describes his experiences as a cia black sight in 2002. ..

>> we are focused on the grand strategy but also critical regions of asia, middle east, in then a critical issue that needs more data analysis, a discussion and deliberation. we are blessed with two great counterterrorism researchers in rehab an extraordinary team here.

and just coming out of that space and desire more discussion about the nature of the threat and our response to it. it is on that theme that we are especially glad to have glenn carle the author of the book "the interrogator" an education" available around good independent booksellers around the country. in "the interrogator" he affords us the opportunity to see inside the intelligence machine in those troubling early years right after the attacks of 9/11. i will let glen tell his story a quick headline that shows it is questionable as to how much we have learned the lesson that this call from the intelligence community on a day-to-day basis. today we see reports of secretfa interrogation

facilities in somalia an detainee is held for months aboard naval vessels in international waters before releasing prisoners into the judicial system. tak and of course, the guantanamo and bagram facilities are still open for business. which is important is inside in to the bureaucratic impact to take the gloves off. lead not only talkse al about the flaws of the intelligenceen case built up but how the system failed to stand up for basic principles in the face of concerted civilian political leadership.th these are but aes few of the lessons we can take away from his compelling new book so let me introduce himtell briefly so he could tell you himself. glenn carle logging 33 years

of service in the cia in cut from old school with a bachelor's degree from harvard and master's from johns hopkins. he cut his teeth on the sandinistas but spend most of his career working counterterrorism says he did 97 through 2001 in afghanistan when he was rapidly reassigned to the interrogation of the high value detainee which is the t subject of this book. he would go on from that experience and ultimately a cat about his career as the deputy national intelligencena officer for transnational threat with the national intelligence council which is the pinnacle of our intelligence community. with that, please help meto welcome t glenn carle to the

podium. [applause] >> good afternoon. well into my a evolving into the interrogation of the outcry did detainee that i call the man that i am not allowed to woo detain him means prisoner in latin we were sent to the cia most severe interrogation facility what i call hotel california but what you will probably give another name what is now known to the public and the agency but i found us in a moonscape with

no trees, rocks, desolate horizon inside the facility. the goal in the interrogation procedures is too psychological dislocate the fed detainee. that is the theory behind a program i became involved in. that means that you alter one's perceptions. now it seems a mention something that seems foolish at first thought that the you assumptions if we can become conscience are quite a two relevant to the approach that united states to of. we all know that gravity pulls us down this guy is blue and the sun rises in then east and we tend to

sleeve wants a day for a set period of time and have a regular series ofve mealsd meals, sound is that certain t levels if that means what we interpret consciously and unconsciously and have a sense of ourselves and how we have ration of thoughts to interact with the environment. six illogically dislocating is to change all of that so you don't know not only where you are or what is going on but who you are. you lose your sense of self and become detached from your body in a sense is. it is astounding and shockingly rapid this can. have been. it happen to me in my training. the reason it happened to me that was relevant is the fear or concern a ciaicia officer might be kidnappedan or captured and interrogated

or tortured. so there are methods of coping with the psychological dislocations su that occur that can help you survive. in a strange location des approaches we were taught to cope with were then presented to the united states government as successful measures and means of extracting surormation. also it was some of us are old enough to remember horse study the scandals during the korean war that the gis signed confessions. how could they do this? what happened to? this was wrong burger the myth is used were those that psychologically dislocated the detainee. we studied and copied them based on the soviet

intelligence service during the show trials of the jewish intellectuals in the 1930's and also signed confessions before being executed. those are the measures. i found myself just coming out of this environment of no-space to make it hard to think or alter your sense of perception. the temperature would vary randomly but quite consciously to manipulate a sense of self and there would be light or total darkness, the diet is change, the sleep is change change, in then someme physical measures that are a sleeve -- that i refuse ever to do that i will talk about al that you all know about although the most famous say waterboarding i literally had never heard of and did not know the term what it

