together on the armed services committee shortly that this problem which is affecting thousands of families and resulting in fatalities for
people, again, who follow a pathway that through legally prescribed medications needs to be addressed and we need to get those resources out to people as soon as possible. i have a bill in the house that traction a bill that senator shaheen in new hampshire, another state hit hard by this problem, that provides $600 million of emergency assistance, again, allocated to police providers, education and prevention, that is this week going to begin consideration in the u.s. senate. it has been endorsed by law enforcement groups. it has been endorsed by people who are in the field dealing with this problem who are dealing with families that can't get beds in detox centers, that can't get beds in treatment facilities. with police departments trying to get narcan so they can save lives, a miracle drug, but the fact of the matter is we need everybody involved, particularly the congress, to help communities solve this problem. last week the national governors association, republicans and democrats, could be convened in --
convened in washington, d.c., to talk about their priorities, this emergency funding was the number one request of congress because they are the ones at the frontlines to force -- and forced to deal with this issue. we have an opportunity to listen to the people who know what they are talking about, drain away the politics and partnership, understand veterans, people in living rural communities, suburban communities, urban areas of our country are getting hit with this problem. just like any other disaster, we as a nation need to come together to address it now. not wait for 2017. now to pass this measure. we can do more in terms of reforming the protocols that the v.a. and d.o.d. and the civilian health care sector, frankly, have gone too far in terms of overprescribing. we can do more about disposal of drugs. walgreens to their credit have set up disposal sites across the country where people can come in with excess opioids to get rid of them safely.
the fact of the matter is the willingness is there, but the resources are not to deal with the problem of a this magnitude. let's pass the shaheen-courtney measure. get emergency funding to folks who need that help and who are ready, they are on standby. they are there to help those families and individuals who need the help that we as americans should come together and support. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until to continue fema and to make a few changes to the agency. also, another bill providing training for state and local law enforcement on counterterrorism tactics. no votes until 6:30 eastern this evening. live coverage of the house here on c-span when members return. and our road to the white house
coverage continues today in the runup to supertuesday primaries where residents will choose presidential nominees and today we're focusing on the candidates on the campaign trail. senator marco rubio is in georgia today. we'll have live coverage from atlanta at 12:30 eastern on c-span2. also texas senator ted cruz will hold a rally in state of the union, texas. where he'll be joined by governor greg abbott and rick perry. former governor perry will be there too. former secretary of state hillary clinton is in virginia this afternoon. again, c-span3 will have live coverage of that. that starts at 4:30 eastern. and then you can see donald trump at his campaign rally in orgia and that's at valdosta university. it happens on c-span3. we'll have live coverage.
>> this is the hardest problem i've seen in government because it implicates america's gift of innovation, implicates privacy. it implicates the rule of law. it implicates public safety. and we just have to talk about it and understand how do we optimize both these things we care about? privacy and safety, how do we cothat? and it's not easy. >> tonight on "the communicators," general counsel for the f.b.i. agent's association and chris calabrese, vice president for policy at the center for democracy and technology and talk about whether apple should get into the phone of one of the suspected san bernardino tifts. they'll also talk about what this case could mean for communication, tech companies and law enforcement in the digital age. they're joined by reuters
cybersecurity reporter dustin vols. >> the tool was desized to be impenetrateable and as a result we believe it threatens the way our search and seize yours law were designed -- seize yours law were designed -- seizures law were designed to operate. so we do view it as a real threat to the follow crumb that the full balance of security sits on. >> certainly apple is concerned and we're all concerned about the privacy of the information on the device but we're also very much worried that building any tool that allows you to break the security on the device is really a privacy harm. one that's going to come back and bite apple users around the world. >> watch "the commoun indicators" tonight at 8:00 astern on c-span2. well, clarence thomas spoke for the first time in 10 years, according to the associated
press today. he stunned attorneys and reporters at the supreme court today when he posed questions during an oral argument. it was the second week the court had heard arts since the death of justice anton scalia. clarence thomas for years sat directly to scalia's right. his chair is now draped in black in tribute to his death on february 13. that story from the associated press today. u.s. house returning at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work. while we wait for that, cnn reports that residents of flint, michigan, paid the highest water bills in 2015, according to a survey. recent water problems in flint was one of the topics on this morning's "washington journal." " continues. host: our next segment will deal with the crisis in the water supply going on in flint, michigan. takingse held a hearing andok at the specific issue representative of elijah cummings made sharp
statements. [video clip] >> they are struggling. they have come up over here from flint and i don't know how they got here. i guess i'm a bus. the fact that they are here. what, they are americans. they are americans like you and justike your children. toon't want to be -- i want be real clear and the chairman will bear me out on this. i have said i don't care whether it's epa or whether it's local or whether it's the state. i want everybody who is responsible for this fiasco to be held accountable. i am not protecting anybody because that's not our job. we are the last line of defense and if we don't do it, nobody's going to do it. host: one of the people testifying in that hearing is joining us now, mark edwards, with virginia tech university, the environmental resources
water engineering, good morning. you briefly talk about the situation in flint and how you became involved? when awe became involved mother who determined her child had been lead poisoned from drinking exposure gave us a call and asked us to sample her water. we did that. we gave our data to an epa employee who wrote a memo that essentially said that flint was not eating protected by federal law. children in the city were at risk. this memo was covered up in july of this year. the statey after michigan department of environmental quality had a meeting with flat residence and bragged about the fact that they had handled the situation in
flint residents would not hear about the memo again and no one was going to be helping flint residents. we dropped everything and tried to even the odds on behalf of flint residents of a could find out the truth about their drinking water and we collaborated with them and found high lead throughout the city. host: you and your students ran tests so what kind of levels are talking about? as high as two times hazardous land levels and households had 200 parts per billion. the world health organization says 10 is max. sampling, we sampled randomly, levels as high of 1500 parts per billion. through random sampling come we found the lead in the water is twice the federal and or. standard for the law, you're supposed to find the worst case so it's a bad situation, no question.
