view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started, building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications suppor c-span as a public service, along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, the national press club in washington, d.c. updates the status of the u.s. journalists detained abroad. among them, a journalist kidnapped in syria in 2012. the wall street journal's evan gershkovich, arrested by the russian government in march of 2023. they took part in the briefing. this coincided with world press freedom day.

[inaudible conversations] thank you all so much and welcome to the national press club. i'm emily wilkins, the 117th president of the national press club and for cnbc. thank you for joining us on this incredibly important topic. the first world press freedom day took place-- not the first one, but the first one in the u.s. took place in the national press club in 2011 so we're grateful for those of you who joined us both in person and online

today. on one hand it's an exciting time all over the world giving important and moving speeches. some in santiago, chile and all over the world. we'll get the latest information on the three u.s. journalists who are wrongfully being held overseas, you know their names. austin tice, who works for "the washington post" has been held for nearly 12 years now in syria. evan gershkovich, a wall street journal reporter taken in russia one year and two months ago and alsu kurmasheva, editor at radio free europe, who has been held in russia for more than six months. each of the journalists have a unique story and we want you to understand them not just as journalists wrongfully detained, but people who need to get back to their families and to their lives. we've brought an important

advocate to visit with each of us today and we look forward to an update on their current status and what might be coming next. while today's event is about wrongly detained reporters i would be remiss if we don't look at the extraordinary point and journalists are killed at an alarming rate, this is particularly true in the israel-hamas war. since october 7th, nearly 100 journalists have been killed in this war and that's more than all of the journalists who were killed in the calendar year 2023. today we call for all parties to immediately stop the killing and targeting of journalists. we call on the u.s. government to use its significant influence to ensure the safety of reporters. in our support of journalism, we do not take sides, but we cannot ignore the facts, the

vast majority of journalists who have died are palestinians and we know that some of them have been targeted by israeli forces. and it's not just killings, journalists are being wounded, they're being threatened. their families are being threatened. this is unacceptable and this must stop now. journalists also need to be granted access to report firsthand on what is happening on the ground and documenting what is happening in this war. organizations like al-jazeera are an important source of information and need to be able to continue to report during this important time. it's israeli reporters have also been killed by hamas and we condemn these, notably a photographer just hours before his death was bravely documenting that horrific october 7th attack. as we face a possible final assault in gaza, there are only a few journalists remaining on the ground who can document what's happening and we ask for everyone, that great care be taken to make sure that they

are safe and that they're able to do their incredibly important work. thank you so much and with that, we're going to be our focus back to the detained journalists in the u.s. and why they've gathered here today and start by welcoming to the stage, debra tice, austin tice's mom. austin has been detained in syria since 2012 and debra, you've been tirelessly leading the fight to bring him home. your passion, your persistence, your determination has been incredibly inspiring to me and i know many who know you as well. and so, i welcome you to the stage to make a couple of remarks and look forward to a q & a with you. everyone, debra tice. [applause] >> so, first of all, of course, i want to thank you all for being here and i want to thank everyone that's also

joining us virtually. it's been 11 years, eight months and one week, three days, since austin was detained in syria. we are not giving up on our efforts to bring him home. i know that many people feel that's a terribly long time, but it's not unusual in syria for people to be detained in silence for a very long time. so, thank you again, thank you so much, emily, for taking this time this morning. thank you. thank you so much. [inaudible conversations] that you've taken the time to

come and chat with us a bit about austin. the last time i saw you was a couple of days ago right before the white house correspondent's dinner and we were talking how you got a very, very, very brief opportunity to meet with president biden. can you tell us a little bit. what did you tell him? what did he tell you? >> i was really fortunate to be able to have just a few minutes with the president and, also dr. biden was with him, which was lovely to meet her for the first time. the most important message i had for the president is that in spite of the fact that he gave very distinct directives to the national security council on may 2nd of 2022, and he told them to get a meeting, to listen to the syrians to find out what they wanted and to work with them. there was no action taken on

that by the national security council until the following february of 2023. and even those engagements have been less than sincere and i wanted the president to know that his directive has somewhat been ignored. that was the most important message that i had for him. and i hope that that will bring a change in the behavior of the national security council. >> i mean, are you-- i'm curious because you've had several meetings with president biden and spoke with a lot of officials in the u.s. government. are you satisfied with the responses at this point? how do you kind of feel about what you've been told and how the working relationship has been? >> the working relationship has been good. they're very open to engaging with me, which i appreciate, but my -- what i really want is for them to engage with the syrians.

i can stay home and keep being the mom, keep being the homemaker, and they can go and engage with the syrian government rather than engaging with me. that would be the thing that i really would rather have happen. >> and i also wanted to ask about, because i think a lot of times when people first hear about austin tice, and you may have as well, they ask how long he's been detained for, and you say more than 11 years at this point. there's a question that comes up a lot and folks say how do you know that we can still bring him home. how do you respond to those folks? because i think it's something that often comes up around austin and something that you have a really powerful answer to. >> right. usually when i'm asked that question i have to say, yes, i have no doubt, there's -- i get information about austin. i can't share it with you. i can't share my source with

