Global Counterterrorism Efforts CSPAN February 22, 2017 9:49am-10:57am EST
becoming the next big success story. in the book, "valley of the gods". >> a lot felt like the rush of hollywood actresses to l.a. and end up being a waitress and wait for their big day but i feel like it's harder to be elon musk than tom cruise. so of themany of these companie instagram, uber, they didn't just have a lucky break. the stories for years and years of coding and engineering. and they have qualifications that i can't even imagine. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. >> watch c-span as president donald trump delivers his first address to a joint session of congress. >> this congress is going to be the the busiest congress we've had in decades. >> live tuesday at 9:00 p.m. eastern in c-span and c-span.org
and listen live on the free c-span app. >> homeland security secretary john kelly was on a panel with european counterparts fight against terrorism at the munich security conference saturday. in this part of the conference, secretary kelly talked about president trump's executive order on immigration. this is an hour. so we asked each of our panelists to make remarks for five minutes or so about the security challenges that you see managing your portfolios. these five gentlemen have this battle in their hands. and i would ask minister de maiziere to begin, please. >> yes, thank you very much. later in the discussion i would perhaps remain speaking in english, but for the beginning i
would like to switch and to talk in german. >> translator: from this topic i would like to make five brief remarks. first remark, when i look at the major crises and challenges that we are facing in europe, i have to say it is the euro and fiscal crisis, the challenges that have to do with migration, terrorism, and, of course, the cyberthreat. euro and migration here, the attendance seems to be that europe is drifting apart. as far as terrorism is
concerned, there is at least an opportunity to bring europe back together again. and i'm working for that. i had hope to maope to make sur happens. so that is my first remark. my second remark, we are now talking about transatlantic relations. and there are many concerns. i believe that fighting international terrorism is another thing that could get the transatlantic partners back together again, strengthen our relations rather than weaken them. when i talk to my new colleague, john kelly, he emphasize that as well. so i think this is an opportunity we should use. my third remark, at conferences such as this one, the
representation is great to call for a new strategic debate, many people say we need something that is entirely new, everything that has been done so far is bad and we need something new. and that will get you a lot of attention, sometimes at least. as far as counterterrorism, and europe is concerned, this is not what we need. i believe that in the past two years, we have had a lot of sacrifices in europe and we had decisions to take. the next two years will be the years of implementation, spectacular, but extremely important. what do i mean by that? we have learned that there are two simple questions to be answered. first question, europe should be the one to decide who can enter
europe and who can't and we should be the ones to decide that, not criminal smuggling bands. that's the first question. the second question, the second objective is europe should know who enters europe, who leaves it. that means we have a legal major legal program, technical prog m program, p & r agreement, we have to work on that, entry, exit, register something we need. we talked about in theory, but we need to implement it, that will take about two years. so that's a huge asset for european security. european needs a system, we have talked about it, we are negotiating it, but we need to implement it as well. and, again, that will probably require another two years. interoperability of data, we have lots of data we gather in
europe, but we do that separately from migration, for travel, for security, for visa. if we pool the data, we would have enough. if these security services to the extent that this is legally possible would have access to this data, that would be enormous asset in terms of security. it is complicated, it will take some time, but we have to do it. now, these points alone enter, exit, p & r, esta, interoperability of data, if we can achieve that in the next two or three years, that will be an enormous benefit in terms of security. that goes beyond anything we have been able to achieve in the last ten years. everything needs to be implemented, we need the political will to do that, we need cooperation from parliament, european parliament, but we don't need any new
strategies. last remark, five remarks after all, four. i'm talking minister of the interior and talking on behalf of european interior ministers. in our struggle against terrorism cannot be won by repression alone, we need prevention and deradicalization. we never talked as much about prevention as the last two or three years. usually it is education ministers, integration ministers, ministers of social development, we talk about that. we're not just talking about foreign fighters. we're talking about home grown terrorism. in germany, recently we had a 12-year-old boy who tried to plant a bomb on a christmas market. a 15-year-old girl tried to stab a policeman. she was born in germany. grew up in germany. and became radicalized in germany as well. deradicalization prevention, that's very difficult. we need to learn from each other, the united kingdom was