host: you just returned from flint, michigan, have things improve? guest: yes, our recent sapling has shown that the lead levels probably are about four times lower than they were this august . finally, this collection of outsiders got kids out of harms way. they change the water supply back to detroit. they have added extra inhibitors to the water. we still need to do additional sampling to confirm that things are indeed better. probably the water has never been better than it has been in the last two years. water at thisthe point. no one in flint trusts either the state or federal just a portion of the contaminated water problems in flint, michigan. you can see the rest of that conversation online at
c-span.org. president obama has awarded the nation's highest military honor to a navy seal who took part in a daring 2012 raid that rescued an american hostage in afghanistan. nior chief edward byers is the first one to receive the award in four decades. the president says it gives americans to get a glimpse of a special breed of warrior who so often serves in the schad ovement the rescue was famed seal om the team 6. drone strikes hosted by the global affairs council. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and on behalf of the council for global affairs, i'm delighted to sprow deuce our distinguished panel tonight. i look forward to a spirited ebate on an issue that
certainly doesn't have a clear answer to right and wrong. professionor cole and o'connell. we're thrilled you've taken the time to come here tonight so thank you. as you're aware in recent years, drones have become an important weapon on the war on terror and conducting attacks on various targets in afghanistan, pakistan and beyond. the increased use of drones for targeted killing has become a focus of much discussion and controversy. raising many types of questions in a variety of corners, both at home and abroad. so this is a particularly interesting debate for me. so as a former infantry marine corps officer, both the pros and cons of this debate and of drone strikes in general hit a little closer to home than probably for the general audience. so on one hand, drones are
quite attractive. they provide the capability to have near or true continuous reconnaissance coverage to then execute strike coverage -- excuse me -- strike orders based on certain criteria being met all while meeting the risk of downed pilot scenario which inevitably would lead to hostabbling rescue situation. on the other hand, there are very real second and third world consequences from these strikes. while collateral damage per strike may be lower than the alternative, which is based on analysis from academics as well as the c.i.a., the potential increase in the actual strikes, the overall number of strikes makes these consequences very real. because when we talk about collateral damage, we should be very clear what that means. we're talking about dead civilians and so each person needs to ask him or herself,
you know, how many future enemy combatants have we actually created through these actions? so clearly there is much more to account for when debating he drone strikes but it's -- what's much less debatable is drones are here to stay. according to an intelligence survey, the market for military drones is expected to roughly from roughly 4 billion to 10 billion. we must grabble with them, the affects on our society as well as our political and legal frameworks. so tonight i'm truly looking forward to indepth and formative conversation on the topic. you all have biographies on your chair but let me introduce the panelist. so professor cole is a professor of law and director of the european and latin american legal studies at depaul university college of
law. previously he served as dean of the center of naval warfare studies and principal deputy assistant to the secretary of defense. professionor mary o'connell is a professor of law at knower dame university where she also does research on international dispute resolution. she previously worked for the u.s. d.o.d. in germany as a professional military educator. our moderator tonight is ambassador delder, president of the chicago council. he previously served as u.s. ambassador to nato. senior fellow at the brookings institute and director of european affairs at the national security council. so without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming professor cole, professor o'connell and ambassador delder. [applause] >> thanks very much for that
very kind introduction and i think for setting the stage for the issues that we're going to be discussing in the next hour or so. we are not going to be talking about the drones that will be delivering your packages next week or the drones in the back yards. we are talking about a drone that is armed and capable of inflicting harm on people who are capable of striking our military weapon. they came, these drones were developed as part of our counterterrorism strategy. indeed, the idea of actually putting a missile on a drone came from the desire by the united states to target a single individual, osama bin laden, who was in afghanistan. this is well before 9/11. it was actually done during the
clinton administration and spurred by both the agency, the c.i.a. and the defense department, but encouraged very much by people inside the white house so it was very much thought of in terms of a counterterrorism strategy. the employment of these systems in the last decade-plus, really, what, since 2001, has raised a whole host of issues. issues that are important for us to understand because whether we like it or not, these systems are with us. they're here today and they are likely here tomorrow and more and more people will have the capacity to decide when and how to use them. they raise fundamental issues of morality and ethics, issues of effectiveness and military trategy and issues of legal --
the legality of the use of these weapons. particularly when it comes to killing civilians in a foreign country. possibly also another way. so that's what we're going to be discussing today. in somewhat of a debate format in the sense the two participants here don't necessarily agree on every single point when it comes to the legality of the use of these systems. s i mixed -- mentioned unarmed vehicles, drones have been around for a while. they were used by the united states first in the military in the 1990's. they were then armed for counterterrorism operations and first used in afghanistan in 2001. have been used in a whole variety of other theaters besides afghanistan and pakistan, including in the middle east and libya, in yemen
and other places. and it's not just the united states that has these capabilities, increasingly other countries are using and providing these weapons as well. so here's how we're going to have our discussion. i will say nothing for about 10 minutes because our two panelists will each have five minutes of introductory remarks. we'll start with profession ol other congressional and move -- professor o'connell and then move on to professor cole. professor o'connell, you have five minutes. we don't have a red white and orange light and green light but -- red light and orange light and green light but i will tell you we will try to stick to these times so we can have the discussion. ms. o'connell: i am a law professor and irish, sticking to five minutes will be
challenging but i will do my best. just two years ago we were so focused on the drones. i attended a wonderful conference at loyola law school. and people are asking, why are we still talking about drones? isn't isis the only issue on the national security agenda? and i think you're right to ask that. but in my view and the comments i want to make, i'll bring these two topics together because i link our policy of counterterrorism that so came to focus on and used the drone as in part responsible for the rise of isis. isis came up from, according to the c.i.a., nowhere but of course they were around. the c.i.a. just didn't watch as it was focused on using drone killings. drones that terrorize the people who affected, not just the target but those who have to live under the constant threat of attack. and they are open to the
recruitment by groups like isis when they say the people who sent you the drones are our enemies and we are going to train you to fight them. in fact, the drone has become the single biggest recruiting tool for islamic terrorist organizations since guantanamo was used for that purpose. now, it may be the actual success of isis itself. reliance on drones has distracted the u.s. from pursuing other more effective counterterrorism measures. drones have distracted the c.i.a. from their job of intelligence gathering and drones are associated with destabilizing the governments we need in place to oppose groups like isis. the focus on drones squanders precious resources that could be used to accomplish far more good, especially in establishing conditions for greater global security.
drone use models violence, and defiance of the rule of law as an acceptable means to accomplish positive goals. in a world awash with conflict, the u.s.'s failure to develop alternatives to the unlawful use of drones has helped give rise to groups like isis. let me very briefly lay out the law that i'm talking about that we have defied in using drones and then spend a very brief moment with more evidence on the negative consequences of that defiance of law. as ivo said, the drones that we're talking about tonight are military weapons only. they fire the hell fe missile. the ones we use, the reaper, which is the main drone in our arsenal now, fires only one weapon, the hell fire missile. it was designed by lockheed to
kill tanks. this is not a police weapon. if you're going to use a weapon like that outside the united states, you have to meet the rules of the united nations charter. these are the rules for resort to military force that are binding on a country like the united states which is a full party to the united nations and to its treaties and to other rules of international law. the charter says that all use of military force is prohibited with two narrow exceptions that are in the charter itself -- the security council can authorize force, which it did most recently in libya in 2011. or a state may use force in self-defense to an armed attack, if an armed attack occurs. that's what the charter says. and for such -- until such time as the security council enters in and helps defend the country. so when the united states went o war in afghanistan after
9/11, october 7, 2001, we did so on the basis of article 51, self-defense under the u.n. charter. that's what our letter to the security council said. but it doesn't end there. not only do you have an armed attack, as we did with the 9/11 attacks, but your use of force in self-defense must meet some other principles. it has to be a last resort. there can't be an alternative short of military force that will achieve the defensive purpose. second, the force has to do some good. it has to accomplish the necessity of that military defensive purpose. and third, it has to be proportional. you can't kill more people, do more destruction, create the ongoing revenge in your strategy to carry out defense
than was originally inflicted upon you. so this is a very narrow right to use force in self-defense and against -- if you're using a bomb against the territory of the foreign sovereign state, regardless who's there, you have to only attack the country that's responsible for the initial triggering attack. the problem with using the drone in places like pakistan, yemen, somalia, those countries never attacked the united states. and what has happened, what's been the result of the u.s. using the drone, military force unlawfully in all those countries which i contend has been the case, yemen is in far worse condition today than the first day we used the drone there which was november, 2002. our drone use, our constant military force against that small fragile country helps trigger the civil war that is
destabilizing that country and making a new home for isis there. i can go on and on about the other examples. what is better, what actually works, what we actually did in the case of osama bin laden, we didn't get him with a drone. we used basically police tactics. we used intelligence gathering and we sent a team, a commando team apparently, according to john brennan, with orders to arrest and if he resisted arrest, then to kill him in the resistance to arrest. we didn't use a drone against bin laden that is actually a model case of how to go about countering terrorism, not military force. we've been hearing from more and more of our experts in this field that drone use has this unlawful drone use in a these countries has at the end of the day as of today been counterproductive. general dan bolger just spoke