you. but i can tell you without a doubt, austin is exceedingly eager to walk free and i hope we can see that happen before he has to mark that day, however he's marking his time. i just hope he doesn't have to mark the day that he has been detained for 12 years. i hope we can get this done before august. >> i know, the national press club and many of our partners out there are going to be doing everything we can with you completely 100% in making sure that we can get austin home. can you just provide a bit of an update right now on what the latest is, with austin's case, with syria, just really where things stand? >> okay. you can see my notes are a wreck, but i have an answer to that question and i want to share it with you. let me see if i can find it here. >> take your time. >> so the thing that is -- the

thing that's most important right now, to me, is we're trying to find -- there was a meeting in damascus in 2020 with the national security -- part of the national security council, went and had a meeting with the syrians in damascus. and somewhere there is a report about that meeting. we have never received that report and we found out about it from an article by sonna smith and the texas monthly magazine and they were conscientious making sure that it was accurate. so we are asking now for our

proof of that because part of this -- part of that meeting was that if certain conditions were met, there could be a proof of life offered. this was september of 2020. and i really think that if you could see that proof, it would really move the needle for austin. it would move the needle and it would make you more engaged. it would make the government more engaged. god willing, it would make the state department more engaged and more committed to bringing austin home, rather than throwing up their hands and saying, well, my goodness, it's been almost 12 years. so that is a hugely important thing that we found out through the texas monthly writing. and had no idea, it was quite

as far it was. >> and surprising given how many folks you've spoken in the government and contacts you have, and how active you've been coming up to d.c. and making sure that austin is being kept front of mind and that the case on him is progressing at this point. i know we also recently had bashar al-assad saying there were discussions with the u.s. and seems like austin might be a part of that as well. i wanted to see if you had any particular thoughts on that or any discussions around that that you might be able to share. i know that some stuff is confidential, of course. >> there have been engagements, but they've been more of performances, to say that they've had engagements, rather than genuine, sincere engagement with the three steps that requires. someone right now during this meeting is capturing your dog

and you are going to have to release your dog. you're going to have three things you need to do. you're going to need to engage. you're going to need to have dialog, and you're going to have to make a concession to get your dog back. and it's exactly the same with austin in syria. there is going to have to be sincere engagement. there's going to have to be dialog and, yes, at the very end, there is going to have to be concession. that is how hostage situations are remedied. and austin is waiting and our government as we've seen for the last seven months, is exceedingly capable of taking those three steps, should they desire. . when you talk about those

steps, you talk about engagement. i think there's one interesting piece of legislation, it didn't get a lot of attention, it wasn't one of the big bills that everyone fought over. the anti-normalization act of 2023 already passed the house and it's now gone over to the senate. debra, can you talk a little about this bill and what its passage could mean for austin? >> okay, yes, yes, i can. i was in a round table before the house foreign affairs committee this week talking specifically about this bill and how it affects austin. and this is-- the thing is, this bill is a really hateful bill. it even has a hateful title that talks about something like against the assad regime in syria or something, a title

like that. and what it calls for is no engagement by the united states government, no engagement by businesses doing business in america, and no engagement by our allies. that is entirely ridiculous. and the impact on austin by his government would be a life sentence, if we cannot engage, we cannot bring austin home. >> and so, i want to talk about who is behind this bill and how did this bill get approved on the floor with suspended rules 389 representatives signed onto this bill. those would have been asked to talk about what the bill is and what it's about, don't know.

they can't tell me what they signed for. they just knew, here is this bill, i'm going to see my constituents in two days, i want to get a long list of bills completed. that's how that happens. so the real power behind the bill is the u.s.-based syrian opposition lobby. this lobby is trying to keep alive a civil war that is 13 years old and is over. i can tell you that the united states had a war between the states that lasted five years. there are people in the united states right now that would revisit that conflict. but i think we all agree that

conflict is over and the syrian arab league agrees that the war in syria is over. there are embassies, especially the uae, has opened their embassy in damascus. it is peopled with an ambassador that's been accepted by bashar assad. it is over, so, why are these people continuing to push the importance of this conflict? these are people in our country. this bill is a huge win for that lobbying, but a horrid loss for the syrian people living in tents. living in tents in syria, living in tents in lebanon. living in tents in jordan. this is not a bill friendly to these people that need to have

their lives rebuilt. the syrian opposition was funded originally by saudi arabia, qatar and the uae. they have stopped funding that of opposition long ago. and that will tell you a lot. i challenge you, as investigative reporters, to look into who in america is now funding the syrian opposition? they are very active on capitol hill, i can tell you, to get 389 representatives to sign this bill without even reading it. the united states government needs to wake up. the state department, which is a vigorous defender of this

syrian opposition group, needs to wake up. our congress needs to wake up. the conflict is over, the time has come for rebuilding. >> that's a very, very strong words, debra and important light is being shed and i cover congress and they are a chunk of bills that go quickly throughout the week and it's notable, all of your interactions with lawmakers, they haven't really been able to tell you what the bill does and seems like it realizes there is some implications for their vote for it and obviously, i know there's work being done to have the education campaign in the senate. i also just wanted to ask, what do you see right now as the biggest obstacles to austin's case? >> that, that is the biggest obstacles to austin's case, is this insistence that we cannot engage with syria and then, our

government kind of being in the middle of that, so they have to perform engaging because the president gave them that directive, but they're walking a tightrope, i guess. and that is the problem. our government needs to have a determination and a commitment to austin that we have seen with other hostages for the last seven months. if austin had that kind of commitment, that kind of dedication, he would have been home longing ago. >> and when you talk to lawmakers earlier this week at the panel. what was their response? >> it was mixed. it was mixed. some of the people thought that i was very much out line to speak so strongly against that