was until it became a publicsue issue several years later. about 2002 is when i was involved. i just finished a session and i walked out of the facility. i stood at a window looking at the desolate surroundings. and i thought, when the post interrogation meeting had ended we would meet withr we officers to see if we shouldre o raise the temperature or or its third make the baby's cry louder all on thelo soundtrack i stood alone by a window.o staring into the fading light. i still had to drive back to the compound where we slept and work and wanted to giveos back before dark.si

i had many hours of work back at the station in writing cables and intelligence reports and the administrative details. nothing moved. the landscape was barren. what did i become? of what had my country become? has the landscape always been so bleak? after i was looking out the window a couplecoca of minutes h minutes, a colleague said would be looking at?e i said half smiling glanced atve him over my shoulder.lig got a light? >> nothing.v we have to get out of here. so i found myself in a series of circumstances that made me question deeply

enough to write this book to stand here today what my government was doing to ourselves much less the detainee who might well be someone trying to tell us.ry. but it did certainly isolate me. but i want to stress that every man in the book that i write is a personal story each event happenedap to me that what makes it relevant is if any of you were in my shoes i am confident youg an would have experience the same evolution of thinking. it is a relevant to was not because it is from a ciar bu officer but a story of an american citizen troubled byign what he was assigned to do but do it on your way to grasp the consequences of

what he was involved so i became isolated progressively and angry andat d a loan. i was at odds with the program, and my colleagues and institution and government. what does one do? that is what i explore and it is wrote illustrated by my arrival in the countrythry where this facility was located as i say fall 22 it was quite dangerous there and the detainee and i wereto sent a second rendition to the facility to increase theto pressure to make sure that he had shared everything he knew by using the techniques that were sure-fire.

so the plane landed a quick way the perimeter of the soldiers the security peoplenloa establish themselves around which was reassuring and a dangerous environment and in the great haste to unload the plane including my detainee and i stood to the side. the whole point* of the chip is to get the detainee andetrr interrogator to the facility. the circumstances of combined deficiency that i lived for, the detainee was put into one of the vehicles the promoter collapsed and they start to drive away and the plane took off and i was standing literally in the

fog saying stock.n to leave me alone on the runway. if i did manage to catch the attention of one of the security people before they literally disappeared into the fog and read both managed to get to the facility. andhe hurried chaos efficiency and senselessness captured by myll arrival in this country that you all know. is not a tateho although you have security people and combat conditions and the detainee and enhancedl of techniques is true but i didory not write the story to tell that tail. the point* is what have we

done to ourselves and howe have we come to be there? in what can read do about that? >> and then the runway incident and my boss came to my office which is highly unusual and said can you go on a business trip tomorrow?m it is important for cia if co the country and for you. i will send you 30 days but it could be 90. 303rd 90 day deployments are routine for what we call a surge or unusual high-profile o our time pressure sensitive assignment. i had to clear it with my wife of course, who wasom struggling with serious healthha challenges she said

ofde course, you will go. i told my superior i could go and send me to the counterterrorism center and city will be briefed what you will be doing and the fellows said we have captured one of the top half-dozen or so, i cannot name him, members of dog tied up. we think he could lead us to '07 bin laden and athto the least, he can help us damage al qaeda as an institution. and i had both of language skills, a senior operations officer, years of field a experience and available and that was a critical criteria.c this is the man we have.

thing and then in new saidatev verbatim you will do whatever it takes to get him to talk. do you understand? i understood. by voices shocked it was inconceivable to use the word torture so i said we don't do that. and it was responded, we do now.arly i thought clearly, right away i knew from the first seconds that this was say critical moment in my career and one of those issues in thet history of the cia and u.s. government since world war ii. this is a big deal. a

i did think we are at war we would at least need a presidential finding which is an authorization to the cia to conduct a certain action. that is the term of the finding and my colleagues said we have it. the rules have changed i have just been told the president death threat -- definitely a prove what i was being brought into. i knew were was going and the country had a different reputation for its legal system and how it treats the people. so suppose something happens that i considerike unacceptable? and heec became a littles

