major hassan. >> guest: because they weren't doing the hard work. >> host: the fort hood shooter. >> guest: so if you had an honest discussion to begin with, then maybe -- about what works and, you know, maybe about what doesn't work although i don't expect the government to come clean on that, you know, that's just human nature, they rarely do -- then you could more appropriately target your resources. >> host: but there is, i mean, there is a bit of a catch 22 in this criticism, as i said, i think a lot of the criticism that you make is very well grounded. but there's still a catch 22 in this point that you're now making. we were attacked on 9/11. it was a major attack. and it was not the first attack by al-qaeda, and it was not even the first attack that killed hundreds of people. >> guest: right. >> host: there was a very serious problem. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: the u.s. government went into what president bush

called the war on terrorism. he launched the response to 9/11 as a war with the idea that we would try to accomplish something that no administration had ever set for itself as a goal which is preventing the next attack. ..

parts of the nsa that chains schematically in order to help that fight, target individuals. special operations, you know, within the military. >> host: some of the things you criticize most, like the interrogation of detainees was credited by obama administration officials like director panetta at the cia was seventh produced the crucial information that allowed us to fight terrorist include terrorists. >> guest: i don't think the record shows that panetta said that water boarding people or harsh interrogations' did that, and i think that -- and that is a great. >> host: i believe actually he did say that.

>> guest: interrogations'. >> host: he was asked about the enhanced interrogations' and he said that, yes, what we learned -- i think perhaps you mentioned -- >> guest: let's say he did and you are right. i would -- there are so many differences in things to talk about there, one of which is the cost, the trade-off between doing something like that and the larger trade off with our reputation, with weather that created more terrorists and not, and i also think that there was indication that these enhanced interrogations' actually produced evidence that could not be done otherwise because reporters have been after that for a long time, and the funny thing about classification is that administration's often -- every administration selectively declassifies information that will make its case.

okay. >> host: it is interesting. >> guest: the never actually come up -- >> host: director panetta. >> guest: let's say he said that. >> host: my general recollection was -- and it is significant because he was getting things for which his own administration criticized the previous administration, but in this particular case was given credit. fifty-two right. no reporter can make that case. that raises my antenna as a reporter because i know that, you know, the white house came under tremendous criticism for that. i do believe it would have found a way to get at least one case out there that would have made a clear case for them. that never happened. that -- mantegna says you cannot do that. i have talked to people who have reviewed transcripts. they say it is virtually impossible to make that case

anyway because you don't know what happened. >> guest: all of the problems of alternative history. >> guest: one of the problems is, of course, we didn't really have great interrogators in the beginning because we have never confronted this kind of things before. >> host: would like to give you a chance as we wrap up in the final two minutes, what are your thoughts on this so what question? you have presented this bloated expanding inefficient redundant set of bureaucracies known as top secret america, talking about these various problems. what we do? what conclusions should people draw from your book from the point of view of how the government should be changed or improved? >> guest: the first is, unless you decide to take this on it is not going to happen. because it operates in secret it will continue to operate unless

members of congress, the public say that the amount of money we cannot afford any more. now it is so obvious because government has to cut back given our economic situation. this is one area that they need to cut back smartly, not -- and there are plenty of lessons in this book and elsewhere to figure out where that should be. but beyond that we have become a country that excepts a level of secrecy that i don't think, we don't think as the authors of this book is healthy, not just for public debate, but for our own set -- safety. many examples in here of instances in which people did not share information, maybe for the right reason, but they did not share it as a result it took longer to find the bad guys. >> host: these are important imminently debatable points that i hope this discussion will help

launch a good debate of. thank you. >> guest: thank-you. >> recently book tv visited george washington university here at the nation's capital to interview several professors who have written recent books. over the next few sundays we will air these interviews beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend we cover politics, history, and foreign affairs. it >> professor spencer overton, in your book, "stealing democracy: the new politics of voter suppression," what is the voting makes you talk about? >> you know, there is a movie called the matrix. basically in that movie computers are in control.

people think they are in control, but, in fact, computers are. i was fascinated by this team of these unseen factors that control our lives, these invisible systems that control our lives. and that is how it is really with regard to our election system. we don't think about it. we think that, you know, the people's elected politicians, but actually, in fact, this matrix of election laws and systems and regulations, you know, they shape who gets elected, they shape the policy in our country. they determine or at least shape, you know, the level of mercury in the air that we breathe, how many kids are in a classroom in the city of detroit. so they have a huge impact that we don't always appreciate. >> and explain how that matrix of laws work, where did they start and how far down they go.

