Transcripts For CSPAN3 Fourth Amendment And Technology Panel 3 20150903

Iraq is still very much an experiment. One, i think the feeling that i got throughout the country is that there is still discussion about what this state represents, what it should be. And an idea that we in washington sometimes see as a divided nation that wants and should be formally split into three entities is in fact not there in many respects. Iraq is still trying to figure out in itself what the relationship should be between the communities, how it should treat its neighbors, how to redefine its identity both in terms of its relationship with iran, the u. S. And its arab partners. One thing that i think we should be looking at very clearly is the u. S. Should be encouraging that process forward. The more we encourage iraqis to discover a new process that reaches reconciliation as ambassador was mentioning i think more iraq will be stable. Definitely what the fight around daesh and isis requires that process to move forward. Thats really my viewpoint on where iraq is today. And you just mentioned daesh which is perfect segue to aaron the bar fellow at the washington institute. If youre looking for somebody in washington who really understands isis and isnt just going on what they read other people saying about isis but reads the propaganda that comes out, understands the organization, how the organization thinks about governance, how it thinks about its goals and articulates them, aaron is your guy. Im delighted you could join us. Where does this stand in the process both of daeshs goals within iraq and the way nondaesh members of the Sunni Community in iraq see both the daesh project and the project the ambassador was describing . Yeah. For the Islamic State they dont really care whats going on in baghdad right now in terms of their discussions on whats going on. Theyre not worried about what the kurds are doing. Theyre focused primarily on their own state building project, whether its in terms of, you know, suppressing anyone going against them or whether its trying to return industries back to working again. This is one of the things that im seeing now at least in terms of what theyre trying to show to the world right now. Is that life is going on in the areas that theyre controlling. Of course its a lot more complicated than that. For example, if you look at their health administration, theyre trying to put out this message that theyre able to provide services for people in medical facilities and hospitals. But then if you look at the administrative documents which have been leaked online and their official propaganda, theyre actually looking for doctors to be able to work there and telling doctors that are leaving as idps or refugees that if they leave theyre going to seize their homes and things like that. So theres a different picture depending on whether you look at the official propaganda theyre putting out versus what the administrative documents locally theyre giving to the local population. And while they definitely have control, its purely through terror and authoritarian methods and not necessarily in terms of the local peoples will to want them to stay there. Your sense then that the sunni population is significantly winnable if the kind of inclusive government the ambassador was talking about begins to show itself . I definitely think theres a segment of the population within the Sunni Community that would be willing to go on board with it, but at the same time i think they also need to feel assuaged that they actually have buyin in baghdad. If you look at sort of what occurred with the movement in 2007, 2008, 2009, there are a lot of agreements about how the Sunni Community will be brought into the government whether its politically, security, military, but then once the u. S. Left a lot of these things didnt actually occur. And that led to many grievances within the Sunni Community. Which led then to the protest movements in december 2012, which then eventually led to the Islamic State piggybacking off of this issue in december 2013 when the protest camp in ramadi was destroyed by the maliki government. So theres a lot of chain of reactions along lines within the Sunni Community. If they can get these assurances though that they can be part of this broader iraqi project, then i think they would be willing. But i do think theres still some skepticism even if they dont necessarily like the Islamic State. Aaron just referred to the u. S. And certainly one of the things that we continue to hear about iraq is the role of outside parties stirring the pot. Iranian intervention, iranian influence, what are the constructive things that you think foreign parties can do to try to promote internal reconciliation . Well, john, you have two fronts to that question. You have the political process internally, which he talked about which is the project in the making, how do the interdependencies between politics and internal and you have the fight against isis or daesh. In the fight against daesh we certainly need tremendous support in controlling the border. So our neighbors should have a real project in for example stopping jihadists, tourist jihadists to come from north africa, going through neighboring countries and going straight to syria or iraq. So they have to do that. Or fatwas coming from some of the gulf can you be tcountries,l with that. So from a security perspective and fight against daesh. For their sake and as much for the sunni sake, we tell everybody this is a global problem. Then you have the political stability, how do they support it . Iraqis with the last election and the specifically after the fall of mosul have realized what a role our neighbors should play. And they have more or less supported each other in that discussion. We are now have a much clearer understanding what turkey can do for our internal politics, what jordan has been able to do and others as well. To that effect i think we are getting much better understanding and less involvement of our neighbors in our internal affairs and more toward the stability of the country. Thats a good sign. So we think that our neighbors have matured up to that challenge. Iraqis internal politics have also matured up. Your neighbor, your Community Neighbor whether theyre kurdish, shia, others, regardless are there support you from the outside. So we are a project in the making. And we are developing in the right direction. But on the fight against isis i still think we need a lot of support. Are you finding that some parties think that isis can be useful pressure against iranian influence in iraq and can help sue for the kind of political deal afterward they want . John, were seeing isis very similar to the taliban situation in afghanistan. And we can see what afghanistan has led to with this lack of aggressiveness against taliban at the time and allowing it. We dont want to emulate that copy. We dont want to be a copycat to that situation. We want the fight against isis for their sake and our sake. That for the stability of the region and the globe as a result of that. So i think we are looking for a more responsive, mature reflection of what has taken place. And we dont want our neighbors hand to be burned by the lack of engagement in the fight against isis. Are you hearing when you travel in the middle east people who say, well, we dont want isis to win but we also dont want the iranians to win iraq completely . Is that something you hear . Certainly, john. I think to a certain extent isis is viewed still as a useful tool in checking iranian influence, especially in a postiranian nuclear deal environment. As in iraq is still viewed at least in saudi arabia and in other capitals as an extension or an iranians fear of influence. As a matter of fact its definitely far from true, but it is still treated as that. That goes for both the iranian for the iraqi theater and the syrian one. Unfortunately, no one regionally wants iraq to emerge as a strong state. Iran still views iraq as a weak entity attached to it or aligned with it as favorable to a stronger iraq. I would say that saudi arabia definitely does not want the iraqi democratic experience to fully prosper. And in fact i dont think that the saudis have ever made a strategic decision to reach some form of a deal with a new iraqi system, to embrace iraq as an arab state with a new system. I think that hasnt been done before. And im not sure it will be done in the future. Can i add this small point here . Absolutely. Its important to look at isis as a global problem rather than just an internal domestic iraqi one. We have our faults. Nobodys denying that. We may have contributed to its strength, however when you have a problem in north africa or when you have chechnya or chinese or american joining isis, that has nothing to do with internal iraqi politics, has nothing to do with sunni, has to do with the global problem has to do with global resolution as much as Global Warming is a problem we have to work with. I think thats important for our audience to appreciate at least that iraqi politics internal you cant help regardless how much you help on the iraqi politics you have a global phenomenon which you need to grasp and get control of. Thats where i think may be missing. Aaron, one of the things that seems to me when people report on foreign fighters, we hear a lot about foreign fighters in syria, we dont hear a lot about foreign fighters in iraq. In fact, what we keep hearing about daesh in iraq is that its merging loyalists or baptist who is are growing beards and putting on different uniforms. Not to dis your beard at all. Is there Something Different about daesh as it operates in iraq versus daesh as it operates in syria . Yeah, at least on the first part its definitely