one of the first states to start to do this. france, germany, italy, spain, we have had different causes for radicalization and different preventive measures that are necessary, but, again, the focus has to be a lot stronger, the focus of prevention has to be a lot stronger. something we have not been successful yet is counternarrative for the internet to fight propaganda, spread by the islamic state, because that is tempting to many people. deadly and tempting, and it is so intelligent. and well done, very often. so far we have not found anything to fight that. we are doing a lot. we do a lot in germany and in europe. but we haven't been successful yet. so prevention, deradicalization and education by means of the
internet, these are my initial remarks. thank you very much. >> mr. minister, before i turn over to general kelly, i want to can ask you a brief question. the title of our session tonight is countering violent extremism. if president trump were here, he would probably say we should call the panel countering radical islamist terrorism. and i am interested, words matter in this struggle, whether you think that is unfortunate and makes the job of people like you harder. >> why give this question to me, not general kelly. you will give it to him as well, probably. >> he likes me. >> yeah. so the more abstract you talk, but the more error in what you
say. so what does that mean what your question means? problem is we don't have enough relevant data from those countries, where dangerous people are coming. if you register all the refugees, and if you compare this with our data, you will not find enough results. so this is the question that we need, of course, more intelligence, but to ban whole countries perhaps could create more collateral damages and perhaps does not produce more security. so do it as -- the more precise you do it, the more effective you are. this is my answer. >> thank you. general kelly, you're welcome to respond to that, but i know you have other things you want to say. >> i do.
it goes without saying the transatlantic relationship between the united states and europe is unique, important. just the -- if you just look at the economic trade, the benefits of the economies is massive. i think it is something on the order of 50% of the world's gdp is tied up in our relationship. but our mutual investment is even more because it involves our freedoms, our democracy, our human rights and the rule of law. terrorism in transnational crime threaten these values and our cher ished way of life. terrorist attacks on our people and our nations and it doesn't matter what nation, what people, are an insult and assault on humanity. like you, i'm concerned about the radicalization that leads to violence and terrorism against our societies and against our values. i am particularly concerned about the travel of people to the combat zones around the world, but particularly in the
middle east, that are fraught with isil and other groups who may later and are, in fact, returning to home countries in the west to commit attacks against our homelands. as the situation in syria and iraq and other conflict zones change, the return of these individuals to attack our countries, our homelands, will very much increase. to the department of homeland security, the organization that i'm privileged to lead, stands with you, all of you, in our shared efforts against these threats. in the united states, europe, we're challenged to invest more resources and counterterrorism in border security capabilities. i'd like to highlight in particular the work of our european partners who have increased information sharing including sharing among intelligence services, law enforcement and border authorities. passage and progress toward
implementation of the eu, passage in name and record directive. pnr. and enhanced screening of travel is at the u.n., so eu's external borders while complying always with personal privacy rules in the establishment of the european counterterrorism center and the european migrant smuggling center in europol. but there is more work to be done. throughout my kreerks i've been fortunate to work a broad range of international partners tackling some of the most critical missions. as secretary of homeland security, i look forward to continuing this work with all of our international partners to combat terrorism around the world. aviation security, critical component to our counterterrorism strategy, aviation has been targeted for terror attacks and still is being targeted for terrorist attacks and there are some vulnerabilities. we saw that on 9/11. and we saw that last year in the bombings at the brussels
airport. if you want to protect travel, you have to know who is traveling. over the years, since 9/11, the united states has developed a very sophisticated vetting process to screen travelers. we collect and analyze advance passenger information and passenger name record on p & r. this data includes travel dates, itinerary information about tickets, baggage, and method of payment. it does not include race, religion, health information, or political orientation. travelers retain the civil rights and civil liberties, principles we all hold dear. collecting and analyzing this data helps us to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals and other high risk individuals from traveling to my country. this practice allows us to concentrate our attention and resources and those who are most
