The document itself, which I think is important to understand. I think it's important to understand in reference, your questions, one substantive matter and one procedural matter. The substantive matter, which I say often when I'm talking to students, particularly, I say, 'What is this document about?' And a lot of them will say human rights. And I say, 'Human rights is there, but that isn't what it's about. What it's about is a document in the first seven articles creates Democratic forms of government.' So at the heart of the constitution, as I see Senator Bennett, it's his institution that's created the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. All of whom are elected, and we are not. And so the primary thing is to create a Democratic system so that people can decide for themselves what kind of government they want. Whether they want their cities, towns, states, nation to be, that's their decision. But it's a certain kind of democracy. It's the kind that does protect human liberty, that's primarily in the first ten amendments. It divides power, state, federal, and three branches. It assures a degree of equality and insists on a rule of law. Now in a sense those and other things are boundaries. And we are, and the metaphor I use, it seems to get across, is the boundary patrol. And I think life at the frontier is sometimes tough, and we sometimes get very hard questions, but people forget that because it's the boundary patrol trying to see in cases a few of them, is this on the inside or the outside, what a difficult case. They jump from the fact that we're patrolling the boundary, which is true, to the conclusion that we're telling people what to do, which is false. And that brings me to the procedural point. The procedural point is our institution works best, now you can't always have this, but I think it works best when we are really last. Toqueville saw this at 1840. He comes to the United States and he says, "The last five years, what have I been seeing here? I've been seeing chaos." He called it a clamor of everybody shouting at each other and talking about politics. And what he meant was the debate which is heightened with the Patriot Act where people shout at each other nonstop. In all kinds of groups, law and order groups, civil liberties groups, every group under the sun and as a result of their shouting you'll do some drafting. Maybe you'll go to far, maybe you won't. But then Senator Bennett's organization may try a few things, or maybe an administrative agency will. And maybe we'll learn from experience and maybe we'll have revision, but at the end of the day, not at the beginning, we sometimes can serve a purpose after others have educated themselves and are then able to educate us in deciding that frontier question. So what's happening now? Well, what's happening now is we've had a considerable amount of experience with the Patriot Act, with Guantanamo, with other questions involving civil liberties, and after others have worked it out, if there is still contention, and it takes the form of a legal issue, then it reaches us and then we can apply the boundary conditions. That's a long, general answer to your general question. But you talk about the boundary patrol. Can you give us a view of whether the principles have now crossed the frontier of human rights and liberty Justice Breyer? I can say this. I can say I know a few principles. Principle one which is always there as the boundary patrol operates. Now that was once debatable, cause I know there's an old Latin saying with (INAUDIBLE), he's saying (speaking in Latin) which I never got my Latin course right but I think I said once it was supposed to mean "when the cannons roar, the laws fall silent." Then someone told me, you idiot. The Romans didn't have cannons. But regardless, it meant in time of war, no law. That's wrong. We apply the law. What law? Where that's where you were talking about balancing. Is it a special law? In a sense it is not a special law. Much of this document, if I look at the fourth amendment, what it talks about, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, etcetera, etcetera, they are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. What's unreasonable? I guess you need a warrant. Do you? If you see somebody grabbed off the street, pushed with a gun into somebody's private apartment house. It'll take the policeman two minutes to get in there if he sees it. He's not going to go downtown and get a warrant and he shouldn't and that's (INAUDIBLE). So there is flexibility there to adjust to the circumstance and the same is true in time of war or it's true in time of terror. But the trick is the difficulty is, the hard issue is, well, what counts as too much one way or the other and there we have, I'll stop here and if you want to continue because I don't want go into too long a lecture. OK, I'll say one other thing then. Look, we have some weapons in trying to find out whether this is too much or too little reasonable or unreasonable and a lot of people do not like to admit these weapons are good ones, but I do. They are called lawyers and what the -- they are -- and what the lawyers do is that they ask to questions, particularly if they are on the defendant side. They are the defendant side and the government's