at notre dame in the fall and he said america's war on terror has been lost and the basic reason, we've been using military force which is not effective against terrorism in dick at that torial governance. -- tictatoral governance. the former head of the u.s. defense intelligence agency said drone attacks have been a failed strategy. on november 18, 2015, four former drone operators, all air force veterans, publicly criticized president obama's program for inflicting heavy civilian casualties and developing an institutional culture, callous to the death of chirp and other innocents. well, when your children are being killed unlawfully in this way through drones, the families are going to send
their surviving children off to an organization like isis to get revenge. there is a better way, one that is lawful, ethical and effective. mr. daled are -- mr. daalder: thank you. as a law professor and irish, thank you. can a cuban professor do the same? mr. cole: i want to thank the council for the hard work they put into this and also my good colleague, mary ellen. i have had the pleasure of knowing her for over 20 years. mr. coll: i respect her profoundly for her scholarship and all these things do not prevent me from disagreeing with her quite vigorously. [laughter] which shows that, of course, one can disagree with people very, very strongly and still admire them profoundly as i do. here's the problem the united
states has, ok. we have individuals in certainly parts of the world ho are engaged in planning and carrying out attacks against the united states. ok. and they operate, not in china, not n russia, not in iran, in great britain or mexico, where we might be able to extradite them, where we ask those governments to detain them. they operate in areas where we don't have a peaceful option of detaining them or incapacitating them. and so as a society, we have an obligation, ok, to respond to those attacks by attacking them. ok. and that is covered by the united nations charters rule on self-defense in article 51. mary ellen talks about
self-defense against an armed attack, and indeed when we use drone strikes against those individuals, we are responding to an armed attack. we are not responding against armed attack by yemen or by the yemeni government but we are responding against an armed attack by an individual operating in yemen. she did not tell you, of course, that under international law, yemen, pakistan and somalia have a legal international obligation to prevent individuals in their territories from carrying out attacks against the territory or the nationals of a state with which they are at peace. just as the united states has a similar obligation. we are obligated to prevent any individuals from carrying out attacks from u.s. territory against any nation or state with which we are at peace. now, these governments,
pakistan, somalia, yemen, are unwilling e or because of deep political dwigses to very present these individuals -- divisions to prevent these individuals from operating. the question is, what are we supposed to do? do we simply cross our hands and operate with impunity? well, we are not operating in a zone of armed conflict. a zone might be syria or iraq or afghanistan. but, of course, they move to another area and do we allow them to operate with impunity? is that what natural law, what morality, what the law really allows? and i suggest to you that when the language in the united nations charter was written in 1945, ok, we did not have this problem. we did not have the capacity of individuals and terrorist organizations operating in these lawless areas striking,
ok, against the united states or against other countries. so we have to respond. now, i agree that we have to respond using necessity, using proportionality. we may agree that sometimes perhaps we have used too many drone strikes and we might agree that maybe we have to be more selective, we have to be more careful, ok, but to ban drone strikes as unlawful i think makes a travesty of what international law is. international law is not a recipe for suicide. former secretary of state said this at the height of the cuban missile crisis. and so last resort, yes, in many of these cases drone strikes are a last resort because peaceful alternatives do not exist. extradiggs do not work. arrest and detention do not work. i find it interesting that mary
ellen calls the obama -- osama bin laden operation a police operation. it was not a police operation. ok. and it was not a -- it was the use of u.s. military force. it was an attack. it was a combat operation against an individual who had engaged in an armed attack against the united states. now, obviously had osama bin laden surrendered, we were under a legal obligation to arrest him and bring him back to the united states and we would have done so. if he did not surrender, we were there to kill him, ok, and it was a combat operation. proportionality, obviously, you know, drone strikes are designed to be proportional. sometimes they do cause collateral damage. sometimes innocent people get killed and we could, again, look at how we could make some of these operations much more
discriminant. we do go out of our way to make these operations very discriminatory. we try to avoid collateral damage. we make every effort not to hit individuals who are present in mosques, in hospitals, in places where there's a very high likelihood of high collateral damage. we still kill innocent people, but i suggest to you that if we were to use so-called police tactics, as mary ellen suggested, if we were to send special operation forces to arrest individuals, we would still have massive collateral damage. we would still wind up killing lots of innocent people because the militants against which we would direct these so-called police tactics would have armed supporters around them and they would use shelters in the civilian population to force us to cause these civilian casualties. i remember very clearly, of
course, in somalia we actually sent u.s. forces there to arrest the somali warlord and we all know what happened. ventually mobilized militant sympathizers. they surrounded a group of u.s. special operation forces. there was a firefight and the result was hundreds of innocent people killed. so we have to look very closely and ask the question -- what options do the united states have in some of these cases? mr. daalder: great. thanks, both of you for i think very clear definitive statements. i'll throw out a few questions in order to get the disagreement going. i will not -- [laughter] discourage any of you to -- ms. o'connell: i think it's going great. mr. daalder: but let's probe that disagreement a little bit.
mary ellen, let me start with you, because i was intrigued by the idea that it was the unlawful use of force that was big recruitment tool for isis which seems to imply that the lawful use of force against isis would not be a big recruitment tool. and yet we know that, of course, since september of -- actually, since june of 2014, the united states has engaged in military action in a lawful way against isis because it was invited by the iraqi government against an aq attack from a foreign, at least came from syria, was in a foreign country and i don't think there's any dispute that the united states, acting on behalf of the iraqi government or with the support of the iraqi government and at the
behest of the iraqi government is engaged in the lawful use of force. i would submit, however, that it is likely that isis is using that as a recruitment tool because the bombs falling from an aircraft as opposed to macele from a hell fire missile on a drone might not be distinguishable, particularly to the person who's being killed. so what is it about the unlawful use of force that is a recruitment tool as opposed to the use of force? ms. o'connell: there is a clear understanding of those people that have been victimized by drones whether they're living in a combat zone, whether they're living in a place that has fomented an attack on the united states that they or their neighbors or their country's responsible for. there's a clear understanding between that and people who believe they've done nothing to this country and yet are being victimized. the evidence is overwhelming,
political scientists collecting data, journalists collecting data has shown time and time again people that live in rural pakistan who do not believe -- and they are correct -- that they have done anything to the united states, they are the ones who are saying, if we're going to be victimized, we're going to look for a way that we can respond with revenge. our government won't stand up for us. it's under the thumb of the united states, and we are going to do something. we're not going to just try to live our lives and put up with this kind of business. so that's how the recruitment tool and that's -- because international law, ivo, really does track -- it's older than u.s. law. it has built up incrementally, and it really does follow a great deal of common sense. the rules, as alberto already suggested, on the use of force in the u.n. charter, these
rules that are -- that alberto seems to feel that we can adjust as our own u.s. policy permits, but these are rules dating from or emerging from the just war doctrine. they are very deeply engrained in people's natural moral understanding of what is right and wrong. and people around the world have a very instinctive and strong moral sense of when they should be free of this kind of violent attacks, this kind of destructive attack, and when they are on notice, the people of syria, for example, when opposition members to the government decided to take up arms and fight, people throughout syria knew they were now in danger. but the people of pakistan, where we have been attacking and have made -- and some of
their neighbors have common cause with the afghan tal ban, they don't see -- taliban, they don't see that as an attack of the united states and that's where the recruiting -- and i can make the same comment and stronger terms about yemen. yemen had a problem with certain lawless terrorist groups coming there and taking advantage of their relatively weak government. much stronger than the situation in yemen now. and in those days, the united states was working with the yemen government during the clinton administration after the attack on a u.s. naval ship, the u.s.s. cole in 2000, and the f.b.i. -- this is another response, really, to alberto -- was being very effective in rounding up the group of individuals who had carried out that attack. they were prosecuted. they were in jail. we took our eye off yemen. we didn't give them the kind of
support that that weak and small government needed when we decided to invade iraq in 2003 and, yes, bribes were paid. it was easy for these al qaeda members to get out and then at that point, the u.s. was using drones regularly in yemen and by then in pakistan and they were able to use these al qaeda members in afghanistan -- in yemen were able to use that fact to say, do you want to see muslims, innocent women and children being attacked? because when a drone strike attacks, it's not like a bullet in the head, an assassination of that kind. these early strikes, especially, were inevitably taking 20, 30 people every time. not just the intended target, but people who had nothing to do with anything that individual might have done in the past or the future. so in yemen, it's a clear
straight line between drone attacks which began in 2002 in november and the growth of al qaeda in yemen. so those drone attacks were unlawful. people knew it. and it helped recruit to the point where isis doesn't need to point to drones anymore. the fact they've been successful against u.s.-backed forces from iraq and the u.s.-backed opposition in syria, it's that very success against the military might of the united states and its proxies in the area that has helped. so we're now in a very bad situation created by the failure to take the wisdom and guidance of this ancient area of international law, restraining the use of force with its embedded morality, follow that, use -- maybe it takes more patience or time, alberto, but at the end of the
day the way the british controlled their problems of the i.r.a., the way that the germans controlled their terrorism problem and the way we were having great success against al qaeda after the 1993 world trade center attacks, after the 1998 embassy attack and after the u.s.s. cole, we took our eye off the ball. we didn't do the good police work. we didn't pay attention to the intelligence in 2001, and then we exacerbated that mistake through using military force in declaring this global war on terror. that's where -- why where we are now. you could ask but i've saved enough. mr. daalder: because we do get into a different argument of the global war on terror and the instrument. i do want to stick with the instrument and the sentalt of the instrument in this discussion. -- centrality of the instrument in this discussion.