true. I would say vast majority of foreign fighters are actually based in syria. Though you do see foreign fighters in iraq as well, but theyre not really involved with the administration of the areas that theyre controlling. The foreign fighters are primarily used as suicide bombers in the iraqi context. Whereas the foreign fighters in the syrian context are more used in terms of the administration. So just yesterday there was a report of syrian as well as another involved in a suicide bombing in iraq yesterday, or at least thats when it was announced. So theres a difference in that context. Another thing to think about too is that this organization while many people began to repay attention to it in june 2014 after the fall of mosul, this is an organization that has had a presence nonstop since 2002, 2003 when zarkawi first came to iraq after the fall of tor ra bor ra in afghanistan. So they have a lot more history as well as connections. Theres a lot more local ties within the iraqi context whereas in syria the organization itself really didnt start to put down a foothold until april 2013 when abut bakr al baghdadi. Iraq obviously a larger challenge. I think those are some of the basic elements in terms of the differences. Thank you. You mentioned oil prices being a constraint on military operations against daesh. But they must be a constraint on everything the government of iraq is trying to do including being inclusive of groups who feel they dont have a share of the pie. But if the pie is shrinking, its harder to give out more shares of a shrinking pie. How does that affect all the things you were talking about, including the problem of National Unity as we see more and more that the kurdish region of iraq is exploring its own way . More since 2004 when the prices of oil boomed up and so on, we tried to use money as an enticement of the politics. That also increased corruption and increased other type of mismanagement or bad governance of the institutions. In the fall of mosul with a real soul searching going on, changes the political process in iraq as well, now we have said that this is nonsustainable. And we cannot proceed with such a strategy of only enticing people through financial ways. And by the way, majority of the enticement were for politicians for the communities, so that effect i think we have learned the harshness. And now the Prime Minister he has the mandate to reform and also to start new areas of looking for revenues such as government bonds, investments and others. To that effect iraq has done tremendous change, a big sea change in policies for reform in relation to funds and financial and extended support with the world bank and others as well. Thats taking place. But i take your point and i agree with it. We need to be very careful as not to really alienate people because were saying to them we havent got moneys to restructure your schools and others. To that effect the allied half aware and working on what they call postdestabilization projects. To that effect we have to seek support from the gulf countries when they talk about marginalization in iraq we say, okay, these areas have been liberated, tikrit, others as well. Put in your money wherever you have been talking about marginalization. How is that going . Not to the extent we wanted, to be honest. Because it goes back to the fundamental point which talked about and this is an area of frustration by the way. This is an area which says to the iraqis who is supporting you at the moment you need and the shotgun of isis next to your head . You have the neighbor next door who says im happy to help. And youve got all of the other neighbors saying, well, were conditioning our support. When your house is burned up, would you want to have a conditional support . Or would you want an open spot . Well get to your neighbors. Addressing irbil, what is the mood there . How does the situation on the ground far away from baghdad relate to the strategy in baghdad . Well, i think one, on the isis front, things arent going well. We still have very coherent cooperations by the peshmerga, but i think politically were seeing clearer signs of a split about what to do with kurdish as an entity, what relationship does it have with turkey, iran and officials in baghdad . That point i think and the extension of the term for the next two years or potential extension, it really expose where the clergy is. It has disagreements. There is real political debate around how to function either within iraq or otherwise. I think that at this stage the u. S. Can actually help in creating more unity between the kurdish parties. Encouraging reform within the krg because the krg does need reform. Uniting the peshmerga, unifying those forces and encouraging kurdish parties to have a broader dialogue internally and with officials in baghdad. The solution thus far has been to just mostly blame the Central Government for the problems kurdistan faces. I think if we begin to have a broader discussion of what needs to be done, kurdistan would probably move forward even as a democratic process moves forward there. Would a more given what weve seen of opinion polls in the kurdish areas suggest overwhelming support for independence from iraq. Would this sort of reform democratic process, would that make it harder to keep iraq as a whole together . Well, i think its difficult for anyone to say that theyre against independence formally. But there are definitely different opinions of when do you get there, in what form and what sort of a relationship do you have with the rest of iraq . I think they are disagreeing when it comes to that. Some favor an incremental process that keeps baghdad closer, eventually these are kurdistans neighbors, you need to deal with them at the end of the story. What needs to be done, i think, is just encouraging that sort of debate between tehran and baghdad and kurdish officials. Certainly reforming these institutions i think in kurdistan is key. Forming the government, having a process that is much more representative, i think thats key to having a more stable kurdistan be it that an entity formerly within iraq or an independent entity. Aaron, the peshmerga have been some of the most effective fighters against daesh, but daesh seems principally focused on iranian influence. Is there a changing way that theyre talking about kurdish fighters, about battling kurds as this battle unfolds . Well, just like the iranians or any other entity, they view them as an enemy. Obviously theyre using different types of derogatory terms for kurds as they do with other groups of people, but i think they realize that theyre not going to be able to push any farther north at least in the iraqi context where the kurds have been able to hold the line since the u. S. Coalition started doing things a year ago. Therefore theyre focused more on the broader sectarian issue, i think, because it probably gets a little more played possibly. As a result, you know, you see more fighting in that regard instead of them trying to push back into northern iraq. But at the same time that doesnt mean that if there isnt an opportunity that theyd be willing to do it. As weve seen every once in a while, there will be like a suicide bombing that sneaks through into kurdistan. So for the Islamic State its an expansionist imperialistic type of entity. And as a result nothing is out of bounds for them. Mr. Ambassador, you mentioned the reliable neighbor next door. And the reliable neighbor next door, iran, is also thought to have a whole series of ties to the Popular Mobilization forces that is accused of being a sectarian militia attacking sunnis. What is the strategy for creating a genuine, capable Iraqi National army that doesnt rely on foreign trading, foreign funding, sectarian implications, those kinds of things . How do wu get from where we are today to where youd like to be . We talked about the construction, that includes the military, after the fall of mosul there has been and will continue a significant restructure. At this moment the end game of the setup of the army is still not complete. We need to understand what do we need to protect and therefore how should our army structuring be mirroring that whether its a border, internal, so on. We also note that important projects such as National Guard legislation requires very careful handling politically and very careful handling structurally as to who do they report to. We dont want to create and fund local politicians to have their own forces under the title of National Guard. At the same time we know that the majority of those people who have joined the Popular Mobilization cause are doing it lifting arms based on the call, for the protection of their country. And they are less ideological and more nationalistic. And theyre also not looking forward for being permanent members of these military setups, but want to do it just for the sake of liberating the towns and then going back to their jobs for us to create opportunities for them at least. In that context i think there is here in washington an overselling of this issue of ideology attached people to iran. If you look at the numbers,numby dont represent less than 30 of the per use, who are the three main blocks to represent the political attachment. But at the same time these are iraqis, who want to defend their country. They may have some ideological differences, belonging to iran, but that doesnt take away from them the iraqi and protection and they have blocks in parliament that represent them as well. So we are talking about a National Political process, democratic process taking shape in effect. When we talked about the project in the making, i dont think anybody has a clarity as to what the end game should be like, as much as destabilization