bill. and my congressman, congressman al green, lucky for austin, was very supportive that this is, you know, we've got hr3202 in the house. we've got 2254 at the u.n. but these are all inhuman, inhumane for the syrian people. these are not-- this is not the road that we want to be on. we need to get on the right track. >> debra, i want to kind of pivot the conversation a little bit just because we talk about austin so much in our desire to have him come home and free him, how that can happen. can we just spend a minute speaking just about austin, who he is as a person, what is he like? just kind of give us a sense of this individual who i feel we spent so much talking about the

strategy around him and haven't spent a minute talking about him and i just want to give you a minute to do that. >> it's more than a minute. >> go for it. >> this is my first born son and the one that made me a mom and the choices that he has made in his life have just made this mom over the moon. he has always been strong-willed, very strong-willed. when he puts his mind to something that's the way we're going. and you know, he's an eagle scout, he's a decorated captain in the united states marine corps. he gave -- he decided to serve his country after 9/11. he felt like that he was called to that. it wasn't something he had been thinking of prior to that. he is the best big brother you

could ever want. all the tropes about big brothers, he fills them. he loves being the oldest. we have seven, and his youngest sister still misses him horribly. he was her mentor. she now has a masters degree. she's served in the peace corps. but every decision that she made, she made it at the last minute because she kept hoping and hoping that her brother would come home and be able to help him make those decisions. he only knows one of his nieces. she was three when he was detained. every friday they would have a zoom together and they would sing the song ♪ friday, friday, got to get down on friday ♪ >> no matter where austin was. he was sheltering in a

stairwell in syria and he still kept his friday obligation to his 3-year-old niece. he's just an amazing, loving person, with a huge, huge personality for sure. >> debra, thank you so much for sharing that with us, for being being here today and for all of your advocacy and in journalism we often talk about speaking truth to power and you've done that many, many times over again and we at the press club are behind you and fully support you and we cannot wait to be able to welcome austin to the press club one day very soon. thank you, debra. >> thank you, emily. you guys are amazing. [applause]. >> all right, if you just want to-- i can double fist for a second here. next, we will be calling to the stage the president of radio free europe, radio liberty,

steven, he's going to be chatting with us a little bit about the case of alsu kurmasheva. steven? >> thank you so much. good to see you, too. >> thank you. >> yes, no, thank you so much for being here with us today and all the cases, and a year ago there were only two reporters and now unfortunately, we have a third. i just wanted to see if you could just begin by talking a little about alsu's case, where things stand. i know there are some complexity that come with it, she's an american citizen, but also has russian citizenship and seems to make things more difficult for her. >> well, alsu is our colleague from radio free europe, radio liberty. she's worked there for 25 years now. she's an american citizen. she made the decision that changed her life to go back to

russia because her mother was ill. and when she entered the country, she was able to visit with her mother, with her family and then when she went to leave, she was prevented from leaving. she's now been imprisoned for more than 200 days, which is a significant amount of time. it's-- it pales in comparison to what austin and evan has been through, but to a family, this is yet another family that has been ripped apart simply because she's a journalist. she's a mom, she's a wife. and she was acting as a caring daughter when she went back to russia and she's still held. the charges make no sense. they came at her because she had not declared herself as a

foreign agent and it almost doesn't matter what the charges are because, none of them are just. this is an unjustified, wrongful detention and we're doing everything we can to keep the spotlight on her. i will thank you, personally, emily. you've been great and the national press club has joined with the likes of the committee to protect journalists and worldwide press organizations to keep the spotlight on her case and we have no doubt that that has helped raise her profile. just this morning, we saw an announcement from president biden calling for the unconditional and immediate release for alsu, for austin and for evan and the president's words are strong and powerful and they should be heeded. >> absolutely.

and we do, of course, appreciate that, you know, during the way of correspondent dinner biden made similar remarks and it's very important work and we're proud to be able to partner with you on it, even though we wish we didn't have to partner with you on it because we wish it never happened in the first place. one of the most baffling thing about alsu's detention, the united states state department has yet to declare her has wrongfully detained even though it's obviously to everyone involved that's exactly what she is. stephen, can you talk a little about that circumstance and maybe also, a little bit. wrongful detention is more than a label or just words. this has real world impacts on alsu now and when she is freed. >> well, we don't think there's any doubt that alsu meets the criteria for being wrongfully detained. we know that the state department has given due

consideration to this. we think that the deliberative process has gone on for a long time and we're ready to welcome the day when that designation comes. we think it will come at some point. but we've also heard from the state department and from other american officials that alsu's case is front and center. they are continuing to pursue efforts regardless of weather the designation exists. they're continuing to pursue efforts to seek her release. but the designation, as you say, is not just a title, it would afford opportunities for alsu to be visited in prison by u.s. officials, to get-- it would open up a whole other avenue of communications about her situation. it would allow efforts to

commence, to try to engage with russia, to secure her immediate release, and so, yes, we look forward to that day that that happens. we know that it doesn't automatically change her situation. there are americans who have had this designation and have-- are still behind bars today, you know, all you have to do is look at evan's situation to underscore how -- what the united states government is going to do everything they can. i believe that to my core, as somebody who grew up in bucks county, pennsylvania. i'm a true american and believer in this country and i believe they will do everything they can to bring these journalists home. at the same time, russia in this case is-- they're the bad actors in this equation.

