Skip to main content

tv   After Words with Karen Greenberg  CSPAN  July 24, 2016 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT

9:00 pm
for those of files their busy declassified secretary of state stuff. >> i'm told this is less question. how did he get people to work for him after straining people in cuba and other places all around western hemisphere? >> i mean, he was an unbelievably persuasive guy. the fact is he often would have people working for him who did. who he still owed money from his last time around. he like to break, he actually got upset when friday said he owed 150,000 he said what he tried to do for my credit? i own 200,000. he also was really proud of the fact that he was the only person
9:01 pm
who could gamble daily on the horses for nothing in new york. he was so deep with the bookies that they would always stake them in hopes that a long shot came galloping home and they could take his winnings. but he had the gift of gab. he was just a wonderful charlatan, a wonderful artist and like the best con man, he often believed his own cons. he believed that the show was going to work. thank you all so much. [applause]. >> thank you walter, thank you you for coming. please remember to fold up your chair and come up on the right-hand side to get your book signed. [inaudible]
9:02 pm
[inaudible conversation] >> c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to as a public service per cable or satellite provider. >> afterwards is next on tv. university national security center director karen greenberg discusses her book, wrote justice. she takes a critical look at the legal questions arising from policies and laws enacted to fight the u.s. war on terrorism after niall/11. she is interviewed by a member of the supine group and the inside story of 9/11 and the war against al qaeda. >> host: hi karen. another great book i see. rogue justice, the making of the security state. what you mean by
9:03 pm
the term robe justice? >> guest: rogue justice is the term i gave to the way in which the mechanisms that are supposed to keep a safe from interference from the states, they are supposed to protect the constitution it went off the rails after 9/11 and has failed to come back. so i call it rogue justice because it is out of control, outside of the bounds of the law and seems like a rogue element compared to what we expected or what were used to. >> host: you have a lot of very emotional quotes throughout the book. i know you love going to court, watching all of these proceedings, specially when it comes to terrorism, prosecution. why did you include that in the book and why do you focus so much on national security quotes versus others? >> guest: the book is really
9:04 pm
about what happened in the realm of national security. there have been people who have proposed national security courts but i wanted to see what goes on inside the courtroom because that is where the issues of innocence, the issue of the power of the law are most clearly shown and demonstrated. it is actually fascinating to watch the difficulties that they have on national security cases. that's why wanted to go. there's all this talk about kenard cordes try terrorist. we have never tried one 9/11 terrace, yet in 15 years. so years ago i just started going to court to see what is a terrace prosecution look like. i've been to many states and districts to see what the narrative of the defensive, what the narrative of the prosecution is and how it changed over time. i think it is important for the american people to understand
9:05 pm
that there are nuances to these cases. not all terrorism cases are the same. there is an entire spectrum of cases from those who are accused of wanting to plot and founded evidence like the subway bomber in new york to those who are really just aspirational. i wanted to see how those cases played out differently and if there was a way in which justice could be described as not rogue. one of the takeaways from the book is that the courts were like a deer in the headlight when it came to national security cases. there's a realm of cases, surveillance cases brought by the aclu and others about overreaching by the government. many of them, some secret court cases with a classified court. there there are terrorism prosecutions of prosecutions over foia requests. so there is a realm of cases that we need to look at to see how the courts and time after
9:06 pm
time, after time many of the judges and important judges in this country, in and port jurisdictions have said national security, we do not want to part of it. we are not equipped to think about it. the president has told us this person is an enemy combat. he is told. he is told as they need the surveillance powers whether or not we get to the constitutional issue. the president told us we need to have this kind of foia request denied, whatever it is. and i wanted to see what the substance of this was and how the judges interacted with the lawyer and for the part many of them just took a backseat. by the time they got engaged and interested was too late. >> host: it's interesting you said the courts and the judges, think the term that you just use words like a deer in the headlight. federal courts were always used to prosecute national security cases from big spies to -- to
9:07 pm
the bombers of federal court, many spies, of the cia spies in different big national security litigations are also prosecuted in federal court. so they have a lot of experience of precedents in dealing with it. after 9/11 was a different? >> guest: that's a good question. that's what i wanted to try to figure out. why this why this shyness in the face of these prosecutions. one of the easy reasons is that there were not a lot of courts that did national security courses. southern district of new york in eastern district of virginia that had done spy national security cases there were comfortable classified evidence. as he began to expand outwards and had 400 prosecutions in states across the nation, where could you get the judges that can actually feel like they have the confidence to weigh in on it. as a result of that the national security, in part was established at the department of
9:08 pm
justice for the purpose of managing, overseeing make consistent the argument that were used in the legal framework that was used to prosecute these cases. it took a long time. in taking a long time there became a lot of political backlash to, let's not use our courts. that is that is one of the saddest things that happened. in the halls of dc, in the halls of congress that the courts were not up to the task. they are up to the task and work and by the way, compared against the 9/11 trial, who could have taken this long to try any trial within the federal court system. i agree with you there up to the task. let me also say many other jurisdictions are also up to the test. for example the eastern district of new york, the brooklyn courthouse has done numerous terrorism trial since 9/11 is one of the leading courts in this regard. in virginia they've had more
9:09 pm
terrorism cases and spy cases since 9/11. the d.c. court, the same thing. he like you have cases in boston, slowly but surely they're getting courts that are more comfortable with these issues but it's taken a long time. the scariness factor would somebody get acquitted and have a set things off course from the very beginning. >> host: that takes me to the very beginning of your book with attorney general -- getting the case for the 911 defendants to the military and transferring it to guantánamo bay. i think it was reluctant to do so. it's interesting that you start your book with that and of the book you go back to the scene again, gang, and again. what is the importance of that specific thing and that specific decision and what kind of impact eric holder's decision was for guantánamo bay.