>> well, one thing about the united states is that, you know, we don't have a central system in terms of election laws. we have over 4,000 different election systems. they all have different rules and laws. you know, people who administer them. there is not like one puppet master, some grand conspiracy. all these different systems, and most people are familiar with the most common example which would be gerrymandering where politicians draw districts that favor them. right now congress is about of 14 or 15 percent approval rating, maybe even lower than that. yet 85 percent of members of congress are safe because they have drawn their districts or state legislatures have drawn their districts so that those numbers are safe. as of that is the most blatant, but when we talk about photo id

procedures, when we talk about the placement of polling machines, and a variety of other practices, regulations that will shape outcomes and shape policies and winners and losers. >> two is michael berman. >> michael berman is a person who handles redistricting in california. he is a democrat. his brother, howard berman, is a member of congress. michael had this organization called the ad campaigns. it was his job to redraw the map in california. he did a couple things. one thing he did was his drug -- brothers district. he dropped from 45 to 30 percent latino so that his brother would be safe and would not face that challenge by alateen up candid it. another thing he did was get democrats and republicans

together to preserve incumbent power. in other words, sometimes we see these gerrymanders and partisan gerrymanders meaning one party is trying to draw lines to pick up as many seats in possible. in california in that particular year basically the democrats got together with the republicans and said, hey, let's not push for a party game. let's preserve our own seats and focus on incumbent gerrymander. let's draw districts that benefit us so that we are not challenged. that is michael berman. >> spencer overton, what role to computers play in our current system? >> a good role or not so good? >> computers are up tool. they can be great and they can also cause problems. now with redistricting,

incumbents and people like michael berman can do more than ever to have much more data. they can map things much more easily. before people use to guess and estimate about, you know, the census and where people live to and taking data from lists and putting it on the map and that kind of thing. now politicians are much more efficient in terms of trying maps. so on one hand it empowers politicians and on the other hand people can actually draw their own maps. i mean, there is -- you know, technology democratizes this to a certain extent because people can draw their own maps. there are other uses of technology. for example, many countries in the world have voter registration modernization which means that the government register's people. you don't have to turn and some paper form, and it is not on the

individual to be because it is automatic more people are registered, and more people end up voting. technology can be a good in terms of increasing access, or it can be bad in terms of manipulating rules. >> do you trust electronic voting machines? >> i think that there are certain safeguards that we need to have in terms of electronic voting machines. we need certainly audits in terms of electronic voting machines. we need backup systems. we need much more monitoring of private companies and vendors. i think the best analogy is was vegas. vegas, you know, they have electronic machines in terms of their gaming machines. there are people who are on the inside, you know, who manipulate some of these machines, people who have been caught and imprisoned by. as a result they have procedures

to check folks who work on these machines. so i think that a voting machine is not, you know, not really on like a slot machine, an electronic slot machine. it is certainly important that we have checks, structural checks to ensure that, you know, there is not tampering. >> you use the word suppression in the subtitle of your book. how are votes suppressed by the ways you have described such as not registering everybody automatically? are we talking illegal activities to suppress voters? >> you know, it is -- you know, the question is what is illegal. it is certainly improper. if you're going to make a lot that suppresses voters it is not

necessarily illegal, but it could be improper when we talk about a goal of government by and for the people. so just for an example, i know that photo id, wildly popular. seems reasonable. most people say, hey, you need an idea -- id to get on an airplane. 75 percent of americans agree that photo id is, you know, a good thing. the problem is that 20 million americans don't have a photo id. you know, that is more people than, you know, delaware, new mexico, and about ten or 11 other states combined. there are a lot of people who don't have an id. and so that is of real problem. on the other side of the equation there are -- there is not that much fraud out there,

and when i say fraud i'm in at the polls. a lot of it is absentee fraud as opposed to that the poll. so in ohio, for example, they did a study and found that for every 2 million votes cast there was one that was improper. so one vote out of 2 million. some my biggest concern is that we are throwing the baby out because the baby has a drop of bathwater on the baby's arm. we really need to figure out how to focus on that drop the bathwater. >> what about the location of polling places? >> important in terms of -- well, a variety of factors. things like machine counts. it is important. we want everyone to the will to cast a vote. more difficult for certain people, populations and precincts to cast a vote, that will shape election outcomes.

give you an example. the polls and columbus, and before the election officials knew they needed 5,000 machines. it decided to only go with 3,000. tonya goes. it takes her for hours. after she votes she goes to her mother's house in the suburbs. it took her mother 15 minutes to cast a ballot. so we have these disparities across the country in terms of floating and opportunities to vote. it doesn't take four hours at starbucks or four hours at mcdonald's. you know, those companies, if you have to wait in line that what it would go out of business. voting is at least as important as, you know, if cappuccino or by quarter pounder. >> is there are racial aspect in your view to voter suppression? >> i think that there is a

racial aspect, but i don't think that it is an ms in terms of we hate those people and therefore lead to exclude them. i think all politicians of all backgrounds are conscious of race because they connect it to performance. every african american, for example, may not vote democratic, many of them do, and therefore it matters both to democrats and republicans. democrats might want to mobilize those voters. you know, republicans might take a different tact. that is the most basic example. i think it happens with regard to other groups as well. it is not -- it is really the performance of the voters, and that motivates politicians much more than we don't like this group and therefore buts exclude them or be mean to them. a very utilitarian or practical aspects of these rules.

>> the history of election day, first tuesday of november? >> the history goes back to an agricultural society, basically, an agricultural society as well as having church on sunday. this notion of everyone being able to get in town after the harvest and then having a day of travel on monday to get in and cast a vote on tuesday. that is outdated. that is no longer the way our society is organized. i am certainly comfortable with an extended. one concern is i definitely am sensitive to the notion that campaigns peak. so if you have an