and they have a seat at the table, if you will, in deciding the fate of the people who are held there. and so there is no justification for keeping a mom of two wonderful girls imprison. for keeping a loving spouse imprisoned for no good reason. alsu should be home and we look forward to the day. and we actually think that this is something, that point about her being a mom and a loving wife is something that is valued inside russia and so, for whatever the reason, bring her home. >> absolutely. and i know that alsu's husband pavel was in d.c. this week and he was at the correspondents' dinner and we got to have the press club. i've also had a chance to receipt alsu's daughters, wow,

two incredible young women who are really to go out, advocate for their mom in what must be an absolutely devastating situation for them, but just a lot of poise, a lot of grace. can you tell us what it's been like to work with the family at this time? >> yes. it's tough not to get emotional when you think about those young women. they've had to grow up awfully fast over the last half a year and they've been brilliant, poised. i've walked with them through the house of congress and they've interacted with members of congress. they've spoken forcefully on, you know, places like cbs news and others, to cnn. and alsu's daughter had an

interview who is 15, jake tapper. and if you had an opportunity what would you say to putin? >> and anybody given an opportunity to say something like this would take a moment and probably be nervous. this young woman waited while cnn figured out which camera to have her speak to, and then with great poise, she delivered a beautifully powerful message on behalf of her mom. and miriam and bebe come by the offices now and then and the first time i met alsu was at a company picnic that we had in prague where radio free europe is headquartered. and alsu and the girls were there with pavel and those were the kind of people who dedicate themselves to the mission of

our organization. and so, yeah, for 25 years. more than 25 years she's been an integral part of this organization, and yet, she's just one of so many who come to work knowing the risks, knowing the dangers and knowing that these play books that the kremlin has come up with for cracking down on journalists, are being passed around from one place to another to another. everywhere it operates is a dangerous environment these days. so, the mission is important, the mission is vital. we're some of the last independent journalists to operate in places across our coverage area. >> yes, as you noted radio, free liberty radio europe do an incredible job of providing the

clear consistent news source in areas where it's not always easy and your reporters certainly face huge risk. i wanted to see if you could chat a little bit about the overall strategy when it comes to alsu and getting her home. we certainly heard reporting about potential prisoner swaps between the u.s. and russia. has alsu come up in any of those? what are you able to share with us at this time? >> i'm not sure we would know. we're not in a position to know things like that. we read accounts in the same publications that you do about what may or may not be happening, but, look, the -- right now, we're focused on the day-to-day. we're concerned about her conditions inside prison. we're concerned that during her last court appearance, she was able to speak to some of the gathered media in the courtroom

and said her own health was starting to fail in some areas. and that that, by the way, was the first time that alsu's family had been able to hear her voice. they've had no contact with her and so, we're worried about her conditions on a daily basis. we will do anything to improve those conditions. the wrongful designation-- wrongfully detained designation would help with that for sure. but beyond that, all i can say is, we don't know what type of machinery is at work to try to free not just alsu, but austin and evan and we can only hope that for successful conclusion, it's taken far too long in the case of my two colleagues every year and we admire the strength of debra and that the

compassion around which the wall street journal has gathered in support of their colleague, we stand with them. we call for their immediate release as well and we look forward to the day when this podium is a little more crowded with some people who are going to have a story to tell. >> we're very much looking forward to welcoming alsu to the national press club. thank you so much for all the work that you guys, that pavel, that that the family is doing in regards to alsu. again, i feel like a broken record here, we're 100% behind alsu. we'll be having an announcement recording alsu later this afternoon. i'm not supposed to spoil it now, but stay tuned around 2:30 or so. >> interesting. thanks again for your personal support and for the national press club and everybody who has taken note what has taken place. these unjust detentions must end immediately. thank you. >> thank you so much.

[applause] >> all right. and last, but of course, most certainly not least i'd like to invite to the stage, paul beckett. you know what? i know you have assistant editor for the wall street journal. i'd like to think of him as editor this chief getting evan back home. that's as far as i'm concerned your official title and i want today take a minute to thank you. paul did something incredibly generous, it's going around the press club, we have a lot of different front pages, some framed front pages upstairs and prints of front pages and we try to get the important and historic moment. we added one more, wall street journal's incredibly powerful front page from the one year anniversary of evan's detention. and it's displayed in the lobby and we got it last night at 8 p.m. and i was like, hey, guys. huge thank you to the staff and thank you to paul for having such a powerful reminder that

we've clearly displayed so anyone who comes to the club will see it. thank you so much for that. >> thanks emily, thanks to the national press club and to all of you for joining us this morning. we greatly appreciate it. i just want to jump into it because the wall street journal did report at one point there was a potential deal on the table had been floated by the white house. basically there was an assassin that is held in germany that russia is wanting free. and germany and u.s. about it, and alexei navalny was a part of it and unfortunately a couple of days later we learned of his death. i want to ask you, is there still a deal on the table? where do things stand? >> thank you, emily. the last 13 months of evan's incarceration are these glimpses of conversations that have gone on between the united states and russia. initially we heard about the