alberto, you make the opposition that we are living in a slightly different world. a world that is different than the one in 1945 when we drew up the charter in san francisco in which we were concerned about nation going to war against a nation and now we are talking about individuals going to war against a nation and that's the dilemma we face from an international legal perspective but also from a practical security perspective. as i think you made the case. how far do we want to push this? let me take the case of the united states deciding that it s ok to kill american citizens in other countries as indeed the united states did in the ase in yemen, in the case of
anwar al-awlaki, by the way, scott wrote a terrific book on that dilemma. where is the legal justification that says it's not just a foreign individual but now an american individual who can be targeted under those policies? mr. coll: yes. i don't have a problem with that because american nationals, ok, who leave the united states and plan attacks against the united states become combatants. and we have a series of u.s. supreme court decisions going back to the 1940's, very famous case of the german sabbateurs landed in new jersey. two of them were american nationals. and we have lots of german americans who at the outbreak of world war ii went to germany. they joined the german armed
forces, and they put on german army uniforms and they joined and when we were fighting against them, we did not say, well, we have to detain them because they're american citizens. we simply engaged in combat with them. so american nationals, like mr. al-awlaki, who leave the united states and become combatants against the united states basically are assuming the risk of combatants and the president can order that they be attacked. now, there has to be a process in place, ok, and the president needs to have a process in which the intelligence is reviewed very carefully to determine that indeed they are combatants, that they're not just preaching sermons in a mosque but that they are engaged in planning and attacks against the united states and that intelligence should be reviewed by legal counsel and the administration. but ultimately the president,
under the constitution, has the obligation to protect the united states against people who are planning attacks. let me make it very clear. we're not attacking simply an enemy. this is not a case of political assassination, ok. i do not condone political assassination. do not condone trying to kill fidel castro or patrice or salvador who may have been enemies of the united states but who are not planning attacks against the united states. that's the key distinction. so as combatants, individuals such as mr. al-awlaki, places themselves at risk and you cannot simply say to the united states, well, we'll arrest them. we can try to arrest them, mary ellen. 'm for peaceful -- i think that -- no more than we should have killed the boston bomber,
you know. we arrested them. they're within u.s. territory. we have the appropriate legal instruments to deal with them. but these individuals who operate in lawless areas in which the governments are unwilling or unable to turn them over to us or allow us to work with them, we have to be able to defend ourselves and to the extent that the f.b.i. was able to do this in yemen early on, i applaud their efforts. i think that's a preferred strike. whatever we can, ok. but i think that we are not able to do that in every place around the world. there are places around the world where the f.b.i. is not able to operate to bring these individuals to justice. and to also protect ourselves from the danger that they're posing. so the rules i think are still there. i'm a strong believer in morality. i'm a strong believer in the just war tradition. the rules of the charter are there, but an armed attack is not the same thing in 1945 as
what it means today. in other words, today armed attacks are carried out not only by states but also by these individuals because of technology, because of globalization and all kinds of developments, including social media, are able to attack us in ways that they really could not do back then 70 years ago. ms. o'connell: i didn't say this before and i want everyone to understand, regardless of alberto's argument based on practicality and the world changing, the law has not changed. in 2005, the united nations held a world summit in new york city and every member of the u.n. agreed to abide by the u.n. charter rules that i explained to you, as written. there was no exception made for this idea that was first trotted out by some think tank
folks in the u.k. that instead of reacting to -- mr. daalder: nothing wrong with think tank folks. ms. o'connell: we love think tank folks but we don't let them decide for our countries what international law is. and they want to allow attacks based on a state being unable or unwilling to prevent terrorism. the world community is never going to accept that, really. we're going to allow vladimir putin decide that the ukraine is unable and unwilling to control a lawless problem on its territory. we're going to let the ayatollah khomeini decide that israel is unable or unwilling, no, it doesn't work as a general rule and it's never going to be adopted and nobody gives the u.s. an exceptional right to decide who's unable or who's unwilling to control their lawlessness. they say that it's lawless in
yemen -- alberto does. that is not the view within yemen. yemen gets to control its own country. in fact, the lawlessness you find there today has a lot to do with us. so if we get back to being a cooperative supportive country helping to build the rule of law, supporting criminal justice, we'd be able to do this extradition, supporting the message that did work in the u.k. and in germany and in the united states itself. . regardless of what works and doesn't work, the law does not permit what alberto is suggesting. if scott was here, i'm sure he was talking about his new book, which is focused on al-awlaki. one of the most important points made is this very technology is driving people to think that what you could do with it must be lawful. you've got the capacity and you want to use it and therefore that's clouding your clear-eyed
view to what the law and morality actually require. his careful reporting, shane's reful reporting shows that al-awlaki was no combatant. he was guilty of propaganda and inducing people to commit terrible crimes, perhaps, although he's never been tried for that in a court of law as opposed to inside the white house, and shane makes, i think, a very strong case that he was killed out of revenge. not because it was lawful under our constitution, under the human rights treaties that we are committed to, or under the u.n. charter that this country, our president, franklin delano roosevelt, wrote. this is an example of how careful you have to be with technology like the drone that makes it so easy with very little risk to the country itself, not putting their on own individuals in harm's way, not asking them to pay the
price and patience, persistence, resourcefulness in doing the right thing. but look at the -- it may have some short-term benefit, but really long-term costs. that's absolutely the isis story. mr. daalder: i want to give you one chance to come back. then we want to open up the floor. start thinking of questions. if you don't have any, you haven't been listening. as you come back on this point, i just international law, lie all law evolves. -- like all law evolves, thedy lema you paint of states no longer being able to control necessarily what happens in their own territory, as for example changed humanitarian law with regard to responsibility to protect, which 200 world leaders have also accepted as a concept. we haven't agreed what to do
about it, that's true for most of the things we do under law. how does international law change if it does change? mr. coll: it changes because international law reflects also customary international, it reflects practices. professor thomas frank, who was a wonderful scholar of international law, and a very strong supporter of the rule of law internationally, argued very convincingly in the last decade of his life, that article 24, this absolute prohibition of the united nations charter on the use of force had to be interpreted in light of what actually was going on in the world. nobody would accuse him of being an anigh list, but you have to recognize the use of force is not simply conventional armies invading another state as saddam hussein did in 1990 when he invaded kuwait. what we have here is a very
serious problem. with regards to russia, ok, and cane -- ue cane, if ue allowed armed -- if ukraine allowed arm groups in its territory to carry out attacks against russia, russia would have legitimate grounds for holding the ukrainian government to -- these governments have an international responsibility to control the launching of armed attacks from their territory against another state. when they don't exercise that responsibility, you cannot expect another state to simply fold its arms and say, well, it might take 10 years. we are going to try to arrest them in situations where that is not practical. i would be the first to say if it's practical, yes, we need do it. i think that we need to understand this. that the united states, of course you can look at its policy and say let's see how we