and federalism. To that effect, the Prime Ministers Main Objective is making sure that hes commanderinchief and everybody adheres to his command. In tikrckrit when the enhanced military setup didnt want to participate, the Prime Minister said you are okay and free not to participate but you dont have the veto. I have the veto as to when you can participate and the extent of your participation. The same goes in anbar and so on. So to that effect the conditions we want to confirm and cement at this moment, is that the Prime Minister can manage the components to whatever the political end the process leads us to. So that is the long answer because i dont think there is say short answer. But it is interesting, because it is in part about centralizing and regularizing and institutionalizing and decentralizing, giving more local control. It seems to be pursuing two goals simultaneously. But lets also be honest among friends. A lot of americans, when they talk to us about National Guard, they have the current concept of National Guard in the current u. S. Setup but you have a revolution of the National Guard from the revolution to this stage. We went could cant go through a crash course of this. We need time. We need time and dialogue and to do it free from the shotgun to our head. Whether it is isis or militia or anybody else. That is what were trying to work on. I am when the Prime Minister was here in april, in this room, i asked him if there are any limits or red lines tor decentralization in iraq and he said there are no red lyons. How do you see that process unfolding as the bast talked about, of spinning and devolving more control to different places . Well, i think that there are definitely constraints on where iraq could head. But the conversation is at the very beginning. It is very difficult to ask iraqis to do reform on every level and figure out their end state of their political system while they are fighting isis. Especially for supporters of the government at this stage. This is not the sort of discussion that is either popular or they even want to have. I think in many respects, effort to push the iraqis closer to our concept of decentralization could backfire. This actually needs fire. You also need part of the current areas held by isis to be liberated and gather more traction behind the government. One point i would mention here though is the discussion over the National Guards law, that is a key part of an equation that unites iraq. Not necessarily divides iraq. For a body to move forward with a series of reforms on different funds, scrapping the Vice President ial roles, the deputy Prime Minister rolls, to do that and leave a key component of the reform process to the end i think is part of what builds some form of a confidence crisis between iraqs community. That is one area that we can actually move forward with. Aaron, do you see sort of a nascent sunni leadership fights against isis fighting against isis or isis is fighting against in its country. I havent seen anything similar to what weve seen in terms of 2005 and 2006 as part of a tribal awaking. Part of this is learning the lessons from the mid to late 2000s when they started to go back in and start the military campaigns in 2012 and 2013, they started to reach out to smaller clans within tribes to try and cooperate, whether it was with money or weapons and dividing and conquering the tribes and it has been effective in many respects. Sand on the other hand, if there has been a group of people that tried to go against them, they would go against them. Weve seen them with the tribes and in different regions in syr syria. And a couple of weeks ago, in libya when they were trying to do something in cert. So they have a monopoly and violence in their area and it is difficult to go against them unless there is outside assistance at this juncture because they have been able to institutionalize them locally in some respects. So what you are saying is it is extraordinarily hard to see any bottomup politics. I do think in in juncture, in the areas they control firmly. There are areas that are in between which could be peeled off. But in terms of the core areas that they are in, especially in the western part of iraq, where they are the strongest, i would argue in part because they are able to have a corridor into syria and back which allows them to strengthen that control, it is very difficult. The way they rule is very totalitarian. Do you see bottomup politics as look at as you look at Different Things and areas in iraq. Not in the sunni areas, not yet for sure. But that is why you need to move forward with a part military solution to allow a political process to reemerge. You cannot have that process while isis controls these territories. So i think that is a key part of the issue. Within the rest of iraq, absolutely. The protests are one example of that, that the ambassador mentioned. This is very much a vibrant society, and political system that is even pushing back against entrenched politicians of the same sectarian affiliation. So actually we need to give the iraqis some credit they trying to form something new even at the grass root. By this response, i think in that respect, i think has been very positive. That is the way forward to embrace the protesters rather than clamp down and that will push for things in a more positive direction. So you would see the protests as a positive sign and not as a warning sign of iraq unraveling. I think structurally iraq has had those issues for a number of years, ryan. The fact that there is organized opposition that is peaceful and constructive and there is mow coherence is more coherent is part of building up iraqs democracy. I dont necessarily see it as something dangerous. Now, the response, i think, is part of what builds up something more positive. If the Political Class sees this as a signal, that their legitimacy is at stake then Reform Efforts become more serious and real and that is what weve seen in the last few weeks. We dont have what we might call then the east europe situation where you have local specific entities fighting against the Central Government. You have across the whole country people who are from civil sew society Movements Society movements, protesting against the political leaders saying we want to stop corruption and we want Job Opportunities and others. And this is in a way what we want to focus on. It is in the sense of what you talked about, destabilizing, if we dont react to it, certainly it will be destabilizing. If we do not appreciate it and embrace and work with it, then certainly it is destabilizing. We still dont have what you might call a strong state. We realize that. And the pace and depth of the reform by the Prime Minister is the reflection of that aspect. I will go to the audience in just a second. But in terms of what you just said, what are the warning signs or what would be the warning signs that the protest movement is no longer constructive and is actually become threatening . Well we have, at this moment, if you ask me what is your Risk Management issues of those, well one of them is i see the i. T. Consultant coming out. And one is the request they are making. [ inaudible ]. And the others is they dont have local leaders of a type and therefore who do you talk to and who is the representative of that. That is another. Third, in the scale of demand for change requires decades. I mean that. It is not because youre talking about for example bureaucratic system which is based on the Ottoman Empire and then on the british and then on the republican systems of iraq. So it took 100 years to get to bureaucratic systems that you have to reform. And then a police state history you have to reform and then destabilizing region who doesnt promote democracy and then isis next to you. So it is multi layer. And there are people who talk about the iranian influence as well. Of course. Of course. And by the way, we are as much as anybody else about any extent of influence who doesnt help to stabilize our country and to that effect we need to keep an alert and be on our toes as to who is getting involved and what is the end game. Communication dialogue is important there. Thank you. I would like to turn to you. I would ask three things. One, that you identify yourself. Second, that you only ask one question because ive already seen five hands. And third is that given the experience and wisdom of our guests, i ask that you ask your genuine question and not make a statement and then end with what do you think of my statement. [ laughter ] so the first person i see is over here. Please wait for the microphone if you would. It is right behind you. Im dr. Mar oegy, command for the civil affair out of here in metto land. I served as a command sergeant for the office of Security Cooperation and my question is giving the extent of all of the demonstrations and you are a friend of mine and ive known you and ive worked tirelessly to restore iraq and american relationship but there is a limit to what you can probably say in public, but given the degree and level of the demonstrations, does the Prime Minister understand the need for reform and, if so, what does he have to in his administration to rely on to execute some of the reforms . My experience is my iraqi officials are if not incompetent so who will he rely on to address the reform issues, especially in the service sector. Thank you, colonel. What the p. M. Has discovered over the last year that the change of reform requires a substantial amount of change of culture, change of strategic shift in government direction. And most importantly, the ability of the people to cooperate with him on the issues. Certainly he has the Political Capital to best utilize that at this moment. And to