first one, a deal potentially for evan and for paul whelan, of course, who has been there for five years. and that proposal was made sometime late in november and it was rejected and then, as we've reported, there was some discussion of a potential deal that would have involved navalny and since then, we've been assured by the government, u.s. government that they continue to work very hard on it. roger carson is the special presidential envoy, has said a new proposal is being put together, which we find very encouraging. the issue for us is that this has to be done now. we have a window now to make a difference in securing evan's release and we'd like to see the u.s. government take full opportunity of that. they themselves have identified this window. it runs to june 30th, which is

the end of the current pre-trial detention that evan is held under. the reason it's so important now is what happens next is completely opaque to us and we see challenges ahead potentially. we don't know if -- we assume that evan will go to trial at some point on this baseless charge, but we haven't been told. we haven't seen any evidence of what russia purports to have that may have caused this baseless charge to be filed in the first place. we don't know if we would see a trial. we don't know how long a trial would last. there's so much that is in the hands of the russian government that we feel that this window, running to june 30th, is really such an important time for the u.s. government and russian government to make progress on releasing evan. and it is one of those

equations where there's only one definition of success. we really appreciate all the work that's gone into trying to get this done up to this point, but him being home is the only thing that counts for success in this equation and we'd like to see it done now. >> and now is really-- it was always now, i think, from the moment he was first taken, but this is a critical time. >> this is when we look at the opacity of what's ahead and any uncertainty added to that equation is worrying for evan and worrying for his family and we don't want to go through that. >> you met with president biden last week as well. can you discuss your conversations with him? obviously, i know, some of the stuff is classified, but anything you can share from your meeting and interaction with him? >> a private meeting just with his family, with evan's family and with president biden, first lady and secretary blinken,

among others, and we're very grateful for that and the family is very touched by that and president biden reiterated his promise to bring evan home and we appreciated that and we would like to see that delivered on as soon as possible. biden did put out the statement today where he mentioned austin and evan and alsu and he also mentioned taking some actions against those opposing and preventing press freedom, these included sanctions and cancellations of certain visa. i wonder if you think that's an effective message to send for the white house today? >> we'll leave it up to the white house. they able have their reasons for doing that and if it brings the release of detained journalists home. obviously, we're in favor of it. i don't think that the white house would say that it is, and we certainly hope it's not a substitute for meaningful action on securing the release of evan and the other

journalists held overseas. >> absolutely. the sanctions of visas is not nothing, but there's only one definitions of success here. >> former president trump weighed in and told time magazine said evan should be released and will be released. what do you make of those remarks? >> we're grateful for the fact that within a matter of days, both the current president, the former president and the two leading presidential candidates both called for his release, both committed to bringing him home. this has been a bipartisan issue since the beginning and to the extent that we're receiving and we are receiving a widespread support across the whole political spectrum. it's very important for us, and i think it speaks to the fundamental understanding that what is-- evan has been deprived of and the freedoms that the press has

been deprived of in russia and elsewhere, really go beyond party politics and they're fundamental to evan's rights and the rights of a free press and a right to a free press is something that we have seen in the last year that the whole country cares about. >> and i definitely would agree, especially when it comes to someone who covers government, you do see at that bipartisanship when you start talking about detained journalists and freedom and at some point that doesn't come across in some of their votes. >> i wanted to ask because you, too, were in front of the house foreign affairs committee this week and i wanted to see what you thought about the discussions had. was there any change in the hearing brought about? what was the headline taken from it? >> it's always good to see interest on this issue in capitol hill. one. things we've seen in matters of press freedom and matters of

detaining journalists overseas are a change in the actors who do this. the wall street journal was unfortunate enough to have the tragedy of danny pearl's murder in 2002. that was at the hands of extremists in karachi in pakistan. and now the conditions of the changing landscape, who wants to target reporters and the targeting press freedoms around the world. and now state actors are the most common party for detaining journalists. and i think one of the things that has come up both that foreign affairs committee hearing and in other discussions in washington and other capitals around the world

is the-- are the countries that stick up for press freedom adequately prepared to handle that change in the dynamic of reporter oppression. so that is something that i think we see-- we'll see congress look at, does the special presidential envoy's office which does a very good job in so many ways, is it adequately resourced, adequately prepared for state actors to be the principal culprits here? does the process, by which, which i know in alsu's case, in debra's case, in austin's case and in the case of many other detainees who aren't journalists. it's very hard to navigate the u.s. government on these topics and is there sufficient transparency about how that process works? those are the sorts of questions that we heard at that

hearing, that i've heard elsewhere on capitol hill. our u.s. allies, as prepared to deal with this equation as the united states. and i think you'll see the united states in months and years ahead try to bring more western allies on board to come up with some kind of way to stop this from happening in the first place, because, ultimately, deterrents is what we want. i really, really, really hope evan is not an equation in those discussions because i hope he is back very, very soon. >> absolutely. and you and i were actually having an interesting discussion last night, just about how the u.s. handles some of these detained reporter cases versus how some of the other countries handle them and i was really surprised to hear there was such a big difference between us and other western allies and how we view this. >> every country deals with it the way that they want.