9:10 pm
and what effect did it have in our views in the united states as the efficacy of federal courts. >> guest: it was a really unfortunate and unhappy moment for the american judicial system. eric holder convey that. he basically said when he said they're going back to the military commissions at guantánamo instead of being tried in manhattan federal court, what he said was look, i believe our courts are up to this task, i do not not believe for a minute that this is how it should be but congress has taken the decision out of my hand to make it impossible to bring guantánamo detainees to this country for any reason including prosecution. one of the original impetus for writing this book was a memo to eric holder which was basically listening, it wasn't congress that did this to you. it was ten years of the reference by the court to this
9:11 pm
idea of the national security state. after ten years it's not just congress able to do this, the fact that the court are not saying, here we are, how many prosecutors came down on the side of congress. how many prosecutor said, these are not cases we should not handle. it's too dangerous, to classified information, we information, we don't want to run the risk of acquittal. we don't want to be responsible for more death in america, it's not our job. so it is not our job, it's not just about the congressional ban on transfer from guantánamo. it was a very a very long narrative that started right after 9/11. the original military commission document came out as a presidential order in the fall of 2001. it was taken out of the federal courts and should have been an outcry, an outpouring of know, we know how to do this, were protecting herself, herself, our system, our balance of power. after all of those years that is how i see the story. so that's right, that's right comes back ..
9:12 pm
to me, then 9/11 trial is an incredibly important misstep, mishap, the fact that we have not had a for americans. triers are guilty and innocent, trials lay out a narrative. trials. trials are healing. they bring closure. we have not had closure for nine a level on some deep psychological that i cannot put in a scientific category, but i know it. it is fundamental. a lack of trust in our courts so i'm glad that you asked about the holder because it does matter to me. it's what inspired me to go back and say, how could this happen. that we did not try this trial. what else went wrong? >> host: another thing that goes hand-in-hand and we see it in
9:13 pm
guantánamo, again and again every time there is a hearing, most of the fighting's in the discussions in legal proceedings have to do with secrecy. it seems that secrecy is very important to you. again that is a topic that you refer to throughout the book. so can't we have secrecy at a time of national crisis? i'm trying to be the devil's advocate here on this. >> guest: we absolutely need secrecy. secrecy classification which is a lawyer, kate a word for it. secrecy is essential to national security. there's no question about it. but how much secrecy is really the issue. secrecy that shuts down our court in a way that they cannot function as they used to, secrecy that takes way from the american people the right to really know what is going on. let's remember that when president obama took office and issued a series of degrees on the second day of office, he
9:14 pm
talked about transparency. it was one of the issues he said i'm going to bring transparency back into our realm. you are going to know what goes on inside this government. it has not happened. what i would say about these cases is that when you go to court their is a tremendous amount of classification already. these cases weather before 9/11 or after 9/11 has always had classified issues. and there the procedures act which gives guidance and roles to judges, prosecutors and defendants about how to handle classified material. for the most part it's work. that doesn't mean it's not contested by some attorneys on either side of the aisle but his work for long time. classification issue, at one, they cannot even get to the beginning of the trial. it's all about what is going to be presented, what isn't, what's
9:15 pm
allowed to be seen, what exists. what exists. what no longer exists in the case of guantánamo. one of the problems with secrecy after 9/11 is that there's some suspicion on the part of many and some of it i share, not all of it. some of it i share in the secrecy's about things the united states government did that they should not have done. that cannot be the reason things are classified. rather than sources and message and information that would help her enemies. so for example, torture. the fact that these individuals are tortured that is not a secret. what kind of torture, we may not know. it seems to me that cannot be the reason that we cannot have these trials. >> host: you mention torture and you and i have been talking about torture for a long time. from your experience, you've been looking into these issues for a long time, you've looked
9:16 pm