can improve t maybe there have been too many of these drone attacks, but to argue that this technology is simply unacceptable, i think, basically deprives us of a very legitimate means to exercise our right to self-defense against individuals who are planning attacks. i think there was a lot of intelligence on al-awlaki. he was not simply a preacher. he was involved in operational planning activities. and i think that was part of the intelligence that led president obama to authorize his killing. so i think that in the end we have to look at these issues and say, states have a right to defend themselves. and this is not simply a matter of discarding the rules of international law, but recognizing that these rules have to be applied not just in terms of restraining the use of law but allowing law to be used to justify self-defense in legitimate situations. mr. daalder: at this point i
want to go to the audience. please put up your arm and we will have someone bring a microphone. one of the things we like about it when you ask questions, is that you actually ask a question. so that we can have as many people of us participate. we are going to start right here up front. wait for the microphone. there you go. >> thank you. i teach university level courses on terrorism. the question i have is a question of fact. were there not before 1945 considerable nonstate actors that involved attacks on civilians and on governments when one things at the beginning of world war i, for example, but also the people's will in russia and a whole host of other examples. how does that fit into your factual statement that in 1945 there were -- the law was based
only on nation states and esumably the treaty -- mr. coll: the transnational capabilities were not there. you could mention, for example, the fact that in serbia there were some people who very much ated austria hungary, and that came from one of those groups. there was not the ability to systematically organize and carry out attacks against transnational boundaries across large distances. as there is today. very different situation. ms. o'connell: they absolutely did have nonstate actor armed groups in mind. there are provisions in international humanitarian law, of course, that were built on the spanish civil war where there was plenty of capacity to carry out an awful lot of violence. in fact, as capacity and as the technology becomes more and more widespread, the -- it's
going to become incumbent if you're going to have any kind of sense of order and restraining of the rule of law to raise the taboo against this nd of violence, to ever more really stick to the rule of lauf as agreed by the international community, and not take these soft interpretations that meet your needs at the moment, but don't have the idea of how we are going to really raise in people's minds that violence is beyond the pail. that the answer is not to turn -- pale. that the answer is not to turn to the bombs. do you have the possibility of being part of a government that gives you a voice. the emphasis by alberto that somehow i'm saying you don't have a right of self-defense, yes, you do. but again for the united states to treat somebody like al ckey -- al-awlaki as a
defendant, and to defend the country modeled on germany's invasion of poland, that's where we are putting -- where we are really getting things wrong and not understanding the lessons of history. thanks for your point. a good one. mr. daalder: i want to come back in one minute. mr. coll: very briefly. when we attacked al-awlaki, we were not attacking the country, we were attacking him. ms. o'connell: that's not what yemen thigsthist. where were the bombs and where were the other -- mr. daalder: let me put it on because frankly i think that's thedy lema, right? -- the dilemma, right? if you were attacking individuals in your own contry. it's another thing in another contry. that's where the dilemma exists. the question is is it a combatant or not? which is maybe or maybe not a factual one. let me bring on another person. with a quefment -- question. >> i'm president of robowatch,
we are watching for everyone. come visit us. i would ask you, professor, you talk about the seductive technology of a drone. let me ask you what a drone is. it's a flying robot of death. now, have we not set, sir, a dangerous and convenient precedent of killer robots eliminating certain human beings? and the robots will continue to evolve by moore's law. doubling our capacity every 18 months. how long will it be -- think about the unintended secondary consequences in the future of allowing robots to become bringers of death to human beings. ms. o'connell: thank you very much for that comment because one of the things we didn't have time to talk about is what is happening. that's in the laboratories the
united states is hard at work on the, what we call, the fully autonomous robotic weapon. to this will allow us program a drone, to attack at some time in the distant future, years after the programming, on parameters that the programmer today thinks are important, and through using sensor technology and other means that are also being developed, the robotic weapon carries out its lethal task. that is a super big problem in my mind. this technology is now subject of a u.n. review in switzerland, part of the article 33 review process. and there is a very strong effort to try to create a rule that fully autonomous robotic
weapons will not be permitted. that there always has to be a human being in the near time decision to kill. and i support that. but what i support even more is understanding that the best way -- we are not going to -- the history of arms control is that we are not going to stop the inventions. the way we succeeded in the past is creating legal barriers to use. the prohibition on the use of the nuclear weapon, the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, the prohibition on the use of blinding laser weapons, that's what has succeeded. so we need a legal prohibition on fully autonomous robotic weapons, and we need to restrict the use of drone technology with the hellfire missile to armed conflict zones and not to policing matters. mr. coll: i think we are in danger of confusing two issues. one is the issue of technology
that is not supervised by human beings. on this i agree with professor o'connell. absolutely, we don't want a situation in which weapons of themselves make these decisions. but right now that's not the situation with drones. drones are fully controlled by the president. they are under the full command. there is no robotic drone out there on its own deciding who to target. let's not be overly dramatic about this issue. the second thing i want to say is that with regards to policing, if the american people want to have a conversation and decide that we want to ban drones along with other states, ban them as we might ban chemical weapons or biological weapons, that's a very legitimate conversation, but we need to be aware of what the costs will be. which are different from the costs of banning chemical
weapons. the costs will be that we will be vulnerable to attacks by these individuals who will then not operate within an armed conflict zone but operate somewhere else. and they will have impunity to plan attacks against us in areas where we will not prack particular will i be able to arrest them -- practically be able to arrest them or detain them f we want to incur that risk and decide that that morally is acceptable, that's a decision for us to make. but i think that right now the idea that somehow we could allow these individuals to find areas in the world where they could operate freely under the justification, this is not a combat area, therefore we cannot attack them, is morally inappropriate. ms. o'connell: alberto, it's non sequitur to say if we didn't have drones we can't do anything about the terrorist threat. we did plenty on the terrorist threat before we had drones.
that's simply a non sequitur. we have plenty that we can do. we have plenty that we can do. and i'm not saying that the legitimate use of drones on the battlefield, they have been as we heard from our introducer, they can be very, very helpful in a close combat engagement situation where you know you're engaging two sets of fighting forces. where they don't -- where they have been unbalanced and nobody doubts this counterproductive, is in trying to go after a single individual suspected of a past crime and perhaps planning a future one. we don't allow that in the united states. we could do the same thing. we have plenty of people plotting things here as we know. and by your logic we should be using these invaluable drones to fly around after them. to say we can do this in the
small list of countries is to say that they somehow, those countries don't deserve the same respect of the rest of the countries in the world. we are not -- we are in no position under international law to make those claims. but my real objection is for your painting this black and white extreme if we don't use drone attacks in yemen, we can't do anything. it mr. coll: in many ways we cannot do anything. in certain places of the world. that's why i draw a distinction. there are many countries in the world where these groups don't operate a precisely the government, even though they don't like us, do not allow attacks against us. ms. o'connell: you do agree, alberto, that international law doesn't say to the u.s. you can pick and choose the countries where you want to where you are allowed to kill with hellfire missiles and the -- mr. coll: international law does say the states have the responsibility to prevent their territories from being used.