likely to do us harm, or facilitating travel of legitimate individuals. we're quite enthusiastic that our european partners are implementing the eu passage and name -- directive, and are working on enhancing their border management and a number of ways. we at the department of homeland security are happy to share our best practices and do share our best practices and technical knowledge as you all move to implement what is a life saving program. if we're going to start terrorists from coming into the countries, our countries, with a destructive mission, we need information about who is traveling, where they're traveling and why they're traveling. this is the reason behind one of president trump's executive orders, entitled protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states. it was designed as a temporary pause that would allow us in many ways, allow me, to see where our immigration and refugee vetting system has gaps
and gaps it has that could be exploited. one of the problems we all immediately -- we have immediately identified as we do not always have sufficient information to determine whether travelers from certain countries present a risk to the united states. this is a two-part challenge. we do not have strong counterterrorism partnerships of some countries, limiting our understanding of their security postures, and potentially increasing the risk to the united states homeland. and we do not have robust information on the individuals traveling from these countries, limiting our ability to conduct risk assessment before they travel to the united states. two of countries that are named in this executive order are listed as state sponsors of terrorism. they don't cooperate with us. they don't have relationship with the united states like our european allies do. four of the countries listed we don't even have u.s. embassies
there. no one to help us in the initial vetting process. by contrast, consider the visa waiver program which lets citizens from 38 countries, citizens of all races and religions, that can travel to the united states for business or tourism for up to 90 days without a visa. in 2015, more than 22 million tourists and travelers came to the united states under this program. that's a nearly 30% -- that is nearly 30% of all of the travellers that travel to the united states. we extend this visa free privilege to citizens of countries that implement stringent security measures and proactively share information with the united states. people often say relationships are built on trust and they are, but trust is also built on relationships. we trust our visa waiver program partners, because we have relationships with them. with you. and i would like to emphasize security relationships. these relationships help us keep
all of our citizens safe. dhs is prepared to support all of our partners that implement these kind of reforms that improve their security and their board of management. this also extends to refugees and asylum seekers identifying refugees through the use of biometric as well as vetting serves them as well as us. our world is small and getting smaller. we share both dangers and successes, nowhere does this happen faster than in cyberspace. and without going into the details of it, it is a threat that emerged seemingly suddenly and has grown beyond anyone's expectations. it is in all of our interests to cooperate against this other form of terrorism, and most of us do. so i think i'll leave it with that, david, and take your questions. >> i want to ask you one question before moving on.
the immigration order that you discussed and laid out the rational for, as you and our audience know, encountered legal challenges. first, a federal district court in washington state, stayed its implementation and then an appeals court affirmed that lower court judgment. and so president trump has said he's going to come back with a new version of this executive order, that will meet the legal questions that have been raised. i know this audience would be deeply interested in any ideas you could share with us about what the new executive order might look like as it emerges next week. >> i guess i would begin by saying one of the great advantages i had in my life is i'm not a lawyer. i just don't right a wrong. i take a rational look at these kind of things. it did surprise the united states government that the courts took their action. i don't criticize it, i don't know enough about how they
think. but i would tell you that we are contemplating the president is contemplating releasing a tighter, more streamlined version of the first do. and we will have this time opportunity -- i will have opportunity to work a rollout plan, in particular to make sure that there is no one in a sense caught in the system of moving from overseas to our airports, which happened on the first release. so that's where we are in that. >> so people who have valid visas will be allowed to enter. people who have green cards will be allowed to enter, i'm assuming. >> yeah, it is a good assumption and as far as the visas go, again, if they're in motion from some distant land to the united states, when they arrive, they will be allowed in. that said, we will have a short phase-in period to make sure that people on the other end don't get on airplanes.