into guantánamo and your first book was about guantánamo and today it's about the federal courts. in your understanding is there a lot of classification in the federal system or in one time a and how this over justification has an impact on the entire justice system? >> guest: i think i'm not the only person at all to think that over classification is an issue. you you can see the government struggled with this. recently they decided on the level of classification that would snow longer classify. i think that's a move in the right direction. there are number of federal judges that have said, when i looked at the materials they were astonished the reason is if you give a breath to classification and neared the officer to determine whether it's classified or not why would you classify? why would you take the risk that you made the mistake that some are down the road could've been the needle in haystack. there is an unwillingness to
9:17 pm
take on responsibility, that is fed by push by classification. so there has been all of this because on the media and the rumor mongrels, they found out this and that. . . . and it will impact these trials. there's also basic things.
9:18 pm
and one, though i understand the term. there are a lot of issues they ask the government and they admitted to publicly that's part of the official investigation that has been released by these agencies when you see these entities and government that are still considered classified in the guantánamo courtroom. how do you explain that? >> it's beyond inappropriate. you have a number of individuals that testify to congress or that have written or spoken about things that in one context classified s so there's a chill factothere is a chillfactor thak about that even though this is public knowledge. this is dangerous because it diminishes the legitimacy. it's not a good space to be.
9:19 pm
it makes a mockery of what classification should be for those things which are truly dangerous, secret and there is a category of those things. what's happened in a lot of areas not just classification is the governmenasthe government id now people don't trust the decisions or the lines that it's drawn between classified and unclassified and that's another thing that i included to in the book is the trusted the government to say what's real and what makes sense going forward. it works while. in all of the cases that involve classified information that judges figured out a way to handle it and the defense
9:20 pm
attorneys are not up in arms about it. they wish things had gone their way. but that's what the judge's role is to say you can have this but not this. in the longest terrorism case we've ever had, look how they litigated what could be shown in court when you were dealing with individuals tortured which no one knew at the time, with information people may or may not have known at the time depending on the case. and after tremendous guilt they came up with a system of substitutes for the witnesses and testimony verbatim, but they came up with something in the trial that was concluded. even in an egregious case where the reasons for classification
9:21 pm
are so complicated it worked out. >> host: one of the biggest philosophical constructs after 9/11 is the balance between liberty and security. people have been insisting it's fine to do all these things if they can prevent another 9/11. from reading the book and knowing you personally hell do you see the balance based on your opinion and based on your countless hours sitting in court listening to national security cases? the >> security has won in the balance. one in the balance. there has been a balance that has overwhelmed courtrooms and the juries and the media in terms of understanding what is
9:22 pm
at stake and that liberty has suffered tremendously and i will come back to how that is the case. what i think further is that we focus on liberty and while we are focusing on liberty versus security we should have been focusing on justice versus security. but we have lost the strength and backbone of our system in this context including the wall in congress so when you think about the courtroom you see a lot of cases where the rights are at issue these are low-level cases where people were caught in the middle of inactivity we
9:23 pm
are not talking about the embassy bombings, we are talking about individuals that are somewhere between aspirational and talking about al qaeda and isis comes across as being tantamount and that is an issue. another issue that has come up, the fourth amendment has been beaten up since the beginning. that's what the revelation showed and i write a lot about this lawyer's and others.
9:24 pm
they recognized the surveillance authorities were not justified by the way they had been laid out by another justice department lawyer and did their best heroic standing up for th this. >> guest: he wa >> guest: he was willing to put his career at stake. he was pro- wall enforcement and understand the security at stake and wanted to bring it back and the fourth amendment isn't as protective as it used to be a.
9:25 pm
that's the push to bring back to the power so what's necessary in this and we haven't figured out that's what i mean when i say security has one mostly through the work of other organizations that has found its voice here and there. i also wasn't thinking about this. we want balance but i think the tension between the two is great they are supposed to think about how to keep the country safe and civil liberties advocates and others are supposed to think about how to protect our constitution.