some say they don't do things that we all know that they do. we're grateful for the fact that the u.s. government engages in this. the u.s. government is very public about its obligation to bring its citizens home and obviously, there are so many citizens overseas that-- i'm sure the u.s. government would like to bring home and we would like to see brought home, but we give them a lot of credit for taking it so seriously. and i think there are many other governments that don't extend themselves so much for their citizens overseas and that's the piece where i think that governments are starting to recognize they will have to be more involved and ideally involved in some kind of common deterrents of stuff happening in the first place. i also wanted to ask since the june 30th deadline as far as the next hearing for evan. i just wanted to see if you

have a sense-- what should happen, he should be, and as far as trials, what is your sense of what's happening over in russia. >> it's so hard to tell. it's a fog. we assume there will be a trial. if he goes to trial because of the nature of the charge and the nature of the russian system even though the charge is completely baseless, we fully expect him to be convicted. once he's convicted, who knows? you know, we just don't even-- we haven't been told, we haven't seen the evidence. there's no schedule. we don't want to have to find out. >> and i think that's some of the opaqueness that you were talking about, and some of the concerns that this doesn't happen soon. and paul, i wanted kind of on a personal note to ask you a little bit about what the last year and few months have been like for you. because when this began you were washington bureau chief,

one of the most powerful newspapers and you've really come into this role where you are full-time working for evan, working with his family. and i'm just kind of curious as someone who has really jumped into this role with both feet, what has that experience been like for you? >> i've worked in many dangerous places around the world and run reporters in dangerous places around the world and there is nothing as a colleague, editor or manager that compares to having one of your colleagues sitting-- an innocent man sitting helplessly in jail in a hostile region. it puts really, you know, 30 years of journalism in perspective to have to deal with that. evan's family is extraordinary, so they have been inspiration

to all of us working on this case to keep going. >> i know, evan has his parents, and the chance that i've had to chat with danielle, it's incredible to see the amount of resilience that she has and even evan himself. i think a lot of us were really struck to see that photo of evan in that glass case making the heart sign and the resilience that must take to be in the position he's in, to face the uncertainty that he's facing. can you talk about the story behind that photo and when you saw it, what was your reaction? >> well, we knew when we hired him he was an excellent reporter, that's why we hired him. we've discovered what an extraordinary young man he is for his fortitude. he's 23 hours in his cell. every day he exercises, he

meditates, writes letters, and he stays strong and we're grateful every day to hear he's doing okay. and what we saw there, that was an appeal of a pre-trial detention extension. it's a very -- every single decision that's been made about evan, we've appealed and every single appeal we have lost, however, it gives an opportunity to see him, albeit in that glass cage and interestingly, that was a hearing where other media for the first time was allowed access. so, i think he knows from his letters that the world is supporting him, but he got to see some of his friends in the media in russia where he's worked his entire career, and i think seeing them in the courtroom was what prompted him to give both his thumbs up and his heart sign and we were so

touched and inspired to see it. >> well, i'm happy to hear even in this horrific situation that evan knows that he has so many people who are fighting for him and i hope that alsu knows and that austin knows that they have hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who are working for their release, who are supporting individuals like paul, yourself, the family, like debra, like stephen, like pavel, like miriam and bebe and that we will not continue-- we will not rest until we get to welcome evan to the national press club and paul, just thank you again for all you've done. it's very much appreciated. >> thank you, emily. >> thank you for being here today. >> thanks to the national press club. thanks to debra, thanks to steve. you know, it's not a club that anybody wants to be a part of, but it's a community of very strong and admirable people and we're really grateful. >> thank you so much. thank you.

[applause]. >> all right, i'll just say one last note before we wrap up. that our democracy, our press freedom, it's going to be tested this year, like it's never going to be tested before. i don't think that's a big surprise. i know in america, we are gearing up to see what the future is of the press, but i will assure you that we here at the national press club and our allies all over d.c. and all over the u.s. and the world, we will not stop fighting for journalists. journalism is not a crime. austin, evan and alsu must be freed. thank you for being here today and make sure our efforts to make sure these journalists come home. thank you. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

... ♪ announcer: today watching c-span 's 20 24 campaign trail, a weekly roundup of camping

coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters, first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated phone numbers, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail today on c-span, online at c-span.org, or on c-span now. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> is there a relationship between soft and hard money? >> can you explain the difference between dual federalism and cooperative federalism? >> are you a student planning to take the advanced placement government and politics exam? join us at "washington journal" live saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern for our annual cram for the exam special.

school in california will take your calls and text questions on the content and structure of this year's exam. >> the founding documents that are required, the supreme court cases that are required. announcer: get your test questions ready and participate by askinyou questions on facebook, x, and c-spanwj. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. announcer: comcast suppos

c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. g us this morning from nashville is michael newton at vanderbilt university, the director of international legal studies program there is also a former senior advisor to the investor at large for war crimes issued in the state department from 1999-2002. you been an expert witness what is the icc? kiss the international criminal court in the hague. it's a permanent court with permanent prosecutors and registry and defense counsel with broad jurisdiction with war crimes against humanity. the key thing for viewers to know is it's a treaty based

courts on the -- it's a very complicated interconnected treaty that is reviewed periodically. that's the notion in the hague. when people say the world court, they typically talk about the international court of justice which is between states on the civil side but this is the criminal court. host: why does it matter by treaty? guest: it matters a lot because there is certain ascribed jurisdictions. the ideas when i join the treaty, i'm giving out pieces of my some -- some giving appeases my sovereignty. when people ratify their own statute, it's called the rome statute of the international criminal court, that is jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territory or crimes committed by their nationals and that's important because the court does not have power to hear cases unless they can point to specific jurisdictions and specific authorities. it's worth noting the way to bypass that is through the un security council with a binding

chapter seven resolution which is what we've seen in sudan and other places. host: when you bypass the icc, what does it mean? guest: it means you are bypassing state consent. everything in the icc jurisdictionally and the cooperative mechanisms are all based on state consent. they are all based on i have an interest in standing for these common principles and i share them and support them and i want to participate in the system. when you go through the security council, it harkens back to what we did in the 1990's in yugoslavia and rwanda where it's not based on state consent. it's based on the authority of the security council under the united nations charter which is a whole different game. host: the jurisdiction of the international criminal court includes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. let's talk about genocide. what is the jurisdiction here, what does it include?