that effect he has made it clear and he will continue to do that. Hes got extent of support in stream lining. Hes reached out to [ inaudible ] and others. Workshops are taking place. He has highlighted the key areas who would be initiating reform on, such as i. T. Systems and paperless systems so it can become more transparent and streamlined in those institutions. At this moment, as i said, because it is a scale of the reform itself, it can only be managed based on people understanding of the challenge ahead. For example, when you are talking about taxation system, people have to pay taxes. They have to pay the electricity bill for the infrastructure of anything to be resolved. That is still not grasped yet. Demonstrators need to understand they have an active role to play in the reform movement. It is not just a demand and obligation on them as well. That is one of the other challenges we have, colonel. However, as to who can help us, we have reached out and are continuing to reach out to others, our american president inclusive and we still dont have all of the capabilities for the reform and nobody is saying we do and we are continuing to work on that and when we dont know, well say we dont know. We are under no illusion as to the scale of the challenge. So i dont think you can reform iraq in one year or two years. This is a massive project. The politicians are not up to the task. But at least you begin to restart it, right. From now on, whereas given the current revenue, were going to do xy and z and begin a process. There is no other alternative. You cannot destroy the entire system and build something new. We already have something and it is difficult enough to manage the iraqi political process. So i think it is a big challenge as the ambassador said. But we should encourage that reform drive. We dont necessarily need to move through a cycle where even and every official is put in jail. I think the signal has been sent that enough is enough. There needs to be some accountability for sure. But the importance of starting this process, i think, is key and that is why iraq has taken at least a body that has initiated. All the way in the back. Yes, sir, all the way in the back. Thank you. Rabbin pasha, founder of social development horrize johns from middle east bureau c. A. D. My question is to mr. Ambassador. [ inaudible ]. I am Iraqi Kurdish and came to the states as a refugee in 1996 and one thing that has been bothering me over the past year or so is now weve neglected the issues going into preventing the violent extremism and investing in the Human Development in iraq which is something i found in the organization to address. And any question is in regard to specifically the challenges facing eugene facing youth engagement. Your excellency mentioned how the youth is a foundation for security but another cornerstone is the Economic Growth of iraq which has taken a huge hit because of the instability and the lack of opportunities, especially for youth becomes a driver of despair, of migration and of unrest and further instability and joining propaganda and violent extremism. So i know there are two other big elephants in the room in terms of the threat to stability of iraq and the humanitarian situation, that iraq definitely needs support with. One being the displaced populations, absolutely. And certainly. And the other one being the democratic process and making sure people have the social services so they feel the state is doing something for them and this becomes a specific engagement in responsibility other than just a question of taxation. But i would love to hear your thoughts ever what could be done perhaps to target and what the Iraqi Government is planning to do in creating and bunch onning the private sector, targeting Youth Opportunities and showcasing the stable areas as your excellency also mentioned, areas being liberated but are already stable like the Kurdish North and the south of iraq for creating greater economic investment, bringing in Multinational Companies again or creating a burgeoning entrepreneurship and private sector from the Iraqi Community that could lead to further stability. Thank you. We talk about what you just highlighted, we need to substantially reform our banking, insurance, makeup for regulation and regulation of investments and these are all steps that are supposed to be in the pipeline. And here we need a Strong Political will by parliament to stream line and to focus on a throughput for updating our legislations accordingly. Another aspect is we need to change the culture of overdependency on the state as a main and only breadwinner and focus on entrepreneurship and others. And that is initially taking place. I dont think it is at an acceptable level. And a third point is we talked about the elephants. We have a third elephant, which has to do with idp that are young and by the nature iraqis are one of the least sort of something about 60 of the population are under 35. Median age of just about 19. Population growth of about 3 . That in itself cant be stopped and could you say more about the idp, the internally displaced persons. There were neighborhoods that were mixed neighborhoods and now belong to one sector or another. We still have a lot of idps in the kurdish region from an ban or salah addine and others and turks from the north and [ inaudible ] for example. We still have a lot of sunnis in karbala who are being supported by the region setup as well. So at this moment, the dem demography is mixed. It has its own nature. If you dont address it in a year or two, then they feel they have more demand and they say now i need to afford health care and education and stability and so on. So they dont think of themselves as in transit any longer. That is a threat we have as well. And the people who moved into their houses have decided that is really their house. To that effect, i think majority of people, for example, in diana and tikrit, the government worked with local authorities to help that out. And we have also seeked the religious decrees so it becomes shameful to occupy someone elses house and religiously not allowed. And seeking Government Support in that aspect of it as well. It is till in the making, to that effect. However going back to the youth aspect of it, it is one of those challenges which the arab spring has manifested to the whole region and im told that without youth managing, the youth throughput, Growth Without Job Opportunities, then all they have is awareness, because of globalization and they have very good awareness taking place in the rest of the other countries and they have frustration. How do you sort of use that frustration . Membership of isis and others becomes a channel, which we want to keep away from as much as we can. Second row. Thank you, john. Mr. Ambassador. Identify yourself. Fatty mon sour, im a correspondent and a student of professor john. Back in july of this year, 13 july, jamal muhammed, known as abu muhammed and deputy chief of the dish abby gave a lengthy interview to the newspaper in lebanon and he made two controversial statements. The first one asserting that hezbollah trainers are acting in iraq to provide training and within an advisory capacity to the Popular Mobilization forces but working under the what he called the command of the armed forces [ inaudible ] which is under the command of Prime Minister al baddy. That was the first statement. The second one was he stressed that the popular motivation forces will move into syria after finishing the battle against isis in iraq and it will support the Syrian Regime in fighting isis. So first could you maybe address these two issues fir at Hezbollah Operating under the command of Prime Minister ab eddy and will the Government Support oro pose any such move into syria by the Popular Mobilization, noting that i think mr. Muhammed endes was accused of taking part in orchestrating the attacks against the American Embassy and French Embassy in kuwait in 1983. Thank you very much. I dont know about the french and i have no understanding or awareness of even that allegation. As to hezbollah, do they operate in iraq . No. As to who is in control . The Prime Minister is commanderinchief. We certainly have no aspiration or desire or will to be involved in the syrian theater in any way, shape or form. Weve kept it away from it in 2011 when everybody else asked us to get engaged and nofly zone and we said we dont want to get involved in neighbor issues. Let alone a volatile area such as syria. Following that, i can assume whatever reports you are talking about, i have not read it so i cannot talk about specific, but as government of iraq, we have no intention to be involved in any military side on the syrian side whatsoever. Maybe some isis aspects specifically command operations, whatever, clandestine, but im not aware of that even. But i say we certainly has no aspiration or desire or will to be engaged in that theater. You need to go back to whoever said those statements and challenge them. Right here. Thank you. Nabam ralla with the news questions. I have two short questions. You are only allowed one. My question for the two distinguish scholars. You talked about the role that iran and other neighboring countries play in iraq and specifically in the fight against isis. But i havent heard anything about the role of saudi arabia is playing. To put it shortly, is saudi arabia a better u. S. Ally than turkey in the fight against isis, as king solomon is coming to washington tomorrow, i think it is very relevant. Thank you. Well, were lacking very effective and good allies in the region here. Neither have been very good in dealing with the isis situation for different reasons. Turkey has prioritized containing the kurds and leveraging