detention. >> al jazeera rejects all the charges and demands immediate release. >> thousands calling for their freedom. >> it's a clear violation of their human rights. >> we have strongly urged the government to release those journalists. >> journalism is not a crime. >> the cia strikes back, three former directors forcefully defend themselves against the cia's use of pressure. and what was said about the white house behind closed doors and a big discovery in outer space. i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this," those stories and others straight ahead. >> this particular release serves no purpose. >> seems to me it's deeply flawed. >> we violated who we were.

>> we should hold ourselves accountable. >> death of a palestinian minister. >> after clashes with the israeli troops in the west bank. >> between the palestinians and the israelis. >> our times person of the year. >> this story had been uncovered at critical periods of time. >> nasa's rover the curiosity -- >> link on mars. >> potentially long enough to sustain life. >> malala yousafzai. gets the nobel prize for >> senate intelligence committee's report on the cia's brutal

attacks. called the report poorly done. while the cia had done things in the interrogation program that should not have happened they argued the program led to the capture of senior al qaeda operatives, disrupted terrorist plots and prevented mass terrorist attacks, and played an important role in the hunt for osama bin laden. all points specifically rejected in the committee report but supported by current cia director john brennan. at the white house press secretary josh earnest suggested whether the program produced actionable intelligence was besides the point. >> even if this information did yield important national security information, the damage that it did to our moral authority in the mind of this president means that those interrogation techniques should not have been implemented in the

first place. >> for more on the senate intelligence committee report i'm joined by washington, d.c. by former cia director ambassador r. james wolsey, currently the chairman of the defense for american democracy. ambassador it's a pleasure to have you as always. your colleagues the three former cia directors say that a balanced study was important but that this committee report was anything but, it was a partisan attack. do you agree with them? >> basically yes. i think what's really indicative here is they dealt with no one, such as these three directors of central intelligence, who had been responsible for making the decisions about the program and correcting some of the early mistakes that were made. they didn't talk to a soul. they took thousands of pages of text and edited it in whatever way they wanted to.

and you can make it say most anything with those kinds of numbers. and then they call that the report. i think this is just about as distorted a job as i've seen come out of capitol hill in some 35 or 40 years i've been looking at congressional reports. >> and you served under a democrat bill clinton, you've been complimentary in the past of democrat dianne feinstein and saxby chambliss. in the days after 9/11 would you have authorized these enhanced interrogation methods? >> i would have gone to the justice department with a program and had a decision made to make a recommendation one way or the other, to the president. i don't know that the methods i would have selected would have

been exactly the same. but one needed to deal with the situation, in which we had lost thousands of americans to a major terrorist attack that we knew that others were being planned, a major one for the west coast, of about the same size. we knew that the terrorists were talking with pakistani officials who had access to nuclear weapons. the country was extremely frightened and understandably so. and i am not a supporter of torture as it is defined in american law. but i've got to say that some of these enhanced interrogation techniques strike me as perfectly reasonable. some may not be, but that was -- >> but putting a aside the circumstances that the report mentions which i think anyone would agree are torture, things

as waterboarding and sleep deprivation -- >> if waterboard is is torture it's a very curious kind of torture, if you compare it to something like say pulling one's one's finger nails out. waterboarding is a way of training for navy seals. >> but wouldn't you -- >> they also the other thing that happens with respect to waterboarding is a number of journalists and authors in the united states after this first came to light, volunteered to be waterboarded so they could write about it. very few volunteer to have their finger nails pulled out. >> if you're being water boarded as part of training when compared to being at a black site as a prisoner and being waterboarded? >> well, if you are a prisoner who has information about a

subsequent attack on the united states that might again involve the deaths of thousands of americans, i would think that the differences are ones that one could deal with. >> a lot of the -- you know very passionate backlash from the intelligence community has pen to say that the report is wrong and that the enhanced interrogation techniques do work. i'm assuming from what you said that you agree with that, that they are effective? >> i don't have a separate measure of the degree of effectiveness. but one thing that strikes me as important is that the critique that is in the republican report, i'm sorry that is in the democratic report, that was filed by the majority of the committee, is that it is not a situation where the committee

got together and coherently presented this and that to one another and discussed the way do. this is not a committee report. it's a democratic members of the committee report. and it trumpets its partisanship. i've never seen anything quite like this. i was general counsel of the senate armed services committee in the early 70s so i've been involved and looking at these issues for 40 years. and i've never seen a congressional report as biased as this one. >> on the issue of effectiveness though, critics say the cia would argue that enhanced interrogation techniques are effective, because it's the only way to justify the extreme methods. do they have a point? >> the point is not to justify extreme methods. the point is to get information. sometimes you can get it through mind games and interrogation.