but if they're on an airplane and inbound they will be allowed to enter the country. this is just a pause until we look at a number of countries, seven in particular, and look at their vetting processes, how reliable they are and i would tell you they're not very reliable, and find ways to vet in a more reliable way, to satisfy us that the people that are coming to the united states are, in fact, coming for the right reason. >> thank you. that is an answer that is helpful to all of us. defense minister asif. >> thank you. i heard with full attention to the excellency, the president of afghanistan, pakistan -- against terrorism and we have played a
very significant role in fighting terrorism last 10, 15 years along with the rest of the world. but responding to excellency, the president of afghanistan, i must give the narrative of my country that we believe that there cannot be peace in afghanistan without peace in afghanistan. it has to be a joint effort by both the countries to restore peace in our region. and i agree with the president of afghanistan that there are no good talibans and no bad tal pan they're all bad. terrorists with any name is bad. so i -- we, the pakistanis fully support the effort which has
been undertaken to restore peace and order in afghanistan, because ultimately it will complement us. and in the last two years since the president took over, we have demonstrate ed that through our actions that we support peace, both in our own country, and in afghanistan. the military operations which started in 14th of june, 2014, brought huge dividends, dividends of peace to pakistan. and waziristan was cleared, the safe havens which were there for many, many years were destroyed, and almost 18% of the terrorism,
interde incidents of terrorism were finished. since last week, the spate of terrorist attacks in pakistan has manifested that more is to be done. and we are prepared for that. we will encounter this threat with full might of our state. and we expect and hope that there will be cooperation from other brothers from cross the border in afghanistan, it is a common fight, at least when it comes to our own region. it is a common fight for the mankind, for humanity. let me explain there was another issue which was raised by the president. we have been able to repatriate
650,000 refugees, which were residing in pakistan for more than three decades. still have 1.4 million refugees. they have been repatriated and they have been repatriated successfully. this is something which can be replicated, but you have to create conducive -- for the them to go back to their homes. that's not possible for syrians or iraqis or libyans. or elsewhere in the middle east. one must understand why these people are refugees in the first place. who displaced them from their homes? who made them internally displaced persons of the refugees? few hundred thousand, million refugees, have come to europe,
and have heard this over and over again since morning and since yesterday. and the last conference, the 52nd conference, which focused on refugees, europeans and -- they feel threatened. and you said in the beginning that the system will be destabilized. what happens to us? we're housing these -- we are actually having these refugees for three decades like pakistan, almost 3 million refugees. without any substantial aid from outside, our political system was disturbed. our culture was disturbed. drug and rampant culture was introduced in our country. terrorism was introduced in our country. so you have to take a global
view, an international view of this problem, not an isolationist view, not an exclusive view. inclusive view. include the countries of our regions, middle east, afghanistan, pakistan. the people who have been victim of interventions, one must audit and account, vetted the interventions have produced peace in our region, or whether these interventions have been counterproductive. they brought misery to this region. we still have 200 issues in our region, kashmir and palestine. and we have multiple issues now. two festering wounds, maybe five or six festering wounds in our region. so the global threat of terrorism cannot be solved by
suggesting selective solutions. it is a threat which has to be countered by the mankind with unity and full might. we are stage, handicapped by our bad economies. our law and order situation. meager resources. but we are fighting. we spent $2 billion in the last two years to fight terrorism in pakistan. without any outside help. 60,000 coyotes in pakistan. huge losses to economy. and we have control. this is free spate of violence in one week, we take care of that also. we are partners with the rest of the world to fight against
terrorism. and we're determined to fight terrorism. but when we are called like the term which has been used islamic terrorism, since morning i heard it a dozen times, president trump uses it very frequently. that is not synonymous to any village. terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorists are not christians or muslims or buddhists or hindus. they're terrorists. they're criminals. so this islamic islamophobia, it is fuel when the terrorism is branded as islamic terrorism. and secondly, with all due respect, with all humility at my disposal, thwhatever the u.s. h,