9:26 pm
it's got a built into the fabric of who we are as a nation. >> you mentioned something about the cases as so-called aspirational. if you look at an individual trying to issue al qaeda were isis and the only tool you have is to send an undercover agent or law enforcement in general do you see that as entrapment or doing their job, do you prefer that individual to be arrested before they commit the act or after they commit the act, so that is also a balance we have to look at. what experience from reviewing
9:27 pm
the cases can you tell us about that? >> guest: that is the truly hard question because the answer is there is a range of questio questions. there is a range of cases that are just shameful and others are spectacular. where did you see individuals and what's going on but there are larger players that the intelligence component it is importanthat isimportant and sud then there's other cases where you feel they can never have done anything on their own. they couldn't have done anything on their own. one, the fbi as you know. they are either muslim,
9:28 pm
foreign-born, arab speaking but they didn't have and don't have enough of their agents, so they probably were not the best way to go about things because they have something to gain. there is a trade-off and it's turned out to be rather duplicative creatures and so that testimony can fall apart on the stand because who knows who's in control of them. can the fbi really control them? the more that it's professionalized you see that. it's not just to service hi -- terrorism committed as a way of
9:29 pm
implicating human intelligence, something that good intelligence and law enforcement agents have to rely on but you have to be smart about it and some people are and some people aren't. the reason is the fbi isn't large, it's 13,000 agents to cover the domestic and global portfolio so you want to make sure that you're not wasting your resources on individuals that are not the type that can go towards al qaeda. you have to make sure that you make it the right way. >> allow me to comment on the state anstatement that you madet people who would never be able to do it by themselves. usually we have seen a lot of people who are idiots and end up
9:30 pm
pulling themselves up. they are trying to reach out for al qaeda. they may be mentally unstable and not that smart in any way, shape or form. but if you are a supervisor in charge of the office in some area and one of your agents comes to you and says they are e trying to reach out to them, do you wait for al qaeda or isis io come to that mentally unstable individual or do you interfere and do something and this is also part of the balance that they would take into account. >> guest: that are recruits.
9:31 pm
it's much more complicated and that's why there's such a push in the department and in society at large. to think about the individuals in a way that's rather than a law enforcement activity and something that is now even more than the al qaeda base because it these individuals coming onto the radar in law enforcement either through their parents or associates were something that the fbi picks up at a very young age. it can help these individuals realize this isn't a path to go down and the other part of it is
9:32 pm
the average age of these individuals is 26. the age of most of them is 20, and it's just a matter of getting through. it may be some other kind of violence as a definable slice of a larger sort of violence prone movement happening in the united states right now in a way that is very visible and palpable and can be focused on but that's why thursday his calls for the program because you want to be the person to take the chance that it would be better in that way when there are individuals that wish us harm, and isis is isn't being deterred in its call
9:33 pm
to violence for the united states. >> host: you probably have a better idea than any of us because you've been to so many court proceedings. you probably know if it would have worked in this case so what is your general opinion of them? >> guest: indicate in the casest would have been high-profile where individuals have actually gotten weapons often by themselves and wanted to commit acts that involves the direction or involvement, the offramp wasn't available to us. is there a case there might have been an offer and i think would have been the case for the young man who was arrested for alleged
9:34 pm
material support that eventually pled. it could have happened but the way that i see it, we don't have the program yet. we haven't figured it out and we don't know how to figure it out because it feels like targeting. in the midst of this we need a safe space. this may sound naïve and idealistic but we don't have a choice. >> do you see any progress from the obama administration, from the bush administration to the obama administration. a lot of people say that it has been executed in a similar
9:35 pm
manner than george bush. what's your opinion about that? >> guest: obama supporters from my view of things would have liked to see but i think obama wanted to change things. guantánamo fundamentally i think they did want to return the commissions and have them be in court. >> host: but eric holder gave the courses back. they failed time and time again and i want to come back to guantánamo but it's a little more murky in terms of what they wanted and didn't want to because in the drone program i talk about in the book the targeted killing program for the weaponize drones the obama administration so all of these
9:36 pm
and without the judicial review that is a very dicey area that you want the executive to get into the business of deciding who should be killed. you think about how the country was founded on many principles against a general laurent that you have to have a suspicion for against executive killing and executive attention. obama had and cleaned the legacy up from the bush administration. having said that i think you've tried on a number of levels and he's curtailed and restricted the weaponize killing which i think is just executive decree. and on the surveillance it's
9:37 pm
interesting because while this administration has embraced a lot of these incursions into the fourth amendment expressed anger and the fallout, obama was the person that unleashed the commission after the revelation. the lawyers and the cia that say tell me about this, make an assessment. this program that is codified by the patriot act doesn't work and it's illegal. i did tit edited the sun settine patriot act. guantánamo is a story.