there are different approaches. i don't think we can acquiesce to recommendations for torture such as my examples of pulling people's finger nails out. but if you would call waterboarding torture some people do and some do not, most torture. if you want to call waterboarding torture you have to admit it is a very, very different kind than what most people think of as torture involving physical damage and long term physical damage and the rest. >> moving on the reporter said that they felt another attack might be imminent. general hayden had more to say about that. listen to that.

>> we thought we were doing the nation's will and in fact having lived through period and even looking back on it now, i think this indeed is about the nation's will. and in all these activities, the president authorizes them, the congress was briefed without objection and we carried them out. >> but the program then ran until december of 2007. so even if we grant that the context was incredibly different and i certainly remember i was one of the people who had to be tested for anthrax exposure, you know, should the program have been stopped once the panic was over, once we'd learned a lot about al qaeda and had some progress against them? >> i think you have to take these issues one at a time. for example, one of the so-called interrogation enhanced methods that was used is that an individual was pushed so he smashed into a door. the door was designed so it would break, so he would not be hurt.

but he was thrown against a door. a door that breaks. is designed to break. how is that something that under no circumstances on moral grounds could be considered? it does not strike me as anything other than a trick. and i think that so many people have latched on to the whole idea of torture and they use the word without having it have any content, thinking that that wins the argument for them just by referring to it as torture. whereas it's complicated. some of these things, i do not think over the long run the country should be engaged in water boarding. i think it was understandable at the time and in the circumstances. i frankly have been inclined for sometime to think it was all right to continue it.

i'm heavily influenced in my views by john mccain and who has been a friend for years and underwent torture and is my authority of torture in a sense. this is a difficult call for water boarding but to portray it as if it were something like pulling people's finger nails out is just extraordinarily deceptive. >> final question for you, one of the big parts of this report was accusing the cia of misleading congress and of civilians. the cia by nature is clan deas december -- has clan destine and has clandestine operations. >> i take to their word the three cia drorkt directors who d on to the wallets journal and some of their colleagues that they had fully informed the

congress. and i think it would be ridiculous of them not to inform the congress of some major step like this. i could not conceive of their not having done so. but only the people who spoke and the people who were spoken to know. again, it is really extraordinary that the people who put this democratic majority report together for congres thes did not talk to a single person inside the government in the cia or anywhere else who was involved in pulling this program together. they decided to edit things the way they wanted so it would say the way they wanted it to say and that's extraordinarily deceptive from where i'm concerned. >> and the three directors said they had

fully informed the congress. i'm joined by pj crowley. p.j. it's good to see you. would it have been better for the rest of the world had this report been kept private? >> i think it is an important report and i think it's a worthy objective, to learn lessons, understand what we've done right or wrong. i'm concerned that we have a debate in the middle of a war that's still going on still intensifying. my own view would be it is the right thing at perhaps the wrong time. we'll find out. obviously we're seeing in the domestic context a lot of political recrimination, not exactly the environment that leads to a reasonable debate and there is risk that we're

reliving this experience again, and it raises the risk that perhaps someone will act upon this latest information, well hopefully that won't happen. >> in the context of what you're saying that we're fighting this war, critics of the report say that foreign intelligence services are less likely to work with the united states because the report demonstrates again that washington can't keep secrets. is that an issue? >> well, it is an issue. clearly there have been some uncomfortable moments i'm sure over the past few days. you've had for example governments in -- former government in poland acknowledging that yes it did approve a secret site there, wasn't aware of what was going on. you've had questions from afghanistan, lithuania, other countries saying please tell us exactly what you did within our borders. that said, we've had this kind of experience before.