ms. o'connell: what does international law say is the right response to a country that's not fulfilling its obligation? not doing its due diligence? unless that country's responsible for an armed attack on the u.s., we have to work through counter measures, sanctions, or coppings to get them into line. -- cooperation to get them into line. mr. daalder: i'll raise what happened in october of 2001 as a counter example, which is to say that a terrorist organization trained and operated from afghanistan, attacked the united states, and our invasion of that country was designed precisely to go after the individuals who were responsible for this because the government explicitly failed to take care of it. i think the issue there was one, do you use military force, as we did the afghanistan war when we didn't have drone
attacks and probably wont wouldn't have been very effective, or not? ms. o'connell: the facts are somewhat different . when we went to war in afghanistan, the british had produced a detailed white paper that pointed out purposes of international law analysis, the links between the taliban government and the al qaeda and its training camps. it was on that basis that the u.s. and britain made their cases to the treaty council in a pair of letters that went forward and pointed out exactly e rule of law that i'm emphasizing here that afghanistan was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. subsequently we know that the british have a problem with cooking the books. as they diddle with 2003 as well. -- as they did with 2003 as well. the international community accepted as the proper legal basis for going to war in afghanistan under article 51 in self-defense was weaker and to
our great regret, because how many years did we fight there and what is happening in afghanistan today? that was also a case, if you have remembered lawrence wright, the looming tower, we would have been far better off if we had taken a very different strategy than wholesale force, but it was our understanding from the british evidence that were fully -- mr. daalder: i'm going to open up the question. the issue here actually is really isn't about drones but it is about under what circumstances do you use force o deal with terrorism. >> is germany the only foreign country from which the united tates launches drone wars? ms. o'connell: no. we have drone bases in about half a dozen countries now. but the only european country and of course as you probably
know the germany bundestag is investigating whether germany is complicit in unlawful killing as a result of supporting and providing intelligence and location. and i'm expecting that there will be action by the bundestag to end that on that complicity and unlawful conduct. mr. daalder: there are no -- as far as i am aware, drones being used from gatherman soil. not one of the -- german soil. not one of the bases. the question was whether there was another place in which american bases outside of germany. germany is not one of the places we base drones. >> thank you. congratulations because i'm more confused about who is right than ever. we'll argued on both sides. two questions, one for professor coll.
one in terms of, one of the things you mentioned was the degree of certainty that either administrative -- administration or intelligence agency would need to have to essentially authorize lethal force. really that is the ultimate question. so how do we define that degree of certainty? just to go a little deeper, which is it is very well documented that essentially machine learning algorithms have been used to essentially indicate potential threat moving forward and that in and of itself has been used to authorize lethal force. so would like to get your kind of thoughts on that. the second one is in terms of you, professor o'connell, round -- let's not kid
ourselves. yemen is a ok with us launching drones in their country. they are clearing as hot whether publicly or not, pakistan in the same right if anything where probably we were doing them a favor and potentially by releasing and doing less we actually may have encouraged them to do more in their own right. can you talk a little bit about when the u.s. is launching these strikes on individuals with either explicit or implicit kind of agreement from the host nation? mr. coll: in answer to your question, i think the standards, the president and his attorney general have tried to articulate to the american public, some of those standards, the standards not simply speech, it is not sympathy, it is not the fact that somebody's n enemy of the
united states -- an enemy of the united states, it is the fact that a person in question is participating in action supporting, ok, the planning and the carrying out of an attack against the united states. and that is gathered on the basis of intelligence. and the evidence has to be multisourced. it cannot just be one human intelligence source saying, johnny is plotting to do this. there has to be several sources. and then that is studied very carefully, decide whether it rises to the level of planning and participating in an armed attack against the united states or u.s. nationals. and that evidence is reviewed by legal counsel within the executive branch. so i think those are reasonable standards. obviously we have to continue to subject them to scrutiny and demand that the president does
abide by those standards. but we are not talking simply about speech. we are not talking simply about taking a political position. we aren't talking about specific steps taken by an individual to plan and participate in an attack against the united states. ms. o'connell: consent of a country where we might be using military force. first, the facts with regard to pakistan, there is an excellent pakistani international lawyer, he has detailed information about the authority structure within pakistan. it's very clear from his book and from my own independent research that the united states has never had the clear and explicit authorization of the president, of the elected president of pakistan. we have had some cooperation and some quid pro quo negotiating, you kill our guy,
and we'll let you kill the guy you want to kill. that kind of poker playing deal making which is offensive, i hope, to every american, from the i.s.i., from some members of the military in pakistan, this is like asking the c.i.a., if mexico were to ask the c.i.a. if they can kill some of their drug lords here in miami on vacation because it would be an easier place to send a drone to where they are out having a good time on the water off miami, because the u.s. obviously can't control its borders, and we have heard that from plenty of people recently, so can the c.i.a. give mexico some authorization? mexico's got drones. we have given them drones to take out a guy. this is the same as asking the i.s.i. for permission to kill people in their territory. that's pakistan. yemen we did. in november, 2002, the first
use of a drone outside of battle zone was to kill six people in a passenger vehicle -- yemen.in yem there was one american, a 23-year-old from upstate new york who hadn't fired a weapon as far as i know, decided that al qaeda was the real deal, and found his way somehow to yemen and was in this vehicle with the intended target, the one intended target, six people, the c.i.a. operating out of djibouti, sends a drone and shoots two hellfire missiles into this vehicle. the c.i.a. then flies in, repels down to the site, takes d.n.a. to prove they got their guy. this is the lawless, chaotic situation that alberto was talking about. yes, we had the president of yemen indirect ok for that. as far as i know presidents of countries can't give their ok
to deny the basic and fundamental human right to life. there was no armed conflict going on in his country that he invited us in to help suppress, as we have been invited into iraq or we were invited into afghanistan after karzai came to power. those were the basis on which we used force for 12 years in afghanistan and are using force in iraq right now. we had consent to suppress a civil war and insurrection. but that's not what was going on in yemen. so we got permission to violate fundamental human right to life. i don't think he had the permission to give. so much for consent. mr. daalder: the gentleman in the back. given our time probably will be the last question. >> i think this will be short. you mentioned, professor coll, the basis for a drone strike,
legitimate basis for a drone strike is a government's inability tore willingness to control its own territory. last year somewhere around 17,000 americans died as a result of drug overdoses. thousands more were killed indirectly. that's more than terrorists have killed of all stripes over the last 100 years. now, mexico's the primary source for those illicit drugs. the mexican government may be willing, but unable to control large portions of its territory, pick -- thrick in the south. i'm wondering if you feel targeted drone strikes can be used in mexico against drug lords. if not, why not? mr. coll: absolutely not. there is a fundamental legal difference, ok? drugs kill people, but so does their pollution. so does cancer. so does reckless driving. what happens with regards to mexico and drugs coming to this country is a matter fit for the
criminal law. it's a criminal activity. it is not the sponsorship of an armed attack using weapons against the united states. >> you're saying it's only the motivation that justifies -- mr. coll: it's not just the moat if i vation. there is a discontinuing between using an armed attack and simply exporting to a country substances that may cause people who wish to consume that product great harm, including death. two very different things. no more than the united states when philip morris exports cigarettes to a foreign country and those cigarettes cause cancer, that cause people to die, that country would be justified in firing drones at us. significant difference. an armed attack means something very different than simply spelling substance that is may cause harm. ms. o'connell: i think the important aspect of your point
is how this thinking about drones is deluding the idea of when and where you can use violence and when not. in july, 2001, our ambassador to israel said that this country was morally and legally opposed to targeted killing. and now we do it without hesitation. as soon as the c.i.a. brings some evidence to the white house that this guy might be planning something in the future and he's in an area where we are only kill maybe six or seven people around him, let's kill him. we used to think that that was an anathema. that that was wrong. now for a modicum of what turns out to be false security, we think that's ok. so why not the drug lords? why not the reckless driver who is drunk driving and kills six people? he knew he was going -- he knew
when he went out drinking and didn't make arrangements to get home, why can't we pull out our guns and kill that guy? we see how this view that killing in all these different contexts has infected our police forces, that they have -- militarized. we have taken violence as accept afpblet and this leadership from the white house deluding, lowering the threshold that we think violence is beyond the pale is causing an endemic of exactly the kind are you worried about in your question. mr. coll: i would like to respond. i think that the framework that mary ellen is giving us, ok, would leave us unable to respond to a very serious threat posed by individuals and groups against the united states. and the rules of international law were not intended to prevent the united states from defending itself. all the great --
moral theorists would say that there has to be a means by which law recognizes that new and sadly and tragically ever more creative ways of carrying out violence are created and that there has to be a means of responding to that, that also provides the deterrence so individuals will know that if they operate in certain parts of the world, planning attacks against the united states, they could be subjected to destruction. that's important. and that is part of the deterrence in a very, fallen, sinful world. mr. daalder: i think we live in a complicated world in which even if we agree what the rules are, how to apply them under what circumstances and for what purposes is contentious. this is -- it's been a great contentious debate. it's been civilized, which is good.