has not helped the fight against terrorism. we in pakistan are determined to fight against terrorism. we have in the past made mistakes. since last three years our armed forces have done a very good job and we intend to continue that. and let me assure the world community that pakistan is a front line state in this war, and it will continue to fulfill its obligations to its own people, and to the rest of the international community. but if the policies of the west are going to be isolationist, are exclusive, it won't help the fight against terrorism. it will fuel terrorism. so it is a common fight, the
fight which has to be fought by the human race against this infraction, this disease. and no exceptions. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. minister. general monguno. >> thank you very much for having me. let me start by conveying a message from president bahari. that message is we want to reiterate nigeria's commitment to fighting terrorism and in so doing we are open to collaborating with all countries. let me start by saying that terrorism in its very essence, the threat of global terrorism, is very, very real. and it is something that nigeria has come to understand in the last seven years. the association of terrorists
with other organizations and elements around the world has exacerbated an already delicate situation that has existed as far back as maybe the cold war era. for nigeria, we had a tremendous traumatic experience in the last seven years. boko haram, which started as a small group, has been able to expand greatly. it left the shores of nigeria and has affected an entire region with cameroon and chad. not only that, by extension, it started affecting other countries in africa. now, the threat of terrorism as far as nigeria is concerned can only be overcome by
collaborating with the international community. boko haram basically evolved by virtue of its association with transnational terrorist organizations, starting from 2009 to date. and its evolution has been very, very drastic. first of all, its association with the taliban and then gradually with al qaeda and islamic maghreb and now with the islamic state. it will be difficult to talk about boko haram in nigeria in isolation of other global jihadist movements and terrorist networks. the very fact that the uprising in libya and the eventual capitulation of the gadhafi
government resulted in an outward flow of arms and human beings, the most natural place in sub-saharan africa for this flow was nigeria, by virtue of its large size and population. again, the situation in places like egypt, kenya, somalia, has also enabled terrorist network and criminal groups and associations easy access of movement across large swaths of territory and hindered, there by gaining access to recruits, training opportunities, and also embarking on a lot of elicit, illegal activities, such as trafficking and drugs, in human
beings, also smuggling of weapons as well as other abuses. now, for all the countries in the subregion, there is a dependence on nigeria because of its its regional power. it has not been easy because in nigeria, we're facing a new type of war. very different from our experience in the last 10, 20, or 30 years. and, by the way, nigeria is not just grappling with boko haram but with so many other problems, internal issues in the niger del delta, kidnapping, piracy, so on and so forth. so nigeria is looked in a very difficult situation. our approach has been both the soft and hard approach, and the government has adopted a
philosophy that to deal with boko haram is just a stopgap. it is not our ultimate objective. our ultimate objective is to entrench peace and stability in nigeria. and that can only be done following certain guidelines and priorities, such as the entrenchment of democratic governance, such as respect for human rights, the rule of law, protection of civilians, protection of victims of violence, and so on and so forth. the resumption of power decided to look at this situation both from the internal and external perspective. internally what he did was to reorganize the armed forces, change its leadership, and then look at the security setup. changing the way we look at our security framework, our policy,
and also the legal framework within nigeria. general bahari embarked on other issues such as setting up the presidential committee on the northeast initiative. and also working with multiple stake holders in nigeria. our own objective, having realized the military approach itself cannot be the only solution, we decided to embark other stake holders. so our approach is multifaceted, multidimensional, all of government and all of society. finally, i want to add that our external approach in battling boko haram has been to look at several issues, collaboration with all the countries of the commission, niger, cameroon and chad, as well as also the wider
international community. president bahari embarked on various visits. thirdly, we have this arrangement of sharing intelligence. we have a platform known as the regional intelligence fusion unit, comprising of britain, france, and the united states and it has been very, very efficacious and we had a lot of successes. today, boko haram has been degraded, almost to zero. and all the elements that have been wiped out of the forest have moved into the urban areas and this therein lies the problem, where we need assistance from the larger international community in terms of technological assistance, collaboration and intelligence, and so on and so forth. i want to stop here. maybe later there will be other questions. thank you very much. >> thank you, general. and finally, on our panel, the european security commissioner, julian king. >> thank you.