guest: the same as all the rest, the genocide provisions are almost unique in the statute in the sense that is the one part of the statute we have jurisdiction and you have substantive coverage. genocide provisions in the rome statute are almost verbatim substantively from the 1948 genocide convention there is really nothing dramatically new in them. the one place there is a slight twist in the context of genocide is in the elements of crimes we negotiated, there has to be a manifest pattern of genocide. the big idea of the icc is that it's a complementary part of the international system. it is designed to be the pinnacle and work in conjunction and cooperation with all the other courts of the world whether they are regional or domestic or any number of other ways. the idea in genocide law which is where the manifest pattern language comes is it has to be

big, something the icc should appropriately deal with as opposed to many of the other courts of the world that would have jurisdiction on the other provisions of international law. that's what was added of the substantive coverage of genocide is almost identical to the genocide convention which i can explain if you think people would be interested. host: guest: guest: please do. 1948 genocide convention was revolutionary in its own way. it regulated for the first time in international law the treatment of a government, a sovereign entity vis-à-vis its own people and conveyed equal rights to the citizens of other things. the essence of genocide law is split into two pieces -- the thing you have to do, people typically think of murder. that's a form of genocide. there is a much longer list. depriving persons of the conditions of life necessary to live. not actually murder them but i

-- but deprive them of everything they need to survive, that could be genocide. the greatest mass patterns of atrocities can be genocide. the key is that the act, the things you have to do. the real key is what we call in the business the special genocidal intent. that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and what you had to prove is that you intentionally did what you did with the intention of destroying that group in whole or in part on the basis of the defining characteristics from the convention, racial, ethnic, national or religious. the keywords you see is as such. it's not enough to have a pattern of activity. that is felt by a particular portion of the population. those are criminal acts but it's not genocide. i have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did these things that are prohibited

substantively with the specific intent of eliminating that group on the basis of that characteristic in whole or in part and i did those things targeting that group as such is the way to treaty says it. host: does it have to be during a time of war? guest: one of the beauties of genocide which is similar to crimes against humanity is no, it's not connected to armed conflict. it can be time -- in times of peace or on conflict as opposed to the war crimes provision each of which has a circumstantial element. you can only commit war crimes during a war. whether it's international or non-international. genocide and crimes against humanity, there is substantive jurisdiction at any time and any place. you have to meet those element beyond a reasonable doubt. host: war crimes from the geneva convention of 1949, willful killing or inhuman killing

including biological experints, willfully causing easuffering or serious injury to body orealth, extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity or carried out unlawfully d wantonly, unlawful deportation or tnsr uawl taking taking up hostages. why these provisions? guest: that's just a subset. i want to be clear with people. in this concept, they should look at the first article of the rome statute. paragraph a takes it out of the 1949 conventions of most of the things you just mentioned constitute great breaches, treaty crimes if you will under the geneva convention. then they simply incorporate them into the structure of the international criminal court.

that's fairly easy but in doing that, you expand the punitive authority of that treaty of the international criminal court based on the pre-existing treaty arrangement. that's a beautiful thing. for our purposes, a2b goes on to list other series of crimes so three of the crimes you mentioned don't come froma@a but a@b. you're picking up a whole variety of other crimes that aren't specifically criminalized with specific criminal prohibitions but are found in the body of law, the law of war. that's all the crimes that are committed during an international armed conflict. articlec,d and e deal with intrastate wars, insurgencies, terrorist acts, etc. that's the division and that's why the rome statute is

wonderful. in my view and i helped negotiate them, is the most comprehensive listing of war crimes anywhere in the world. it serves a really important function for consolidating and clarifying and explaining exactly what's criminal and in those elements of crime, giving great detail in terms of what prosecutor must prove beyond a verse -- a reasonable doubt to get a conviction for that particular thing. it's really host: host: important. blessed are viewers, illinois, question or comments? caller: two questions. what would have happened to america and world war ii with the atomic bombings and why didn't your organization come down hard on north vietnam

during the vietnamese war? number three, look at africa. why aren't you guys over there? why are you trying to pick on one of our best allies? thank you very much. guest: i'm not sure i take the first person come on just a law professor who works in this field and litigates trials. we'll start with the third one. one of the criticisms of the court which just came into existence in 2002 is that many of the early cases did focus on africa. this has been a hot button issue. as time has gone on, we are into the second decade of the court's existence. many of those cases if not all of those cases imploded. cork has essentially used africa as a testing ground to develop the theories of criminality and the theories of individuals etc.