isis as a tool to weaken assad. The kurds in both iraq and syria. And saudi arabia has preferred to keep the isis problem in iraq and syria and not confront it. Obviously that comes with the risk that terrorism at some point comes back home. Weve seen a few bombing in saudi arabia. But no, neither states have actually helped confront the isis problem effectively and even after weve seen i think a turkish uturn, their folk he is remains on containing kurdish aspirations along the southern borders, not necessarily and fully confronting the isis problem. I fully agree. Saudi arabia seems to be primarily focused with what is going on in the Southern Front of the conflict, working with jordan and amaq making sure they do not become radicalize and become as theater as the northern parts of syria but beyond that they havent done too much. And the turks are problematic in so far as theyve allowed so many of the foreign fighters getting through the border without doing much of the Border Control in the beginning. And while they call about the antiisis zone in northern syria, the reality is they dont want the kobani camp to be linked up with the free camp in my mind and if you look at what happened since the turks got involved in this antiisis zone, the Islamic State has taken over parts of that state rather than ejected them. So im unsure that it is a competition of who did worse but neither of them have necessarily done that great thus far. Thank you. Right here in the front row. Good afternoon. Im Bayan Sammy Hamman the kurdish government representative to the United States. Ambassador, thank you very much for a very interesting and optimistic outlook on iraq, which we all need. I want to go back to the humanitarian situation. Because this really effects where iraq is heading. I know it has been touched on very briefly, but we really need to understand the depths of the problem and the problem that will face us for generations unless we iraqis and our friends in the International Community do much, much more to help. I think all of us today are haunted by the picture of alan kurd eva, a little boy from kobani who washed up on the shore in turkey. He symbolized every displaced person in iraq and syria and the horror that we face with europe acting like a fortress. It is shameful. Kurdistan region has taken in 1. 8 million displaced people. Europe has accepted about 600,000 Asylum Seekers, 28 countries, 600,000 Asylum Seekers versus one part of iraq taking in 1. 8 million people. 60 of the displaced in kurdistan region, im afraid, i dont know about the rest of iraq, 60 of the children in the kurdistan region among the displaced region havent been to school, that is despite all of our efforts, the u. N. , us aid, and others trying to help, that is a ticking time bomb for all of us in iraq. The u. N. Is saying they cant raise enough money to help the displaced in iraq. The u. N. Launched an appeal for 500 million in june to see the displaced and the refugees through the six months from june to december. They have raised less than half of that amount. This is a ticking time bomb. I know you said you didnt want us to make statement and invite the panel to give their view, but i am going to do that because this is a disaster. I think everybody thinks that the disaster happened in june 2014. No the disaster awaits us. There is going to be zitusion and destitution and disease among the humanitarian crisis and how it effects radicalization and how does that affect another lost generation. How can we ask people to pay taxes when today we cant even offer their children education. Thank you. I totally agree with her and also say that the challenges we face in iraq and syria is in the idp is destabilize oub neighbors, destabilized jordan, turkey, part of turkey and certainly destabilizing lebanon. It should be a crisis bells ringing across the whole globe. Because it is an area where it is not next door to europe and also people who have no alternatives but to go through as always the illegal racketeering and other methods of earning for their income and paying for their clothes and food and so on. So to that effect, i think i agree with you that the humanitarian issue alone in iraq and in the region and the aftermath of syria and the isis destruction, it is an urgent focus. And we have areas that are the enslavements and theize edies and the heritage and that is a distinction excuse me, a world issue. Because it has to do with irreversible destruction of human himor or history, and think that itself requires more. And if you look at this through sectarianism, people will be switched off. But if you look at it from this prism, they can do a lot and not a lot is being done at this point. While i agree with what the europeans done is shameful, i would also argue that the gulf states have been even worse. They havent taken anybody in. Zero, literally. In terms of the question regarding the issue of recruitment or radicalization, however you want to describe it, the reality is, is children are vulnerable to these messages. And they are putting out this content online but also locally as well. There is a lot of focus on the Islamic State putting out content on twitter, but if you look at what theyre doing in cities in iraq and syria, they are having kiosks called media point wheres they provide pamphlets and usb and sim cards and giving them to people and they focus on children and youth because they know they are the future. They dont care about anybody over the age of 35 and that is the biggest dangers about the Islamic State is they are socially Engineering Society and the longer they stay in control of areas the worse it will likely get. And because of that, it is a major problem. And it is not just era big language but even arabic language but kurd. Ish language and others. So it is definitely an issue for iraq and syria as well as anybody else in the region. I think on the humanitarian issue, i think this is text book example of politics trumping humanitarian concerns. It happens, but there has to be also local ownership of the conflict. That the region the parties of the conflict have contributed towards that form of destabilization. Yes, europe hasnt done enough. Yes, the u. S. Hasnt done much. But also the arabs have done nil. And i mentioned some numbers on that. We have fed the conflict in iraq and syria but done very little to alleviate the humanitarian pain. Thank you. We have time for one more question. This gentleman has been very patient right here. Khalif ata from voice of america, my question to mr. Faily, you were mentioned many times to the recancelation. Can you raise your voice. What do you mean recancelation, with the courts who havent cut their budgets for more than a year or recancelation of the sunnis and which part of the sunnis. The sunnis sitting in baghdad and in the political process or sunnis who is in jordan or sunni tribe leaders from anbar and nino . Reconciliation in iraq is a generic term as much as possible because i think the issues are j generic. I dont think there is one Community Feeling they have been singled out. I think i can assure you if you go to a person in bosra and talk about how does he feel about the Central Government, he said well im paying 90 of the oil for the whole country and im getting less than 1 of the income. So i think there is a significant social contract that has to be redrawn in iraq among all of the components as to the rules and responsibility toward the state and each other. When we talk about decentralize is we need to talk about good governance. You cannot decentralize and allocate power without having the structure for that otherwise you have chaos. Same for the political flexibility of the governments and so on. You also have the issue of at what stage of your people do you want authority to be disseminated to . A provisional level . Government levels and so on. Also talking about the election systems, how does it reflect the president of the people. These are all areas we talk about reconciliation on less agree on how do we manage this country moving forward in a civil way, in a civilized way, away from the gun and repression and respecting human rights and rule of law and respecting the constitution which we all voted for. This is a key issue. This is what i talk about project in the making. And i do mean that. I can assure you, no Single Person can tell you this is the picture we want to be in and well be in in five years. That is not the case. Because we cannot control these parameters surrounding us, talking about the rdp as one example. The problems within the sunni communities as to the leadership and how effective are the leadership and how local are the leaderships. The shia parliament, how much reflects are they to the southern provinces where they say we have lack of services but we have all of the oil from us. The kurdish questions as to how much the decent ralization and the obligation on the center of the krg government. So these are all areas that we are still as i said, project making or progress making, whatever term or label you want to give it. We are still not clear what is the end game unless we have a substantial amount of dialogue. As far as i can see, real dialogue still hasnt taken shape. People demonstrating is a sign that dialogue with reform has to take shape. Political and economic and social reform. Mr. Ambassador you have to agree to come back. Mr. Ambassador and all, thank you very much for coming and thank you for joining us. [ applause ] [ hearing concluded ] tonight on American History tv, an oral history chronicling the race to build the atomic bomb called the Manhattan Project. Coming up, cynthia kelly, and then at 8 15, ben men bedderson recalled secrecy and his own work designing the bombs