prosecuting this person who has been imprisoned for a certain amount of time or special prison or who knows what and the government says, but don't you see. Security needs, special, terrorism, and the lawyer will say, oh, why? Let's--I can't tell you, it's a secret, oh tell the Judge. There are many ways to skin this cat, but the lawyer will persevere until some good and proper reasons and not theoretical reasons, but a few facts are out there that allow people to determine whether the why has an answer. But even if it has an answer they'll go to question two and question two is a great one. Question two is, why not and what they mean by why not, why not do it this way, which gets you your objective of security, but at less of a civil liberties cost. You say that you cannot give the personal lawyer, why not, because he'll tell the lawyer a code and they'll say don't blow up the bridge, that means blow it up. All right, or say hello to my mother, that means set off the bomb, all right, you see the problem, there is a problem there, could be a problem there, all right, no, I say -- but, show me that's true. Fine, is it still true tomorrow, is still true the next day, I mean in some countries the Judge will visit the person confined. If he's convinced that's right on day one he comes back next week or in two weeks from now. And the longer he's there, the better the justification. Now I'm using that as an example and I don't say it's a perfect example or even relevant to many questions. What I'm trying to show you is, that the answers to these questions are often context specific and that they often require the government to justify both why and why not do it a less restrictive way. That's ordinary work of courts. Ordinary work of courts at this frontier and the frontier is a frontier or security needs and civil liberties tradition, can clash. Minister Schauble you have recently signaled a greater robustness on these issues, using the word (INAUDIBLE) which is prevention of danger or risk management. You've created a significant number of waves with this clear intention, which you stated. Now, how should we read the German approach to this now, given the increased federal powers that there now are on security and with the concerns you have. You haven't in Germany had a major terror incident, it could have happened with the trains last year, there could have been others with the aircraft as well, but how important do you believe it is to do this to prevent and preempt as opposed to react? First, I have to say to American auditors that in German constitution, prevention, police, is in the responsibility of the (INAUDIBLE), until our last amendment for constitution, federal government didn't have any responsibility in police. It was only to the (INAUDIBLE). Now we have made an amendment in our constitution that we gave the responsibility for the government and to the federal and to the federal bureau of investigation. In against the dangers of the threat of international terrorism, only the threats of international terrorism; having got this confidence now we have to make a legislation for the (INAUDIBLE) because it can only act on the basis of legislation, because out understanding is on the basis of Constitution. We have to define, by law what they may do and what they must not do. And now are in the (INAUDIBLE) and we have a debate, what instruments do you need for prevention and security affairs. Actually we had the debate on the investigation online. Until now, German authorities acted on the basis, on our understanding of Constitution and of on law. That it was allowed like on the legislation how to condone telephone communication. Now, federal the (INAUDIBLE) decided, if you want to control online you have to make a special legislation. You cannot take the legislation for controlling telephone communication. You have to make a special legislation. Until now, we have acted on this basis, now I have to say that we are making a new legislation because we need to instrument understand, recondition, renew. We need it as we always used. Former governments used it. I decided until we have a clear Constitution on a legal basis, we will not use the instrument. But I will. I will need a legislature. That was the debate. Most people in Germany even our coalition partner take me on saying, we need such an instrument, that we used to have it, but what we need is a basis for it, a legal basis (INAUDIBLE). That our German, method to act only on clear constitutional basic and to define by law what can be done and what we mustn't. We need the instrument, of course, we need information if you have to prevent if you have to, if you are responsible for security (ph), you have to got informations. You have to. You need cooperation with intelligence services from other countries. We have a debate for example, of course, we are totally clear, torture is not allowed. Under no circumstances, there must no be any debate of it. But if our intelligence services get information, for another intelligence service; what we are not totally sure whether this other intelligence service in african country is using torture or not, can I say if until I a sure that there was no torture, I will not use the information. I can't. Of course, if I get the information