i know we won't end this by disagreement -- by -- with agreement, but i do think we will end it by thanking both of you for elucidating some of the difficulties. [applause] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the u.s. house returns at 2:00 p.m. eastern, just under a half-hour for legislative work. members will consider nine bills, including one to continue fema and make a few changes to the agentcy. they'll also work on another bill providing training for state and local law enforcement on counterterrorism tactics. no votes until 6:30 eastern. you'll be able to see the house live when they gavel in at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span.
texas senators ted cruz holds a rally in san antonio, texas. joined by texas governor greg abbott and former governor rick perry. live coverage of that road to the white house event begins live at 3:00 eastern on c-span3. former secretary of state hillary clinton, she is in virginia this afternoon. c-span3 will have live coverage of her rally, which is scheduled for 4:30 eastern. and then you can see donald trump at his campaign rally in georgia. that's coming up this evening at 6:30 eastern. c-span3, we'll have live coverage of that. >> president obama earlier today awarded the medal of honor at the white house to u.s. navy seal team 6 senior chief special warfare operator,
edward byers. for his part in an operation that rescued an american civilian being held hostage in afplgt the president called the ceremony a rare opportunity for americans to get a glimpse of the country's special operators. noting also the event might be one of the largest gatherings of special operators ever at the white house. you can see that ceremony on our website, c-span.org. very quickly again, the house comes back at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work. while we wait for that, a look at the nation's nuclear arsenal from this morning's "washington journal." me for our regular your money segment. we take a look at the u.s. nuclear stockpile in what is needed to maintain that stockpile and what is meant for the future. joining us is aaron metha. thank you for joining us. can you tell us why we still have a nuclear-based stockpile as it is? guest: the argument that is put forward from proponents is essentially, look at russia and
china. they are not getting rid of their nuclear weapons anytime soon. that is something we need to maintain our edge on. it is called x essential issue for the u.s. military to be able to match up with these countries and show that if there is ever a nuclear fight, the u.s. will come out ahead. about 7100 nuclear weapons, russia has about 7700 and there is falloff from their. guest: under the new treaty, those numbers will come down. the argument is that you can do a lot of damage with 7500 or 4000 or 1000 nuclear weapons. what is the appropriate cap? when dealing with the money needed to maintain these weapons, what areas are we talking about? guest: the congressional budget organization came out and said
that over the next 10 years, the project the nuclear arsenal costs about $350 billion. that number will go up pretty high on average in the 20 20's. other groups have come out, one think tank says it will be about 70 -- $700 billion in the next 25 years. was a group inside the department of energy which handles the development, production, design of the actual new warhead. those delivery systems are the icbms, the bombers, the air controlled cruse missiles and the navy submarines. the issue that is coming up right now is that all of these systems are essentially edging out over the next 15 years to get to the point were those systems are replaced, various services in the pentagon have to begin spending the money now in designing systems and get them under way. that has been seen as an opportunity from the
nonproliferation crowd to go at them and say do need all of these systems? there are various cases being made and you are seeing this layout in the hill. host: in the next 10 years, is it just replacing the systems to launch on -- or the missiles themselves? guest: it is both. the nsa is trying to combine various warheads down to about five different variants. that will also cost several billions of dollars. will talk about those delivery systems and the u.s. nuclear stockpile, the money needed to maintain those. guests, if you have questions, you can call (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. list,.o down the and then we can talk specifics
$160 billion price tag across the middle east. give us specifics, one we talking about as far as the actual delivery systems? guest: the first one is the navy's replacement for the ohio class submarine. if you have seen movies that in the case of a nuclear war would want -- lunch nuclear missiles from underwater, that is the first bill that will come due. a newnvolves building reactor, actual submarines, designing the systems. host: -- commonly referred to as the ohio class. technologies,ew they will have less of them than they currently have. it will be stealthier, more capable, more weapons. -- it becomes less
about the nuclear capabilities and more about the fact that the systems are old and they have to be replaced if that part of the so-called nuclear triad is going to remain. used thatis a term refers to the fact that there are basically three ways that nuclear weapons could be icbm.red, by air, sea or host: how much of that triad is sea-based? guest: the icbms are the biggest numbers. the submarine force is important because it is considered -- it is the one you would put in the pacific to hold china accountable and let them know that there are systems near the territory. host: are they always loaded with weapons and to continually move around? guest: it is rotational. if there is a need for a presence, they will send one.
in some cases, they will let the countries know they are there because the point of all nuclear weapons in the u.s. is deterrence. the goal is to remind everyone in the world that we have these things and we have the capability to hold him accountable if you tried to be a bad actor. the submarines are interesting because in some ways, it is the hidden part of the triad. it is the force that you don't know where it is. in other ways, the point that you don't know where it is and you know -- and we know that is kind of the core of the whole idea. host: we will talk more about the systems as we continue with our discussion. numbers will be on your screen if you want to ask questions. let's start with judy in virginia. caller: thank you. i grew up in the cold war. the thing that horrifies me most is nuclear war. what horrifies me is that when
we develop the atomic weapons and dropped it on nice psyche and hiroshima -- on nagasaki and hiroshima, we did not have television yet. telephone operators were still transferring calls by manually plugging into control boards. hands, in hold in our paul pilots or anything like a bank ofpower that computers used to have in the 1950's. there are hydrogen weapons, neutron weapons which are a lot more expensive. therelse could be out that we are up against, because we certainly have to maintain our defense and i think we have to upgrade our weaponry. from what i understand, the russians have gone down because their missiles are more accurate. they have gone down to kill a tonnage as opposed to make a
atonnage.- meg what can we do to defend against this and what do we need because certainly, we have to be number one in this. ,uest: i think the answer is you see a lot of investment coinciding with the kind of new nuclear non--- modernization that has been the focus of the last few years. something like a nuclear strike is going to be a priority. this is where things like cyber come into play. the u.s. has the capacity to do a cyber attack against a nation that could potentially stop something like this from happening. the best determined from a nuclear war or attack is generally going to be a mix of diplomacy and of the actual u.s. deterrent, knowing that any country that would strike the u.s. would be responded to in kind from this mix of
capabilities. the enemy will necessarily know where they are at any given time. host: washington, d.c., trevor, democrat. drop the whole playful euphemisms of deterrence and response? so we are talking about is genocide and mass murder. i visited the titan missile site that was turned into a museum and what struck me was, there are no plans for the people who lost that missile to survive. it was the subject of jokes among the operators. this is annihilation. given that our real threat nuclear weapons is a symmetrix, people who we can't to deter with mass murder and mass annihilation. isn't it insane to incentivize our potentially unstable states like russia and pakistan to build more nuclear weapons, which could potentially end up
in the hands of someone who wishes to use them? guest: that is the core of the argument from the arms control association and groups similar to that, that essentially the more the u.s. invests in nuclear weapons, the more likely it is other nations will do the same in the creates the potential for a rogue actor to lay hands on nuclear weapons. russia and the u.s. lead by magnitudes, the world in terms of numbers of actual weapons. the counter you hear from the pentagon or congress to support this action is essentially, russia and china both said they will continue to invest in their arsenal. if we don't do the same, we will fall behind and be held at this asymmetric advantage. frankly, your argument falls down on where you believe whether nuclear weapons should never be used again or not. guest: aside from russia -- host: aside from russia and
china, who is the next biggest threat? guest: threat wise, those are the existential threats, several u.s. allies have nuclear weapons. north korea is the big wildcard in all of this. exactly what capabilities they have is unclear, at least to the public. they have demonstrated in the last couple of months a willingness to show that they have these weapons and of a have some capabilities. it is unclear if they could really strike the u.s. or not, but a good certainly strike u.s. allies in the region. in thoses iran change it -- in that list because of the agreements that have been made? guest: according to the agreement, they will not have nuclear weapons, that was the whole impetus was to eliminate them as a nuclear armed state. host: john from new jersey, caller: thank you very much.