ignition switches. And other oral histories on the Manhattan Project and all of that tonight on American History tv on cspan 3. Tonight cspan special look back at the debate over the Iran Nuclear Deal with a Senate Banking Committee Hearing with Wendy Sherman who was one of the lead u. S. Negotiators. Then senate flor statements with republican Conference Vice chairman roy blunt opposing the agreement. And bill nelson explaining his support. Here is some of tonights program. This agreement of war, that the choice . Simple yes or no . I dont think this is a simple yes or no. So if you cant give me a simple yes or no, it is either this agreement or war, and since i dont have the unlimited time. So if you had not struck agreement with iran would we be at war with iran . I believe that the chances that we would be down the road to war would go up exponentially. And you are saying compared to other witnesses who have served on the administration in it the past and support the agreement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and been asked the same question, they have said no it is not this or war so is this a war. I said it is not binary, senator. It is not binary. Down the path. Two, three years from now. I dont think any of us can predict the future in that way. Well that is the problem. The secretary of state has come before various members of the senate and set it is either this or war and i think that is a binary statement. And the reason, senator, is because sanctions have never gotten rid of the nuclear program. It only brought them to the table. And so if we but that hasnt created war either. If we walk away from this deal, iran will begin marching forward with their program further, as they have done over the years. And the president of the United States said he will not allow them to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. Well i think there is real doubt [ overlapping speakers ] with only one option. Oint i think there is real doubt on credible military threat of e force is on the table. I dont agree with that at e all. I o acknowledge that this ha been one of the most important preparations and will be one of the most important votes that i will cast in the senate becauseo of the foreign and defense policy consequences are both huge for the u. S. And our bef allies. And unless there is an unexpected change in the he conditions and facts before thed vote is called in september, and it will be called on the very first day that we return in nt september, unless there is an unexpected change, i will support the Nuclear Agreement wh between a iran and the p5 1, whh are the u. S. , uk, france, for russia, china and germany, because i am convinced it will no Nuclear Weapon for at least the next ten to 15 years. No other available alternative accomplishes this vital objective. More of this and other programming on the iran Nuclear Agreement coming up tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. You can also see previous nights programming on our website, cspan. O cspan. Org. American university recently hosted a discussion about the current state of Digital Technology and government surveillance. And todays Privacy Protection laws, including the constitutions Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure. The google senior Privacy Counsel and Kenneth Wainstein who was an adviser to george w. Bush took part in the forum. National Constitution Center is a unique place. It was founded by congress to disseminate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis. And we are one of the only places in these polarized times that bring together all sides to debate not political questions but constitutional questions so that you, the people, can make up your own mind. We Just Launched an incredible series of town Hall National debates, cosponsored by the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society where were going around the country to debate constitutional issues. We launched in washington last week, next up, new york, and chicago and san francisco, and its just a great example of the faith that confronted with the best arguments on all sides of constitutional questions people can be elevated and educated. This is a dream team to discuss the future of the Fourth Amendment. Its eclectic, remarkable diversity of views. And we have a lot to discuss. Im going to begin by posing a broad hypothetical, which is not so hypothetical anymore. Then each of the panelists will make brief opening statements. Then well be off and running in the best charlie rose style. Here is the hypothetical. Imagine that tomorrow, president obama said that in order to protect the security of america, tiny drones would be sent flying in the air with minuscule cameras attached. And using these drones, the government would reserve the right to focus on anyone, say me, follow me forward to see where i was going, if the images were archived, they could go back and follow me back ward to see where i came from and basically allow 24 7 ubiquitous surveillance of any person in the world. And the question i want to ask the panel to engage in is would this violate the Fourth Amendment to the constitution . Which protects the right of the people to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on this question, although theres interesting recent cases that cast light on it. And each of their perspectives will be fascinating in taking up the constitutional question. And then well dig in also to the statutory questions and all the really interesting movement in congress there is at the moment to address the question of ubiquitous surveillance in public. Let me briefly introduce our panelists. They will make brief opening statements, and then well be off and running. A med ghappour, visiting assistant professor at Uc Hastings College of law where he directs the liberty, security and technology clinic. Hes a former computer engineer. He has a clinic that litigates constitutional issues involving espionage, counterterrorism and computer hacking. Hes a member of Chelsea Mannings legal team, lead trial counsel for brown, for the Group Anonymous and served as defense counsel in many cases around the u. S. He was also habeas counsel at guantanamo bay. Ahmed, why dont you go first. Like any good attorney, i will say that it depends. How big are the drones . How close are they . And also, is the data being aggregated . And is it being processed . I think all of these issues are important to consider, and i think that the question that you present is actually not a very futuristic scenario in that weve got a lot of public space surveillance as it stands. We have the technologies that allow for license plates to be monitored. We have cameras all over the city. All of this is information that theres a viewpoint that this is all Public Information that you dont really have a right to privacy Walking Around on the street. The jones case, at least alitos concurrence at least talks about aggregation, but to me, its more what you do with the data. So to answer in short, i think the current doctrine would probably allow many drones surveillance under the Fourth Amendment, in public spaces. Great. And why dont you go on to flag some of the issues that youd like for us to think about tonight. I think the interesting issue for me is not necessarily the collection of information because youve heard from a lot of really smart people working on that. And i think theyre doing a great job. But as a criminal defense attorney, im sort of jaded about a hopeful outcome in terms of what can and cant collect. And the idea of privacy in public space. I think the interesting issue for me is then what happens with the data. So irrespective, if we win any of these challenges, were going to have a great amount of data with the government, and it can be analyzed. And the technologies that actually conduct the analytics are increasingly sophisticated. And if you start and its not just that youve got technologies that implement Artificial Intelligence and learning. And so the goal for a lot of this big data stuff is that the algorithm can identify patterns that humans are not cognitively capable of doing on their own. Youve got a situation where a computer is telling you that this person is a bad person and you should follow them or you should search them or you should arrest them or possibly drone them. At a accuracy higher than any human analyst, but you dont know why. Thats the question for us. When you have a highly reliable algorithm that cannot articulate why its giving you an outcome. And that outcome is one of culpability. What do we do . Great. Very interesting observation. The drone surveillance is probably okay. You are concerned about these algorithms and whether or not theyre reliable enough to create individualized suspicion. And well take up both of those just the caveat is that is not normative answer, its doctrinal answer. Lets start by describing how you think the current courts would rule on these questions and what some of the pressure points are. Our next distinguished guest is david leiber, who is senior Privacy Policy council at google. He worked in the privacy practice. Previously legislative assistant to senator dick durbin on the committee, a graduate of Bates College and Northwestern University school of law. David, your quick take will delve in more deeply on whether or not 24 7 camera drone surveillance would violate the Fourth Amendment. And any additional issues you want us to dig into. Yeah. Thanks, jeff. Having heard the hypothetical and responding to it now in realtime, it strikes me if you start with sort of fundamental principles around the Fourth Amendment and the doctrine that has come out of kats, and the Fourth Amendment protects people and not places. If