on an act on an immediate threat, I must not make a Parliamentary inquiry. Was it in this African country, really on the basis of German law or not? I have to do what I can to avoid the to block the threat. That this responsibility doesn't do anything (ph) Minister, how do you find define that word balance at the moment, given what you went through and what Europe went through last August with the likely aircraft plots, 10 to 12 planes likely to downed over the Atlantic? The balance that you and other interior Ministers and others in European governments had to define when it came to security, liberty, freedom to travel, but also maintaining and guaranteeing some kind of security in future. In likeness, on that critical problem of balance Yes. First of all I am in my understanding there is not a rivalry between liberty rights and security, freedom and security or not opposites. Security is a precondition of freedom. And freedom is a precondition on security. Of course, to be concrete you have to look for balance and here the 10th of August was the date when the British authorities find out the preparations on the Texan planes U.K. and U.S.. And we had a meeting on the 11th or 12th in August in London, the British and some other colleagues, John Reed and others and myself. And the balance we found was we control weekly in traveling. Last week your European Parliament said that it is nonsense to grow leepard (ph). I'll expect that, the plans the British authorities discovered were wouldn't have been successful. This 200 million of special liquids you can destroy a plane. Therefore if I don't have another instrument, I have to tell people who want to fly by a plane you have to choose. If you want to bring liquids in the plane you have to suffer the risks that the plane will be destroyed. If not, you have to accept that we will forbid get liquids in the head lockers. 99 percent of people decide to prefer not to bring liquids in plane but to be a little bit more secure. Not to fly on plane which will be destroyed that the balance. Let me ask you for your judgment about public acceptance of everything we're talking about here. Viet Dinh what's your feeling about public acceptance of the Patriot Act now and also other measures particularly as there is much greater broadening. Not just in America and Europe but also right across the world at the moment. It's not static Nik, its dynamic process. After 9/11 for about two to three years, the Patriot Act and a whole bunch of other measure were perceived correctly by the public as the means through which we protect liberty by making America secure because you don't have any freedom where you did. As the threat dissipates in the public imagination and importance in the public debate, obviously the public acceptance of measures and restrictions wane and that's when we start thinking about the rules of the road for the long haul. I saw the reauthorization debate last year after the sunset of the Patriot Act as a way for us to transition from the sprint stage of the immediate fight against terror after 9/11 into the marathon phase of how we go about defining the rules of the road for the new normalcy that I think unfortunately we as Americans and the Western World have to accept as a reality. On one thing, when we established these rules of the road, certain things are just common sense. Allowing law enforcement officials to collect information, whatever the means of transmission is with the proper judicial authorization and legal approvals is a no-brainer. Because if we do not allow law enforcement officials to collect information, transmit via the Internet then the terrorists will use the Internet, if we do not allow law enforcement officials to shoot down carrier pigeons to get coded messages then they will use carrier pigeons, because communications are the keystone of conspiracies. And without these kinds of ability to introduce these communications we won't have a chance to prevent these (INAUDIBLE) But we've had concerns here about assembly, about information, about foreign citizens versus domestic citizens. How do you see the public mood moving on that which can then define maybe or modify the kind of laws that you have been involved in drafting? I think you start from the beginning which is what is the right thing to do, and then you try educated and convince the public about it. I completely, the Minister that the right thing to do is not to look liberty as something to be traded off for in terms of security, it's very easy to engage in that type of rhetoric. But it's much harder to the hard work of law enforcement on counter terrorism which is let's find the tools that will give us the information that we need and target those tools at the criminals and terrorists while at the same time by doing so we liberate and make free all the law abiding citizens who are being threatened by the criminals and terrorist not vice versa. Justice Breyer, before I invite others to join us, you use that word you picked it out of the Constitution, unreasonable. How much does your definition in the Supreme Court of unreasonable get amended and modified by your sense of the public mood after incidence. It's easy to say the answer to that. The answer is zero. That's the correct answer. Well, because