since the vast majority of people in this world in this piece, isn't it time for our leaders to take the lead and get all the other leaders of the world to sit down in a common sense conference and stop this altogether, to stop this proliferation completely. this should go to a public referendum in the united states and save hundreds of billions of dollars to go to something useful and life enhance thing rather than destruction and the moral courage is there in our leaders. this could get done. think that is in some ways what the new start is about. interesting the number of candidates who have been asked about this on the campaign trail
, several from struck out over the course of last year, asked about how you feel about nuclear weapons and almost all of them said at some point, i would like to see the world at zero nuclear weapons. that is not a realistic goal. theink that is shared by administration and others. the focus has become more about getting numbers down. there is a sense that is not a realistic goal in this world now. host: we showed you the $160 billion estimated price tag, about 8 billion dollars for tactical systems, $80 billion for weapons laboratories and $62 billion for command and control. specifically because of sequestration? to what degree. >> this is the long tail of sequestration in budget caps.
the pentagon would essentially have as much money as it wanted and while this would be a big price tag, everything would be fine for them. under the budget cap proposed by sequestration, you have a money is where tighter. how tight is the matter of argument, a slush fund by critics. the issue the pentagon is having and they are speaking openly about this, starting in 2022, a lot of conventional systems have to be modernized as well. time, the new ohio cost replacement, the new weapons systems are all coming online from a nuclear aspect. you are seeing these two collide. the pentagon is saying if the budget cuts are made, we do not -- we will have to find things
to cut. you are also defending a system with a cold war mentality. to say it. best way >> it is a strange mix the pentagon has been struggling to find a balance with. republican line, bill, you are next. go ahead. caller: over the past couple of years, the obama administration has been implementing this to asia, moving the u.s. navy there and i was wondering how nuclear strategy figures into that, specific we, john kasich mentioned that if he were president, he would upgrade ballistic missile defenses and south korea. terms of theg, in
peninsula and japan in particular, what u.s. nuclear looks like inlies israel now, and what kinds of --ansions are contractions or contractions could we expect in the future. >> there are two factors in this. the first is the ability to have the nuclear submarines floating in the pacific, letting everyone in the region know, whoever may be in conflict with the u.s., at these things are there and are able to have a response. the other aspect is the missile-defense aspect. play outeing that right now with the anti-miss it the u.s.e system that has discussed for years and never really went anywhere. after the last nuclear launch, the countries will have a serious is gushing this week. china has raised serious
concerns about that because the system comes with a radar that would seem to china would be intentionally spying for the u.s. .hey are trying to put pressure particularlyreat, north korea to japan to south korea, two other upcoming allies, it is a real thing that will be a big budget driver, very much a focus of the carter secretary of defense administration right now. ross, new york, democrats line. caller: i am glad the topic is being discussed, but i do have to take issue with what was said as the rationale our defense department uses for
having to keep our weapons up to date. is in order to have the ability to prevail in a nuclear war. the liney to stay on and dialogue on this. it is up to you folks. the fact is, 100 nuclear weapons, 100 missiles, especially if each is an independently targeted reentry vehicle, 100 weapons would life inlly destroy all the united states and make the united states unlivable. explain whyd you you say that prevail is the
intent of the defense establishment? sure. that is a term you here at the argument,nd not my necessarily. the nuclear power many countries to wipe oute enough the world with less weapons and they currently have. that is driving down the number of weapons and you that argument made quite a bit from the community. where do the weapons exist generally in the united states? guest: the western part. you may have heard there were a couple of cheating scandals at air force bases throughout that part of the world. the issue that has been there with the ground-based -- deterrent is it is not a great job. it has become abundantly clear that the people doing this job feel they are not treated
properly. they are not given respect other members of services are and that the morale has been really low. talking the secretary openly about the need to not just modernize the actual weapons but modernize the way that particular career path in the air force goes. host: we heard the term, minuteman three. that is the existing system now and it is supposed to age out by the end of the early 2030's. a name that will probably get a -- quippiera quick title at some point. they have notd necessarily started the way they started the next bomber and submarine program. host: our guest to talk about the issues with updating and keeping the arsenal. --
david from tennessee, independent line, you are next. good morning. my question is not really about the nuclear part. it is about any devices, electromagnetic pulse devices that could knock out the electrical system or sort of , that anybody could use before they started something. sure, that is something that gets talked about a lot. personally, i think there is less concern about something like any mp strike then there is about a cyber attack that would knock out critic structure or take-out capabilities. even something as simple as
denying gps, which everyone thinks of driving a car -- that is actually an air force program and it is how a lot of weapons use their guidance weapons to find a target. is a lot of concern something like that could take out infrastructure capabilities without messes rarely using a kinetic strike of them sort. host: jerry from the florida republican line. i am showing my age but i was a command major in 1963-1970 in colorado springs. i think it is an absolute necessity. with -- assure a piece, especially since 1970, we must system and nuclear reclaim a superiority in a nuclear program. thank you.
there are a couple of nuclear related hearings on the hill and even the democrats said we need to modernize, we need to be spending the money. it is a big will but it needs to happen and it is very important to the future of the country. you are not seeing a lot of disagreements at this point on the hill about the need to spend to modernize on the nuclear weapons. i think you will start seeing more concern as the bill gets closer and closer to having to be paid, especially in the early 20's. a viewer on twitter asked about a project in development, what is the expected cost and talk to me overall about our capability and fiscal standing overall in the united states? aret: a lot of programs coming due for the pentagon not just for nuclear but things like ship6 tanker, several new
programs, the army has a couple of programs. there is certainly going to be a big bill coming through. that is the thing to keep in mind. it is not just the cost of nuclear weapons. it is the cost plus the forces hitting at the same time. barring some sort of fiscal change, something will have to get cut and all of these programs will conflict with each other. you can see the turn to a real fight. democrats line, here is john. caller: a couple of quick questions. graham andindsey would not go forward with
the treaty unless we did some upgrades to the systems such as the gps mentioned earlier with just casecognition the gps was knocked out. also upgrading delivery systems. >> we'll leave this discussion here for live coverage of legislative business in the house. set to gavel back in for brief speeches. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful lord, we give you thanks for giving us another day. at the beginning of a new work week, we use this moment to be reminded of your presence and to tap the resources needed by the members of this people's house to do their work as well as it can be done. may the l