three points, if i may. the first point is that europe has been attacked repeatedly over the last two years. but this session has reminded us rather eloquently if i may say so that this is a global phenomenon, we experience terrorism and radical extremism differently, in different countries, but i think we are all united in our determination to face it down. secondly, in the eu, we don't see this challenge as being some kind of clash of civilizations between islam and the west, played out somehow in the streets of europe. the people who are trying to do us harm, the violent radical extremists, are attacking our way of life, seeking to undermine our institutions. and that is what we stand
together to try and face down. third, we are learning the lessons, we are learning the lessons of the attacks that we have suffered in europe over the last two years. so we are strengthening our orders, and we are strengthening our security behind our borders. that isn't closing borders, that is essentially knowing more about who is coming in and out of your shared space. using some of the information systems that thomas de maiziere was talking about and strengthening the cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence services within that shared space. the -- another system which i would add to the list that was mentioned earlier is to know more about criminal records because in quite a number of cases you find the people
perpetrating the attacks have touched the criminal justice system at some point. obviously, prevention is better than cure. so we are also trying to get ahead of some of these problems, by redoubling our efforts to tackle radicalization, both on the web, and in our communities. you need to do both. because the most successful radicalizes are working with effective propaganda, but also on the ground with daesh and extremist agitators and we need to combat that on both sides. we need to be better at determining, identify ing and protecting targets. and there is much more that we can do on that. and we need to get better at closing down the means that the
terrorists use to perpetrate their attacks. and not all of this is high tech. not talking here really about the cyberdimension. we need to get better at the controls around firearms. some of these attacks have been perpetrated with illegal and sometimes legally obtained firearms. we need get better controls there. and we need to crack down on explosives and homemade explosives used in a number of attacks. we need to follow the money because this really does work. even if you don't need big money to perpetrate some of these attacks, being able to follow the movements of financing can deliver really, really effective intelligence. and this is one of the areas, one of the areas where the cooperation between the eu and the u.s. has been so strong. it was through a u.s. scheme that terrorists financed tracking program that after the attacks in brussels, of paris,
hundreds literally hundreds of leads were thrown up, which allowed the investigators and prosecutors in belgium and in france successfully to go after the perpetrators. so they have one concrete example of why we need to work so closely together to tackle these problems. >> thank you. i would just underline something that commissioner king said, which is that we talk often about the global problem of extremism, terrorism. you rarely see a panel that captures that global reach in the way that this one does. so thanks to the munich security conference. i want to ask brief questions of our panelists and then turn to the audience. is please be thinking of your questions. i want to start with minister de maiziere. i heard repeatedly from different speakers tonight the
idea of the importance of sharing intelligence. and i think of germany and europe, i think about this question of sharing intelligence in two ways. first, is it time for europe to think about some real europe wide intelligence organization that would make that sharing more of a reality? and, second, your chancellor said this morning in her speech that germany and europe need the united states, but germany has sometimes been allergic to american intelligence. certainly in the aftermath of the snowden revelations. is that changing? so two questions, do you need europe wide service, and is this fear of american intelligence diminishing? >> the first question is easy to answer for me. the answer is no. we need to share more
intelligence within europe. but i don't see a political majority and i don't see the will of the big countries to create something like a new body, a european body for intelligence. never, ever great britain would be on board. probably not france. and probably not germany. we are big countries and small countries, old european countries and european union and new ones. so there is not enough trust among us to do so. there are legal restrictions in our countries and just the big countries don't want it. so the answer is no. but this does not mean that we
should share more information. and we are quite successful there, we started it. there is a counterterrorism group in denmark. there is a new data exchange there. they're becoming more professional. they build trust and so on and so forth. so cooperation is the answer, not a new institution. number one. and it is hopeless to work -- to work on other things. concentrated on what julian and me just said. the second answer, yes, there was -- there was a difficult discussion between europe and especially germany and the obama administration on the issue. it was discussed here in these conferences. and it is true that there was the result was at least
political obstacles, mistrust, something like that. but first of all, must say that day to day, pragmatic cooperation, fighting terrorism, never, ever was decreased from both sides. and this was important for both sides and especially for us in our cooperation with america. and now, well, the threats in europe, the situation, the global situation, decreased the tensions, and now at least europe and germany are more pragmatic towards this intelligence issues and i think the end of this period, we'll have a report of our committee, and so on and so forth, i think now we're concentrating on the future and not on the past. diplomatic answer.
>> indeed. the -- let me ask general kelly, you made reference briefly to something that i want to ask you to focus on. talking about the likely fall of isis in mosul. on a recent visit to the white house, to national security council, i was shown a map of mosul as it falls and there were huge black arrows spreading west from mosul. towards ramadi, towards syria, towards turkey, towards europe. the implication was we need to be ready for the problems that go with success, that the fall of mosul may mean a cadres.