of a few mistakes that have been made in the past history of the Supreme Court, the most notable, I think, in this area, and I can remember this. I'm old enough. I'm six-years old and we're up in San Francisco. And I can remember my mother driving me down just after World War II, and it was Tanforan Race Track. And she said that's where they held the Japanese. And the Japanese were 100,000, almost all American citizens, lived in California, and they were taken in the 1942, and they were sent to work camps in Utah and throughout the Middle West. And you'd be surprised. Earl Warren, the greatest, he said that was the greatest mistake he ever made. But he was the champion of civil liberties later, and he wanted that to happen. And the person who didn't was J. Edgar Hoover, and not the known champion of civil liberties. But he said no, we can handle it with the FBI, went to the Supreme Court. And six to three, in 1944, the Supreme Court upheld it. Now that was not a happy day in the history of the court, three dissents, which are certainly well remembered, more so than the majority. One and I think they pose a very interesting question, Justice Jackson, he said I understand how General DeWitt, the head of the sixth army, would have taken these people whether anybody legally approved or not because we were afraid of an invasion from Japan, and that's what Californians thought would happen. That's what the army thought might happen, and it didn't matter what the judges said. All right? But that's no reason to approve it now. We should have a tough law protecting civil liberties. And if the President thinks that it has to be broken, save the country, he'll break it. I used to rather sympathize with that point of view, but I don't anymore. I've sort of leaned in the direction of Justice Murphy, who is not known for anything but this opinion. And Murphy said "I've looked into this, and I've seen what the FBI says. And there's not one piece of evidence that any of these Japanese citizens was disloyal or even contemplated disloyalty. And on that basis, there is no basis to hold them." And when I say that point of view is that he hopes, Murphy, philosophically speaking, and I hope, that the law should work out. That is the law should be such that if there is a terrible threat to the United States or any country, the President and the authorities can deal with it. Now if you want both for the law to do that and protect civil liberties and really give protection, which must be, we're back trying to define that term, unreasonable, or similar terms. What about this term? He asked about the foreign people in the United States. This part of the Constitution, amendment 14, says, nor shall any state, including the feds, deprive any person of life, liberty or property. Person. It doesn't say Citizen, Person, it says. And what's a deprivation? You see how these words invite this kind of not exactly balancing, but what I call a search for information. The same kind that you are conducting, the same kind the Minister is conducting every time he tries to write some words on a statute that won't go too far, but just far enough. That will control the bureaucracy, but not prevent them from doing what has to be done. And what is that? OK. I'm ending up on chaos, except that I do have faith, though it's almost Pollyannaish to say that the exchange of information at technical as well as policy making efforts by all countries who have the same values and the same problems will produce better definitions of what's reasonable. That's why I like the meeting. That's why I think this is a good thing. There we are. Minister Shauble, you were Interior Minister 17-years ago. What about your definition and your perception of that say, the word, "Unreasonable,", and what the public would accept now, but perhaps wouldn't have accepted 16 or 17 years ago, when you were last in the job you have now. We try to gage how much the mood and the public acceptance of this has changed under the principles of balancing. Seventeen years ago we lived in the time of Cold War and therefore some people have forgotten that until '89 we had a wall in Berlin and we had an iron curtain in Europe and we had total different understanding in what is intelligence services and the threat was not by international terrorism, but it was (INAUDIBLE) by the Cold War. Therefore, things have changed because we don't really feel a threat by in time of war and International policies and we hate to alarm until, since September 11th, that there is a threat, a new threat, totally different and, therefore, the problem, in my view is, that of course we are always under the rule of law, but the rule of law in terms of war and in times of peace is a little bit different. And now we are in the new situation that we all look for new answers. We don't really what is the problem, not only in Germany, but the Germans hope until now that we are not really we had, we are lucky, that if you are saying as Minister of Interior we are all on the same threat. People think you have but if we are cautious we will not be (INAUDIBLE). I don't think it's the right answer, but what we need are common answers. We can't act and that is the difference, in my understanding, compared to the times 70 years ago. We need much more comprehensive understanding, not only in Europe, but also in the Atlantic community and the world community. When I was asked what has been changed, having been Minister of Interior 17 years ago and now until the end of 2005, once again, my answer is I have to spend about one-third of my time in European and International affairs. 