you know personally during wikileaks. and thankfully at the end of the day, vital interests guide our relations to other countries in the world. and you could look at the international coalition that has been formed to combat the islamic state, notwithstanding those moments, the cooperation with the united states and other states have gone up not down. >> one consequence of the report's release is it's giving fuel to the fires that like to the lit by some countries not known by their human rights records and they're having a field day with the report. let's look at one of them, china's state run agency, including china, newspaper in iran put this on its front page, torture surveillance shooting, the three pillars of american human rights. releasing the report was i think

partially intended to improve america's standing in the world. and while we may not care what the government, these governments think what sort of an impact is it having on their people? >> well look. today brazil released a report about activities within the government from 30 years ago. i mean this is a necessary function particularly with the democracy, to explain what government is doing on behalf of its citizens. you know the things we've done right, the things we've done on. there is a groundhog day kind of feel to this. i don't know that we've changed any minds around the world. if you were angry about the united states yesterday, you've got new fodder. if you were disappointed in the united states you are probably still bewildered and if you are an antagonist of the united states yeah. you're going to have your moment including north korea saying,

why is the security council investigating us, why not them? >> let's hear more about josh earnest response to the report. >> the president is concerned about the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques undermine america's authority around the globe. one substantial way we can rebuild that moral authority is to be honest, as transparent as poobl about ipossible about it e again. >> do you think america's outright war against al qaeda overran our moral authority and will this help us rebuild the moral authority? >> i don't see that cia is a rogue authority, it was doing what it thos was authorization at the highest level of government as well as legal authority. i happen to think that some of the things that we did were

mistakes and whatever the gains at a tactical level we have paid strategic costs here. i do hope that we learn these lessons and whether it's setting up a parallel legal universe at guantanamo bay, the black sites and interrogation techniques that we learn these lessons and we don't go the same road again in the future. so i think it's very, very important to go through this dynamic, and you know we'll hopefully come to some reasoned judgment over time. and the ideal would be, you know, to build this kind of perspective into what we do in the future. >> final question for you: the u.n. special reporteur on human rights and counterterrorism says, as a matter of international law, there should be no impunity or statute of

limitations or the torture. is there any possibility that former members of the government or the -- anybody who worked for the cia, should face any kind of -- 80 kind of prosecution? >> my personal view is, we should not go down that road . there are two ways to look at this antonio, one is through a prosecutorial role. and sometimes they choose that option. i would prefer it to be closer to truth and reconciliation. we need to understand what government has done on our behalf. figure out what went right, what was wrong, what might have worked but for what we have paid very significant costs learn from this. i think these issues have been thoroughly investigated by the justice department now by the senate. i'm sure we'll go over this ground again in the future and we should. but so i think this is part of a

process but i don't think in this particular case prosecutions are the answer. >> p.j. crowell y good to have your perspectives. thanks. now for some other stories from around the world. we begin in our nation's capital where congressional leaders have reached a deal on a $1.1 trillion spending package that would keep the government running until september. even though a deal was made, no one seems to be happy, it will continue to fund obamacare even though it offers no new money. meanwhile, house minority leaders nancy pelosi say some in her party are deeply troubled, house speaker bjor boehner is defending the bill. the house will vote on the bill on thursday and the senate will

vote on it at some point over the weekend. next we head to detroit where michigan governor rick schneider says the bankruptcy is ending. begin the process of paying off its creditors. governor snyder thanked emergency manager kevin orr. detroit filed for bankruptcy in july of 2013. we end in oslo, norway where pakistani educational activist malala yousafzai received the nobel peace prize. criticizing world leaders for not doing enough to end conflict. >> why is it that countries

which we call strong are so powerful in creating wars but are so weak in bringing peace? >> the 17-year-old who survived an assassination attempt by the taliban in 2012 pledged to use the prize money to build more schools in pakistan. and that's some of what's happening around the world. coming up, a palestinian minister dies after confrontation with an israel. times man of the year, who just missed out on the our social media producer, hermela aregawi is helping out the stream. what's trending hermella? >> antonio, top law schools cause a bit of a stir after letting students delay exams to protest the decisions for erik