could you focus on that? is that something in your mind and how are you and the administration thinking about preparing for it. >> sure. i think one of the good things about the extremists when they establish a caliphate and kind of took terrain and held it, was we knew where they were and you heard from the prime minister a little while ago, the iraqis doing very well. and i have a fair share of my professional life in the military, spent in iraq, fighting alongside the iraqi soldiers and police. but in any event, as their effectiveness against the extremists and in northern iraq and in syria, another part of the conflict, those individuals, we already see them, and i think we and the open press hear them being encouraged to not die in place, to move out, and go back to their homelands, wherever
that may be, western europe, of course, some in the united states, some in latin america, but to go back to their homelands and, you know, create terrorists or implement terrorist attacks, very, very hard to track. one of the key points to think about the european problem, it is actually an american problem as well, because of the visa waiver program, many of these men are, you know, officially not outside the eu and not outside europe. they don't know where they are. they don't know they left. so when they return, through, you know, clandestine means to be back in their homelands, and no real record of the fact -- not all -- but no real record of the fact they have been fighting alongside -- they themselves are extremists. i think it is something we need to brace ourselves for because there is many thousands of them, that have fallen into this category. >> defense minister asif,
something that caught the attention of people who follow counterterrorism issues in pakistan was your government's move over the last several months, if i understand it correctly to place the person who is often identified as the architect of the mumbai bombings, mohammad saeed under house arrest in lahore. i'm tell there are other similar actions, camps that are being closed or squeezed and that your government has taken more action against these individuals and groups in recent months than has been the case. could you speak to that? that's an important development if it is true. >> so you're absolutely right. terrorists in last four or five months we have -- a lot of
people who could be potential facilitators of terrorism. and we have put them under a schedule four, which is a section in our local legal system, which restricts the movement of the individual, and he's monitored and he cannot move out of a certain area without informing the police. and they are sort of, you can say they are classified as people who are anti-social or who could be dangerous to the society. so that's some of what has been taken and let me assure the gathering over here that these people who have been in the past -- they had some sort of license to move around, and license to continue with their
work, which was not really -- and terrorist related, but they could be dangerous it our own society. so we have taken some stern actions against them and we intend to, you know, put them to test or you can say we can -- we intend to bring them to legal framework. these people are not free to operate, the organizations they were heading, they're not free to operate, these are -- we have been banned in the past, these organizations in the past were connected with the terrorist attacks within pakistan. but as i said earlier to combat terrorism and to finish
terrorism, especially in our own country and in afghanistan, there are these -- we have taken these mayors and we have not hesitated in taking the measures in the future also. >> thank you. last question for me and then we'll go to the audience. i want to ask general monmongun your government, you and general bahari has been pressing in the fight against boko haram into the northeast, into borneo state. just two hours ago, the woman who is head of midsouth frontier spoke to this group and raised a question this could be asked about any counterterrorism effort anywhere. she described the loss of civilian life and the deaths of doctors, medical personnel, in nigerian military attack on boko haram targets in borneo state where she said 90 people were killed, and she made an appeal
essentially in going after terrorists, can you -- can people work to better spare civilians from being caught in that? let me ask you as a proxy, i can ask anybody about this, how can that be done better so that civilian lives are not so much at risk? >> well, it is true that a few weeks ago there was this air raid carried out by the nigerian air force and location known as arian was bombed in error. they are investigating into this unfortunate incident. having said that, there are difficulties confronting armed forces, especially african armed forces in dealing with this new type of asymmetric conflict.
the very idea of trying to separate belligerence, bona fide terrorists from civilian communities tends to be a big problem for us. and what we try to do as much as possible is to use intelligence to try and separate the various groups. and in so doing, we tried to collaborate with our external partners, i mentioned the united states, great britain, and france. we have this regional intelligence fusion unit as well as our immediate neighbors of niger, cameroon and chad in trying to help each other. again, of course, the very fact that our people have gone over to the other borders or the other countries, they also come back with all sorts of people,
most of them come back as refugees. and our military has tried as much as possible to contend with this problem of separating the -- those that have been saturated and this boko haram activity from those that have totally innocent. so it is a very difficult problem that nigeria is facing right now. >> may i -- >> sure. >> may i comment? former remark from our pakistan colleague, i think it is important about the wording. criticized the wording of islam terrorism. well, in germany we use the word islamistic terrorism. it is a difference, but still i understand your criticism. but you must admit that at least the terrorists claim themselves as muslims.
they misuse your religion. so the chance to discuss it with our public can only be when we just name what is going on. so i think this is reason number one. second reason, it is hopeless to start or to stop this wording. perhaps it is too late. if we stop it, we don't name it anymore, the people would say, yeah, you reduce a problem, you hide the real -- you hide the real backgrounds. so unfortunately we have to use this wording. and together with you, we shall battle with those who criticize islam as such by together fighting against those who misuse this religion.