1989/1990 I did (INAUDIBLE) spent maybe two percent, five percent, but not a third or more because security is not only a national issue and what is, and what I would like to use the opportunity in this discussion is to make to say my clear position. We need common answers. Acting unilaterally in any regard is a mistake in itself because you can't. We ask a question whether we can, whether we have to decide people of citizenship and not (INAUDIBLE) discussion what German going to do and all this. I know it, but in reality, sometimes we discuss yes we cannot detain people because under the rule of law there is no reason for to prosecute. If they are not citizenships and if we think there could be danger, we tend to expel them. Is that reasonable? I doubt. I doubt. And can I ask for one clarification. You used the word war there, earlier in that answer. Do you still use that word war, because in Britain we've withdrawn from that the British Government's withdrawn from that and there's a great urging that that word should not now be used. We don't use the word war, therefore, we don't like the word, the American word, War on Terrorism and I always try to explain American colleagues that the word war, in the ears of European, doesn't mean 3,000 victims. It means millions of victims and, therefore, the word war has a total different sentimentality in Europe but, of course, International law, we have for, I don't know, maybe we find a new, maybe we will find a third way, but we don't have, actually we don't have, but what we need (INAUDIBLE), is to be clear that we can't decide unilaterally. That we can't say we don't need international law, we have our constitution. And that is a problem, even in our transatlantic discussions. Because if you respect different constitutions, and even if he understands that the protection of civil rights is in United States even higher than in Europe, and Europe learned from United States, the best teachers for civil rights in history last century. I know this very well. But even if you know that, I think we must find the reasons which make clear. It's not only, it's not a unilateral entity. The discussions inside Europe, we are in Bruselwitz (ph). It's boring for a Minister of national government to discuss a European, 27 member states and European parliament, it's not, that's boring. But it's useful, it's useful because it gives us, for everyone, hopefully even for U.K., it gives us limits, and it give us the need and necessity to learn from others. Not to be too sure that we have right, and only to listen to us and to think, oh maybe? It could have been, it could have arguments, and in that regard we find in a very (INAUDIBLE) matter sometimes. (INAUDIBLE) which give us, at the end of the day, more soft power and we can't, we will not succeed in fighting terrorism only by heart power, I tell you. I only concentrate on the control of internet and all, I have to do it. I started in Islam conference in Germany to make Muslims community feel confident. To convince the not Muslim part of our population, to look Muslims not as a threat, to improve communication, integration. (INAUDIBLE), we need both. And we try to have both in Europe and I know American has all in its own country, but American is not successful in convincing others, and we have to improve American leadership. Because I think there is a very important point here the Minister has made that I completely agree with. In the old days of the cold war, we were facing a completely different threat as nation states. We were facing threats from other nation states. It was a Westphalian (ph) problem. In the current armed conflict if you will, if you don't want to use the word war, it is an armed conflict that, it seems to me that all 193 nations of the world are should be in a collective defense agreement toward, because it is armed conflict against non-state actors who would ferment terror in order to disrupt the system of international order, and it's much harder because they don't have a population to protect and a territory to defend, and so we can't retaliate in the normal Westphalian (ph) sense of using force. What does that mean? It means that of course, there has to be cooperation. I think the one observation I would make of the public sentiment and the media in particular in the last five years is that the sexy issues that divides us, be it extraordinary renditions, guantanamo or the war in Iraq is only a very small subset of the policies that define the war on terror, except it sucks up about 99 percent of the oxygen in the public debate. The other 99 percent of cooperation is essential and effective in curbing this global and common threat. All right, well let's hear a little bit more of that oxygen. Who else would like to join the discussion? A lot of you I suspect, right? Let's have the microphones here first and here, and one over there. Please microphone here first. Yes, thank you, and here.
member. 