irritated because he was briefing me the president in the attorney general and department of justice and director of the cia and counterterrorism center at excederin had formally authorized what i was being brought in to do and i having been briefed 90 seconds was raising questions. be although he had done everything correctly.ttl he was irritated and said then whatou you do is walk out of the room is something happens you don't see it so nothing happens. pollees smokes. then i thought of all of ther times in my career, this is the first chapter of the

book, this is the time to be difficult. and not just go along.h h i said about what about the geneva convention? our job is not to worry about the law but to follow orders -- orders which is determined to be legal and he briefed me as i described although it was in an question and became more irritated and said which fly to use serve? so i thought there is no percentage in continuing the cl conversation. i had noha standing not knowing the case while a few are invested in the case and knows the ins in outs a

complicated theories been new high of some influence and some say which is reasonable. t did not yet. i was told everything was in order. they said you talk to the women to handle your logistical needs to get you out. it took me two days to get out but then it was almost three months of involvement.fo and the issue was clear that at some point* i remember distinctly thinking i will but do this. this is wrong. what do i do? walk away does that achieve anything? how do i obey my orders orders, acted properly zero or morally and accomplish my mission when it seems there

areco contradictions andleng challenges in them? >> then it goes from lunacy and in then it was complicated in the convention against torture the executive order 12333 but they areic quite clear about the habeas corpus constitution and on the other hand, a direct potential order by saying these are the things you're ordered to do legal because we followed every procedure which i thought instantaneously were in conflict. it was the memorandum from

july 2002 i believe that h came to be called the torture memo whatever the president orders is the goal so you can do it. that was astounding and clear to the colleagues of mine and two readings this it was say hackwork. sincere or not it did not follow under the 800 years of heritage that we tried to live by from the magnet card debt through today it was apparent to manya. then i was about to interrogate this fellow and o essentially a the ascending bark of dismay. i thought it is bads enough that we have the wrong guy. but the assessment of him which i found overwhelminglyeagu

persuasive. know my colleagues are i talented i saw thes assessment and for years three have been following him in the case was strong fact he was what he was presented as senior involved person with the al qaeda who could do the things that led us to render him but i found that was not true. he was answering my questions and accurately all the time but fundamentallyo he was speaking the truth. more important, he may be a cooperative member of the al qaeda but more importantly i found his answers sitting 12 for 15 hours per day looking

into his eyes and i was the first to have the chance to do that we're allment assessments were 12,000 miles removed. two fundamentally tell the truth did not what we have assessed them to be. not jihadist similar to or the news of al qaeda but quite different from an americanno but not a jihadist but not even intentionally willingly composite with some exceptions but fundamentally not what we had said. but the fact that things go

wrong that become representative from the operation in misunderstanding men have quite successfully with no pollyanna but then after several weeks he said just show me the documents that i have when you kidnapped me and then i can give you the answer. i did not know we hadt documents and said it would be nice if the interrogator knew more about the interrogation than the.com detainee but i tried to keep the poker face and then exploded about the foolishness and said i can fix this. i am head of the

interrogation team so i was told thank you for yourre request we could approach them to headquarters which was 6,000 bios if they will arrive so i tried to explain those not at headquarters and was told the same thing so thought i will send one of my staff for my team to get them. and was unablei to do that so thatha person was pulled away then i thought i will go around the world and come back but then the interrogation so i could not do it.r over 10 weeks i could not obtain the documents needed for the interrogation and it

was absurd and good detaineey became disdainful of me or of baht's because of course, you do this on purpose just to harass me when we cannot get the documents to the hemisphere when i was sentti around the world i did the correct thing upon arrival i telegram to to the interrogator to deduct interrogation effectively ino three daysul later the answer came from the station thank you for yourou request happy too comply and it should arrive between six did eighte weeks but that was