>> you want to briefly respond to that? >> yeah. i agree, somewhat, with this argument. but, you know, the victims of the so-called islamic terrorists, if they have to -- one has to give them identity on a religious side, almost 90% of people killed are muslims. more than 90% are muslims. and across islamic world are -- fatwas of not being muslims or they do not conform to the basic principles of islam, which is compassion, love, and tolerance. so this is something which is, you know, just for the sake of
identification, it tarnishes the name of my religion. it tarnishes the life i stand for. that is my problem. you know. that's my problem. i hope the audience will understand that that is a problem. at one point, for 1.5 billion muslims all over the world, the terrorists daesh, boko haram, and all of the franchises run by this terrorist community, all put together, will be less than 100,000, all over the place, nigeria, pakistan, afghanistan. there are more than that. so condemning or labeling a religion, a community of 1.6 billion or 1.5 billion people for the wrongdoings of 100,000 people or 50,000 people, in my
humble opinion, it is unjustified. >> general monguno briefly and then to the audience. >> if it will help, i just want to say that while it makes sense not to call a shovel it makes s not to call a shovel a spade. i point out that i come from the part of nigeria from the northeast that is the epicenter of the boko haram, and if you had told me that that a nigerian girl who is 6 or 7 years old would have the capacity to strap herself up and blow herself up, i would have laughed at you. but the fact is that nobody is tailor made to be a terrorist. these things happen once you are immersed and exposed to some extremist belief. once the tools are there, you
can inflict any grievous harm on peop people. in 1993, there was a fellow david koresh in waco, texas, who sta started to galvanize the group, and yet for the effective of the fbi, he was crushed. and this operation of the blue star at the golden temple was crushed. and again, so many incidents like that, and japan and other places so on and so forth. so i want to make it clear that people can be vulnerable to use the vagrancies of the era. >> to be brief. let me remind the audience of 1980s which was the final battle of the koecold war. the same people wine and dined
in the same house, and it is who bashed up on the government two weeks back, who was branded for the last three decades as the butcher of kabul. and he was one of the first foungd fathers of america, and so this contradiction, and this dichotomy bothers us. it bothers us that the people who were there, and the people who were in the election 20s, 30 years back, and the jihadists were coming back after 30 years. in my humble opinion and when i look back the hindsight tells me that we were wrong then. these people are back, and so there is no contradiction on the
part of the vest. who glorified the them, and when they were fighting the soviet union, and we are the proxy. and now, we are paying the price for that, you know. nasa scientists announced new discoveries of the exosystem at a press conference in the head quarters in washington. you watch it here on c-span3 or streamline it live or listen to pennsylvania avenue clkt. this this year's coalition dinner and event held in st. louis also featured activist peggy hubbard who gained notoriety the after posting a picture on facebook criticizing the black lives matter. >> and not understood lying the black lives matter movement, and
that kill iing cops is a self-servinging prominent level of state and local government and an artists, and to use the opportunity to seize the moment of tragedies to seize upon this agen agenda. those whop oppo oppose the rulew is damaging to my life's work. they are trying to undermine the advantage that disa advantaged and other minorities need to have in their communities at their finest. i had surmised that there needed to be a psyche of the discharges
who wonder if the honorable work is worth it anymore. see this event live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern. and now, the utilities lawmakers on caple tall hill. they testified before the state public works community including delaware and wyoming and colorado, and chairman john barrasso serves as is the rea n ranking member. good morning. i call this hearing to order. president trump has made
improving the nation's infrastructure a top priority. infrastructure is critical to the nation's prosperity. the senate and the environment and the public works commitment has jurs disdiction over the highways and the roads, and the dams and roads. this allows things to go from the heartland to the coast, and they provide protection to rural and urban communities that save lives. and in addition, they have infrastructure that is modernization. it does not matter the setting of rural or not. the impact is going to be particularly counter productive if they do not apply the kif frens of urban and rural. our committee has members from both the rural and urban areas. newport, rhode island, and wheatland,