9:38 pm
at least one he decided he didn't want to end in deficit detention. among the possibilities are indefinite detention which we still have to this day they cannot be released into those are some of the names of individuals we've known about for a long time. they want to do it. it's clear that pace at which they are clearing for the release of the board these individuals from guantánamo taking them off the list not
9:39 pm
charged and not released that they are working on a pace to make this close and i do think it's going to close before the end of the presidency. it costs over $4 million right now per detainee at guantánamo per year. it's an amazing number and it's going to go up because for every one that is released it goes up and up. so when you have less than 20 individuals we are talking about and it could be less than that in the category, did you know how much it is going to cost, we are talking about 11 million per detainee. we will have the population yet again and again and it's going to come up exponentially and i don't believe congress will have
9:40 pm
the support. this has to be the captivation inside the government and then all you have left are the detainees that will put them in prison military or otherwise in the united states that will get dicey because what rights do they have etc.. there is a lot of talk about getting the individuals to plea to federal court to charges. it could be whittled it down and ironically what do you have, you have the military commission which isn't part of guantánamo at the very start. you have to try all i the triale other extremely important trials
9:41 pm
that have resulted in deaths over the world still hasn't been tried and if this country cannot find a way to have a federal court procedure for these cases i will be highly surprised. >> there are a lot of people in court. can you clarify. >> the military courts-martial's dad is a separate piece of wall that can try a petty offense in the same way they would be tried in federal court essentially, although there are. when you get to the military commission, but as a whole other structure and it's gone through
9:42 pm
tremendous evolution. you can't have made up military commissions. but the head of the military commission now says is the article three works as you could possibly make them the only differences are we have certain of fiduciary procedures based on classification and hearsay that the little broader than it would be elsewhere so they have these things built-in to turn out the military commissions like article three courts are not like article three courts.
9:43 pm
it is a mass and the nature of the evidence in the trial is extremely hard to present in court. why would it be different in federal court, do you know how much we tried in federal court in which there hasn't been a tremendous amount of evidence going back, i think there's a way to do this and there are issues about the death penalty and whether or not these individuals would if there were no death penalty but this is the way to go about it. it is end the air or good. >> host:. >> the biggest thing i learned
9:44 pm
thais that i thought shouldn't e allowed like the fact that there are things you can't see or do but can be interpreted and whether you see that in the law itself and how it plays out. the second thing is judges try hard to talk to juries about how to think about the law and it talks about entrapment. it's so difficult and it's almost like the jury has come back with questions all the ti time. so that's another thing i found out is the intricacy of the relationship between a charge and a jury that is fascinating and i think a real shining gem.
9:45 pm
also, judges who don't want a terrorist in their courtroom and get away from it. so one take away from the book is how powerful judges are. when you see guantánamo, and you realize you do want someone to have control in the courtroom. another interesting thing is when i talk about the courts, the one exception that stood up to the security state was the supreme court. on four separate occasions, they make the rulings saying they have to have rights. but what shocked me about all this is they have the right to challenge their detention in a
9:46 pm
habeas corpus proceeding. so that is a clear sign about the rights and liberties in the district court of dc clear before the release on the positions and been in very theny scolding way is like what, whose evidence were you looking at, why would you trust this evidence? so that was a surprise. i found that conversation surprising. >> you talk about weakening the court system and also how powerful the judges are. how do you marry the two
9:47 pm
together? >> they are powerful and stepped away from wherever they could. if it was a surveillance case we are not going to discuss that. if it was a detention case the so-called dirty bomb that was never charged and so even before the case gets going he is detained in that th and that tht clearly wants it that way. we agree with the government and what they say. at the white housthe white house supreme court might say you can't hold of them here.
9:48 pm
the reason they were willing to do that is the already had several years of being able to say to the judges we are telling you this don't do this. we are not going to share everything but we are holding this activity. one of the people they were thinking about this now i'm not revoking my opinion and the supreme court then says they will allow them to be released in custody. but think about that. think about the overt miss taking you need to revoke a decision that we changed our mind. >> host: you talke talk to the government overreach trying to
9:49 pm
control the courts, you talk about torture being committed by the u.s. government and legal surveillance and a lot of that disheartening issue in the box. do you think we need accountability to move forward? forward? >> guest: the lack of accountability is not because vengeance is to be accountable from the mistakes and so who should be held accountable? >> guest: the lawyers to justify this should be accountable because it shouldn't happen again.