youre going to have that type of 24hour, 7day a week surveillance, thats ubiquitous and suspicionless that would implicate the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. There would be real problems with that kind of surveillance, even if its happening in areas that traditionally have maybe been subject to lesser Fourth Amendment protections. That sounds great. Let me just ask you to push the mike, which i forgot to do, as well. Its this little green button there. Youve got it. You think under the case which well talk more about, it probably would implicate the Fourth Amendment. What are some of the pressure points you want us to delve into . As we think further about this question. So there have been a lot of interesting discussions today about the evolution of the Fourth Amendment, particularly with respect to the internet. I think if the recent past is prologued or there are a lot of reasons to be sanguine about the development of case law with respect to cases and controversies around the Fourth Amendment. I think as pointed out earlier, though, that presupposes there will be cases and controversies to litigate. And even in the aftermath of the snowden revelations, there are still significant barriers to standing that may prevent a lot of these cases and controversies from ultimately being heard by the courts. There is another form. For some it may not be encouraging one or one that yielded a lot of activity in recent history, but congress is addressing a lot of these issues. One of the benefits of addressing some of these Fourth Amendment issues before they come to the courts and even as the courts are seeking to litigate and address these issues is we are in some ways unencumbered by antiquated and constitutional doctrines like the Third Party Doctrine and Fourth Amendment case law. And delineating and creating the right policy prescriptions to Fourth Amendment issues in the digital age. So i want to talk really briefly about a few things that have been happening. Two, actually two things that have been happening. And one, i think, that is going to happen in the future thats going to be pretty important for the development. Of rules around government access. We are part of the due process coalition. I know cdt and greg have been since 2010. We are still dealing in some respects with the embryonic stages of reform and trying to update the statute to codify a warrant for content standard as many of you know. It was enacted in 1986 and it makes distinctions, i think, that dont comport with users reasonable expectations of privacy today. At the heart of service providers, its this notion of 180day rule where contents of your communications are subject to the warrant requirement up until 180 days and thereafter at the 181st day all of a sudden can be subpoenaed. As a result of the war shack decision in the sixth kirk you the, coops like google require a warrant for all content regardless of the age, regardless of where it is stored and when it has been opened or when it has been opened. There is legislation that is pending in congress has been pending. Right now, it has over 250 cosponsors in the house of representatives. If it were voted on today in the house, it would pass. I have a lot of confidence that the same results would be true in the senate. And i think that is the year where that happens. And it is important for a variety of reasons, not the least of which, it helps to pave the way for future as many of you know in the next couple of months, section 215 in the usa patriot act expires at the end of may. Theres been an important and robust debate around the fisis statute and how it ought to be modified. Those who have taken an independent look at the section 215 program have concluded pretty much with unanimity that it ought to be reformed. Whether it is for sort of, you know, reasons of effectiveness or legality. And, you know, fortunately, senator leahy and others have taken a broader look, not just focusing on section 215, but also on other fisa authorities that have been used to collect communications, meta data in bulk. So weve been encouraged and supportive of the usa freedom act, which was introduced, i think in 2013 and gone through several different iterations. But would address other authorities under which communications and metadata has been collected in bulk or could be collected in bulk. Were very much looking forward to that debate, which is going to happen soon and hopeful to come to the right result as far as that goes. Finally, let me just address one topic which is not so futuristic. But hasnt come up on the radar screens yet of policymakers and how we are going to deal with government access request, visavis the internet of things. There are a lot of fundamental questions around the types of rules that ought to apply. And it isnt entirely clear as a threshold matter whether the Electronics Communications privacy act does apply. I would submit that for Remote Computing Services like google in many respects, it will. That the type of information that is collected from internet of things devices, and you think about your nest thermostat or drop cam inside of your home. That is Sensitive Data that amounts to content that would suggest a lot of detail about you about your habits in daily live and ought to be subject to the Fourth Amendment. Ought to be subject to the warrant requirement. There are sort of questions about entities that might not fit neatly into the category of Remote Computing Services. And so i think theres quite a bit of room for some smart thinking among folks who are in this room and also in congress to think about forward looking approaches. To think about how we would fashion a statute in 2015 based on the expectations of privacy that people are entitled to have and they do have today. Ill stop right there. Thats great. Thank you for teeing up all of those fascinating questions about reform, thats the electronic privacy act in congress. About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reform and access to internet of things. And thanks to your sense that the 24 p drone surveillance would violate the Fourth Amendment. Greg, we have a circuit split between david and ahmed. Do you think that 24 7 drone surveillance without a warrant would violate the Fourth Amendment according to current Supreme Court doctrine . Has this little drone found me in my bedroom . Only in public. When you get out in the morning, it follows you. It follows you to the bar. It follows you to the church, to your political rally. But it does not go into the home. Its only surveillance in public. So this little drone. When the Supreme Court was considering u. S. V jones, the government, that was the case where the court said if the government attaches a gps device to your vehicle and then uses it to follow you around for 28 days that violates the Fourth Amendment. But it said that violates the Fourth Amendment because there was surveillance plus the trespass. And the trespass was key to the case. But the government in that case said that doesnt matter Fourth Amendment doesnt protect you because youre on the public roads. And this was their argument in the briefs. Exactly zero justices accepted that argument. That gives me hope that the drone that follows you around is 24 7 on the roads is a violation of a Fourth Amendment. So eager for your answer that i was eager for your answer, i had you jump in without introducing you. Of course, greg is the senior counsel of freedom and Security Technology projects at the center for democracy and technology and one of the leading voices in the privacy debate. But you left out our website. Its www. Cdt. Org. Dont forget the plug. Its easy to come here and be pessimistic about the fourth of the Fourth Amendment in the technology and digital age. Its easy, because you look at what courts decided in the past. When i was at the a clmpt lu 20 years ago, we used to call the Fourth Amendment, the incredible shrinking Fourth Amendment. Well, im not so sure that the Fourth Amendment is going to continue to shrink. And i think that theres reasons to be optimistic. But first, i want to spend a little bit of time talking about the reasons to be not so optimistic. Its because some of the dokt reins that do shrink the Fourth Amendment are themselves growing. The administrative search that you have to endure in the airport before you get on an airline. It used to be a quick, less intrusive scan to see if you were carrying a gun. Now you go through an electronic strip search machine that reveals information about whats happening underneath your clothing. The fisa court has issued an opinion that indicates that it believes theres a National Security exception to the Fourth Amendment, and it was a fisa court of review. And as youve heard throughout the day, were leaving digital foot prints behind all the time. And these digital foot prints are held by third parties. And the Third Party Doctrine makes it so that the Fourth Amendment often doesnt protect those foot prints. Thats why we should be worried. But i think theres three good reasons to be optimistic. And the first one goes to what i would characterize as the Supreme Courts growing embrace of the notion that Technology Poses challenges to privacy, and its unwillingness to simply apply by analogy, its decisions dealing with things that werent so technological, if you will, and couldnt store a lot of data. So, for example, in the kyleo case in 2001, the court rules that use of thermal imaging to explore activity in a private home requires a warrant. In u. S. V. Jones, the case i just mentioned, tracking a car for 28 days, by attaching a gps device to the car, requires a warrant. And most recently in riley versus california, the court ruled that the police cant