one thing you need to understand is the international criminal court has no jurisdiction whatsoever for crimes committed before its entry into force. in other words, may 1, two thousand two. anything before that, you have to look at other mechanisms. with respect to the atomic weapons issue, the court looked at that in detail in an advisory case and codify the law slightly to say it's not simple. it's situation specific context the way you begin to apply international law. that's why the details in the rome statute are very important. it gives you the structure in great detail of what you look at and what you have to prove and what defense arguments are available etc. in north korea, it's a nice question because it illustrates one of the key important factors about the court. at least half the worlds population, more than half is

not subject to international criminal court just -- authority which includes north korea, syria and others. as i said,because as i said it t based. the north koreans will not consent to the jurisdiction of the court. so, you have to find other ways. this is why it is important to remember that the international criminal court is designed to be part of an interconnected system. it does not stand alone and it has to work in cooperation in conjunction with other courts around the world, domestic, international and regional. host: that the itc is picking on one of the u.s. allies in israel. guest: with respect to the recent press reports. the nature of the beast is they do not do anything that is easy or not controversial. everything that they have ever done has been controversial in one way or another.

and i stand by that. even cases that imploded in the end, they are always having to pick sides. they say we follow the evidence and do what prosecutors do. we are independent, which is correct technically. everything they do has political overtones. i also believe from my experience that there is an awful lot of inaccurate press reporting. i do believe that they do warrants of arrest instead of indictments when we see them and then we will evaluate on merits. on the flipside they have done venezuela and looked at a whole series of other cases where you could make the exact argument. somebody would say just a perception, the court is just attacking opponents of america. that is also not true. they are independent and impartial. they just try to do the best they can. they also have an incredibly difficult challenge in actually

getting admissible trial evidence. it is a difficult challenge for them, which is why so many cases from africa have ended up collapsing, really for lack of evidence. if i am in that office and i want to issue warrants of arrest for israeli's or anyone else, the real challenge will be the sufficiency of evidence because they know that they will be attacked for being a political arm. and they would say no, we are about law, procedure and regularity. it all comes down to the evidence. there is one more thing i want people to understand, particularly larry. in the icc context they have situations. very different than the way we think of a crime. we think of if i charge this person and develop a case against that person, larry. that is not how they work. they take a situation and, by

definition has jurisdiction over both sides of the conflict. so, i fully expect that if they do proceed with cases in the context of the current situation , i do not see how in the world they could avoid charging particular hamas leaders or other palestinian leaders or other members, they will have to be some balance and you will argue that his politics and perception. again, they say we will follow the evidence where the evidence goes because we are prosecutors and that's what we do, we try people where we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. host: the headline that larry was referring to, israeli officials believe international court is preparing arrest warrants over war. how would they know? guest: well, good question. the court like any other institution might have leaks and the israelis do know that there

has been a long-standing investigation. i have honestly say almost anytime i am in the hague in the international criminal court for business i have seen a palestinian delegation and the coffee shop. they've been working the court hard for many years now, five or six years at least. so there has been a long-standing set of investigations. they begin to bump up against the reality which is why what i am saying is so important of what you charge and who you charge, what particular crimes and how you prove them. those will be incredibly difficult cases. most of the icc cases that have imploded or just disintegrated is probably a more politically correct word have been based on insufficient evidence because prosecutors or somebody in the office of the prosecutor began to rely on press reports and unreliable third-party accounts. they began to rely on in some

cases evidence provided by private organizations and nongovernmental groups. that is fine but it does not prove the crimes. they have to be careful with how they construct a case. it is difficult. these >> can you explain the difference between dual federalism and cooperative federalism? >> are you a student about to take the exhibits government and politics exam? join us on washington live" -- "washington journal live" saturday. teacher from el dorado high school in california it will take your calls and text questions on the content and structure of this year's exam. >> the founding documents that

are required to, the supreme court cases that are required. announcer: get your test questions ready and participate by calling in or asking your questions on facebook, x, or at hashtag cram for the exam. announcer: next week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are in session, the house will consider legislation requiring a citizenship question on the u.s. census, and representative marjorie taylor greene plans to offer a motion to oust speaker mike johnson. those considers an faa reauthorization bill to be extent programs past the friday deadline. on tuesday the education secretary examines his department's policies and last year's financial audit hellier, and president biden will deliver

the keynote address for the united states holocaust more museum days of remembrance. on wednesday, national public radio president and ceo appears before a subcommittee over accusations of ideological bias at npr, a taxpayer-funded news enti. c. mayor bowser appears before the house oversight committee concerning d.c.'s response to unlawful activity and and time semitism -- and antisemitism at the university. go to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ announcer: sunday on q & a, a former rhode island democratic congressman and author talks about americans who have struggled with mental illness

and the role family members lay in their care. >> and my own case of my mother, my brother and sister and i had to get guardianship over my mother. we saved her life so she could to around with my kids. my kids never met my father, obviously, who died before they were born, but they got to meet my mom, and they got to meet my mom because my brother and sister and i went to court to get guardianship over my mother to keep her from killing herself. she was so happy at the time she was unhappy, but she ended up being so grateful that she was able to make it to the other side, because we intervened. announcer: patrick candidate with his book sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q & a. listen to q & a and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. ♪

>> do you solemnly swear that in the testimony you were about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? announcer: saturday watch americanry tv's congress investig as we explore major investigations in our country's history by the u.s. house and senate. authors and historians will tell these stories, a historic but it from those periods, and we will examine the legacy and impact of key congressional hearings. this week of the hearings led by an idaho senator analyzing a legit abuses within the house intelligence community. ♪