9:50 pm
from the law enforcement intelligence perspective that compromises who we are and donald trump says we can go back when we need it. by the way we don't know how bad the policy was because we haven't seen the report. accountability is everything and the lawyers it's very important so that's one thing. i do believe the agencies as you well know the fbi walked away from it. they need to be held accountable in some way and i don't know if that is proactively as this happens again but they should be held accountable. government officials should be held accountable. there are some that close their eyes and others embraced it and ran with it. torture this is a big part of the book, torture has affected
9:51 pm
much more than we know. it's infected the case after case whether it is just abuse in the american circumstances or something that happened at the cia sites abroad. it infected the cases and was instrumental in. it has infected so much of the court system and it was the poison that has diminished it and that's why the military's can't function. there'there is too much tortured evidence. >> so it goes beyond the efficacy of this technique. i know from personal experience but now we are talking about what it did to the justice system and the legal cases.
9:52 pm
>> think about all the individuals that were tortured out of family who know what happened to them. look at all the videos that are sent out on terrorist groups that included pictures of abu grade. imagine that. the harm of the program and some accountability was restored our standing in the world in terms of the leadership on issues like human rights, that i but it wouo free up the courts. they maneuver around and make room. we see the accountability for the torture policy being crucial and important and very sad that we were to scared to go down
9:53 pm
that road. we are going to go forward, not back. you can't go forward. you have to confront it and think about it and who we want to be as a people. that's okay we won't do it again. >> host: if it is considered torture but if the fbi doesn't it's not. it's not true torturing another human being is torturing another human being no matter who does it and here's the part that bothers me about it.
9:54 pm
that's what we have poured into the intelligence capability and we have law enforcement agents trained. so if they have an extra tool that is barbaric and useless, what does it do in compromising our other techie? but mostly torture is the wrong thing to do on this earth and >> host: the fact is that became a political issue and so many politicians refuse to even acknowledge that it is torture. you mentioned for example donald trump. you want to kill families of terrorists. so if they'll send seen that it's getting any better.
9:55 pm
one attack against everything we talk about in the book. >> host: the pendulum doesn't swing back and it's never going to swing back. but we don't have to go the other way there will be safeguards and again with the commander in chief power this surveillance torture is based on the exalted vision of what the president could be and that's why we ended up with exact death killing etc.. we have yet to see lawyers involved in the government who can make as much headway as they want. but they never quite got to the end of what they want in the torture program which they did a
9:56 pm
lot to try to stop in one form or another. >> host: how about success and s and failures in the last 50 years in the war against terror were some research is officially the war against al qaeda even though h we had been combating l qaeda way before. officially it was declared against and now we have a lot of other affiliates in so many other places around the world and some under isis. would you say we have been more secure or less secure as a nation and are there things we need to do in order to make ourselves more secure and confident in facing the threats i had?
9:57 pm
>> guest: more than on 9/11 and more tax dollars have been pushed. i think there were tremendous glitches. i don't think one of them was the rule of law. >> i think in that way we are safer. we have to have a politician stand up and say guess what, we are safer. we are going to trust our law enforcement officers and agents. we are not going to do it y. and z. in that way. we are going to have rules and regulations and we are never going to do things secretly behind the scenes because we think it's important, but we are safer and the reason is because of the things we did legally and thought about and took a step
9:58 pm
back. >> host: what about the nature is a melting pot? >> host: we have 150 in iraq and syria. they have 500 anyway smaller country. there are some things we are doing right that goes beyond the system. >> this is an important point which is our job now is to make sure that's the next step and it's a challenge but we have
9:59 pm
done it before. we have to want to do it. the good news is a blob of those structures of government you have federal judges that are basically saying there's going to be a reintegration program. let's have the civil society take care of this when they are 13, 14, 15. what's function as a nation and understand that there has to be. you have to want to vote and be part of the framework and be able to say what you think and have a stake in the future and feel like your family will have a future and that's what happened. that's our challenge. we started to turn that corner
10:00 pm
for some creative ideas but that's right. >> host: there are very few people in the united states that know more about the topic ban you. you started with guantánamo and now federal courts and justice. it's fro from although they recommend to everyone. thank you for joining us today. i really enjoyed the conversation. thanks a lot. ..


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on