search the cell phone on an arrestee incident to his arrest without a warrant. And remember, the government went into that case and said, well, when they pat you down, when youre being arrested, and they find something in your pocket, they can pull that out and find out whether its something that could be dangerous to the policeman or not, and they can make you and they can examine it. Well, the court said, cell phones are different. They carry a lot more information. So i think the courts growing ownership of the notion that technology can facilitate privacy invasion and therefore needs to be maybe given a little more protection sis a good sign. Another good sign is having david over here on the panel. I say that because business has engaged in the privacy debate in the last few years in a way it hadnt in the past. Turns out, privacys good for the bottom line. So there is a good it builds trust, and its essential for Technology Companies to sell their products, to have that trust. So i think theres a powerful new constituency in the debate in congress, and even some of the companies are bringing, i think extraordinary lawsuits. Google challenged surveillance im sorry. Not google. Yahoo brought an action. They did thats right, the First Amendment case. But this was different. This was the case against section 702 of the fisa of fisa. And yahoo, under threat of a fine of 250,000, challenged a directive that the government issued to yahoo, saying that they had to turn over information pursuant to this program, that did not operate based on warrants and that did allow for the disclosure to the government of content. And the last thing i want to mention that gives me hope is encryption. The idea that people can encrypt their data to make it so the bad guys cant get it. And if they do get it, they cant really use it well. And the strong protection that encryption can provide and the increasing ease with which we can encrypt our data. Wonderful, thank you for those optimistic observations and also your sense that the 24 7 drone surveillance in public would violate the Fourth Amendment because the court in jones rejected the governments claim that individuals have no expectation of privacy in public. Judge wayne steen will be the final vote for the split panel. Let me introduce him. The lower court gets affirmed if its 22 split. Youre going to have to make a decision. The moderator never votes. Im completely neutral and have new views on the future of the Fourth Amendment. He focuses his practice on corporate, internal investigations and civil and criminal enforcement proceedings. Hes been assistant u. S. Attorney in the celebrated district of columbia, where hes handled many important prosecution, public corruption, gang cases, hes been director of the executive office for u. S. Attorneys, general counsel to the fbi, and chief of staff to the fbi director, bob mueller. Thats an impressive background and judge wayne steen, does 24 7 drone surveillance in public violate the Fourth Amendment . Well, thanks. Thats a nice question. A nice question to duck. First thing, when i listen to you describe this drone capability, 24 7, fulltime surveillance on an individual, i can tell you, i just drove back in from a college trip where im taking my oldest to look at a college, shes about to leave and im facing the prospect of not having my little girl around to keep an eye on. And im thinking that drone sounds pretty good right now. [ laughter ] i hear gregs argument, and its a sound one, based on the decision in jones. But its very important in the jones decision that they have the trespass element to seize on. The problem is, if you dont have that, if theres an expectation of privacy in the public realm, without anything more than that, then theres a huge slippery slope argument. 24 7, high detail viewing by a drone, people might say, boy, that really is a little intrusive and youre learning about everything i do in public and whatever it is, the hours of my day are out in the public domain. So thats a lot for the government to know and compile and synthesize and analyze. But then you think, okay, that might make sense to us, but if were going to try to establish a constitutional principle, how do we do that . And how do we distinguish that from 24 7 Police Surveillance thats done every day of the year and we want done every day of the year. When theres a terrorist suspect in this country, what do we do . 24 7. We got make sure hes not going to get a ryder truck and blow up a federal building. Is that unconstitutional . No. Stop the presses, we got to get a warrant for this. Its done in other investigations as well. That cctv, you can think of myriad situations where yeah, theres no need for a warrant. If theres a decision like that, the slippery slope will be the big challenge. I dont see us getting to that point. I see the drone being sort of the perfect argument for finding that greg is advocating. I think the court, especially this court is going to be unlikely to get there, unless theres an element to that decision that will allow them to prevent that slippery slope. So thats where i stand. In terms of general remarks, i talked to jomana and she gave me marching orders about todays panel and what i should be discussing and generally a look forward to where i see things going with the various programs that are being debated now and what i see happening. Id like to talk about, not sort of what the constitutional interpretations are going to be, and what constitutional rulings well see eafr the next few years, but other where the debate will be thought out, in the policy room, in front of congress. Just step back, we all think, every time a new issue comes up, we think its the first time weve ever wrestled with it, and maybe earlier panels have made this point today, im sure they have, but this is an ongoing issue, right . Technology evolves, the Fourth Amendment drafted a couple hundred years ago or more and its got to adapt to the new technology. Saw that with the telephone in the katz decision, we saw that with bulk data being assembled and being accessible and then the smith decision that theres no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Weve seen that in the email context. You know, we had the fisa statute that was passed in 1978 before there was email and then email came along and the concepts, or the operational underpinnings of fisa were turned on their head because you werent just focusing on telephones, you were focusing on email traffic. A lot of overseas email traffic coming through the u. S. And did it make sense that we wanted to tap into the overseas to overseas communication, we needed to go to the court and get an order. And theres a healthy debate about that, and that results in the fisa amendments act that allowed the 702 collection that greg was talking about. The jones decision and now encryption. So we have issues that have come up, and this is an perennial issue. The courts have to deal with them as a constitutional matter, interpretation of existing law. The public has to deal with them in this context and really think about how we want to balance security versus privacy. I shouldnt say versus privacy, because i dont think theyre necessarily adversarial. Most importantly, congress has to decide where to draw the lines inside the constitutional lines that determine where the government can go and under what conditions in terms of surveillance. Were having this debate in terms of bulk collection, the issues raised here going dark, which is the fbis term for what will happen if theres if encryption is allowed to prevent them, completely deny them access to content of communications. And the question, i guess, is, especially in the post snowden environment, will there be a dramatic curtailing by congress of the governments surveillance capabilities . And my answer is, not likely. Not a dramatic one. There will be a curtailing, but its not going to be a major scaling back. There are a couple reasons. Yog terribly profound here. But one, its politically difficult for congress to do that. The members of congress have to look at what will be the potential outcomes of their votes. And what their exposure is if they vote. Talking about National Security authorities, if the government can come in and the executive branch can come in, make a strong argument for the authority, the power that theyve been given and that authority and why they should maintain it and give examples of how its been useful, its politically difficult for congress to really scale back and, you know, and deny them that authority. We saw that with the fisa amendments act, which i think its important to note, that was passed in 2008 when president bushs popularity ratings were not terribly high. He was against the congress that was skeptical and what was a very strong piece of National Security legislation went through. And especially now, i think its difficult for congress to do that. You know, weve got isis rampaging across the middle east. We have threats that are in the aftermath of the arab spring, that are on a scale that are greater and more dangerous than before. And so i think politically, its going to be difficult for there to be a dramatic scaling back. Thats not to say there wont be changes. This is to play into gregs optimism. I think there will be changes, but the changes will be not so much a denial of authority, but rather an application of further safe gards, for the limitations, more oversight of the authorities we have right now. The classic example of that is with the patriot act. It was passed, six weeks after 9 11 in october 2001, gave, i think, 22 or so, new authorities or added to different authorities and was done pretty hurriedly with a sunset, which was a wise thing t