>> the palestinian authority has stopped all security coordination with israel after

the death of one of its leaders. senior palestinian minister ziad abu ain. palestinian medics say abu ein died of tear gas exposure. just after abu ain's death, protests broke out. israeli defense minister moshe laon was caught on tape by saying israel is standing in the way of new settlements. former israeli diplomat to the united nations and currently a scholar in residence at american university. dan always good to have you on the show. this violence around abu ait's death, immediate consequences, the palestinian authority has

stopped all security coordination with israel, hamas and islamic jihad. >> antonio glad to be here. i hope we're not led to an escalation, i hope the escalation can be contained. this death is very regretful and there is an investigation underway and this investigation should bring is are results and results and point to whether there was any wrongdoing in the death of this palestinian minister. understandably tensions are high tonight around the palestinian territories. but i hope that at the end of the day, the palestinian authority contains the situation, does not let this escalate. i hope that this temporary suspension is indeed of the

cooperation is indeed temporary and that soon israeli and palestinian security officials and agencies will return to fool cooperation. >> what about the international consequences? because the palestinian authority has been reluctant really in not pressing to become a member of international organizations, now the palestinian authority is saying that they are going to move ahead on that because of this. >> well, they're looking into this. and there are reports that perhaps in a few weeks in new york the resolution finall final be tabled at the security council. exactly for this reason, on sunday, this coming sunday, secretary kerry is traveling to rome where he will meet prime minister netanyahu. they will be discussing this palestinian resolution. he will be meeting with palestinian counterparts mr. kerry and hoping for a way not to bring this to the u.n. or

at least have some agreed formula in which this is being taken care of. >> abu a-in spoke to the media about what they were protesting and he said this. >> we're not going. this is the army of the option and they are stopping palestinians for acting on their rights. we came to our palestinian land to plant olive trees. they attacked us immediately without anyone throwing a stone or attacking them. this is a terrorist israeli army which stops palestinians from acting on their rights. >> is there any hope of peace if israel continues to build settlements? >> antonio, this is a million dollar question. how can we get to a resolution of israeli palestinian conflicts? there have been attempt after attempt for years going on, the last under secretary kerry, to bring the parties together. unfortunately the parties were not able to agree.

and so we're at a stalemate we're at a deadlock. right now in israel, early elections have been called which is pushing a decision on this, on the israeli side at least until march or the summer until a new israeli government is formed. obviously, once an israeli government is in place and there's a palestinian partner to talk to about this hopefully negotiations will resume and the parties can go back to talk to one another, and promote finally bring and en an end to this conflict. >> isn't continuing to build settlements a recipe for failure? as we know most countries including united kingdom and at times u.s. officials see the settlement as level under international law and a provocation in a region that just doesn't need any more violence. >> settlements have always been a bone of

contention in israel and the international community. but statehood is to be discussed once advanced negotiations are held between the parties. once advanced negotiations are held then everything will be on the table, refugees and settlements. as long as there's no final status of negotiations the issue of settlements will not be on the table. once there are negotiations this can be part of negotiations. and israel is -- has indicated in the past that it will be willing to make concessions in this regard. >> right but i guess the question many have in this regard is why continue if it is something that is making the process even harder to move forward? and the protests over the settlements came amid another controversy because straily defense minister moshe daon said

the obama administration won't last forever. is that the view of the israeli government is just to try to wait out the obama administration and hope that they'll find friends in washington that will allow the settlements to move forward? >> well, first i have to look at defense minister's yalon's words in the context of the upcoming elections. everything should be seen these days through the eyes through the lenses of the upcoming elections. yalon was speaking in a closed room but i think he was hoping it would get outside and he was addressing a constituency that is supportive of settlements. it wants to see settlements continue and obviously, he was as lekud is trying to take away votes that have spilled over to party. it

is not the first time the lehud party would say such a thing but going back to your original question about settlements at this point in time, obviously right now there is no settlement activity beyond -- there are no new settlements that are being built at this point in time. existing settlements. >> it is a distinction without a difference from the palestinian point of view. but you know, even if this is a conservative minister, a member of l ehud, isn't it something that people who want peace in