12,000 miles away. it became symptomatic that we did to amend what we've not assessed him to be. showing he was not a member of the al qaeda. but nonetheless it is not a member of the al qaeda but could not answer or would not answer and unable to answer but the part of the story is i assessed you could not answer questions x in y and it came back to me and literally true said the fact that he is nott answering proves he is guilty. i thought that is not

necessarily the case at all in thought i am dealing with someone who is challenged atho's headquarters but that was not the case. i was dealing with a formal doctrine and learn after a formal approach and our interrogations' at that time was to inform and instruct the interrogators that the lack of response was proof of guilt and withholding information and therefore you must pressure him more.ure and this is just ludicrous because if answered correctly to justify the fact that if he could not answer the question that was taken as proof of highly trained resistance techniques and therefore had

to use stronger measures demanded you do or damned if you don't.ou it was not to protect this man but that was foolish pretty ballsy but i could not believe it. then i was told to help you pressure this man may have rendered another senior member of al qaeda andbe you can use that to pressure your detainee. however then said you cannotthey inform said detainee and i thought what is the point*? that makes no sense. we are his family or a different perspective and that is legitimate. but i was told no nano we

captured him but you may not perform at him with any information that is literally the case that makes no sense. it sounds amusing but was profoundly disturbing. none of this made sense and i was concerned and determined as anybody bars any of you would have been to try to protect american lives and destroyed al qaeda. it was aa,ne honor but these things simply do not make sense i could not get anything to change so it wer became a funny to talk about so i would make humor jokes with my colleagues but it was deeply disturbing in my assessment had a man not what we assess, on the whole

was cooperating and had information i could use in the interrogation that i could not obtain and to hughes lack of knowledge was taken as proof of guilt in a much less issues of how to interrogate someone. enhanced interrogation techniques did not involve at the time and that is not how it happened but pressure of being creative and from the first second and discussion i just knew itumma would not do anything. it was just wrong however i say i had been trained and interrogated this psychological dislocation was temporary and successful

and did induce greater cooperation. the experts have assured us this works and i know what it felt like so fight them disoriented for a day year to but it makes it to obtain information to lead to bin laden or something useful i will accept that. i quickly found or decided that is all wrong to in then i thought clearly of my own experience is 20 years earlier and what happened toar me was psychological dislocation it is very easy to break someone down but, that doesn't make the person more willing to share information are more likelyo to and it makes you unhappy and a angry and miserable but none of those leads to

greater cooperation and so i became as disturbed in the approach as i had been from the first second from doing anything physically related to the extent i had a circle of influence i tried to stop all of these things but i could not entirely. i found the message is disturbinge and questionablewe h and a man who was not what we assess to be the still started to question the premise of our framework for the threat as that we had good jihadist and initially had accepted the conventional view that was al qaeda was

centralized worldwide target and even existential and each of those points through my case but i restrict my book i found each of those was wrong that the threat is not pervasive not dramatically growing our existential if they can kill thousands of americans they are trying to and probablyey will we must stop all that is true.ue it is not just say existential threat to act in itst heyday this i did not

know al qaeda was 600 people of whom wear 30 o were 40 were idealist. 300 or 40 officers who are capable of planning managing are executing a terrorist.and only takes one person to kill thousands possibly annie the conventional assessment formally stated was president and 80 countries. if you define presence if they have people residing someplace i would say is theg

definition.ay if they bought a train ticket of grand central station this that makes themesen composite? i came to feel broadly and does that mean they're operating in the united states? so after weeks of wrestlingt. i came to a number of conclusions and find it totally rungs the government detain someone on falsefa assessments whether aas terrorist or not and i completely except we make errors everyday that is fine.

but when there are lives involved and it is your professional ability then you must try even if you are embarrassed or your policy suffers. i do not accept that frankly we sacrifice people's lives in order to cover up our errors are carry-on with the broader goal if we can do something about it. so i thought we should that this man go. some to pressure him without being informed and i recommendedou that and i failed. the case carried on. my time ended and i learned he was held eight years and then released, i learned

this long after i retired with a view to apology from the united states government. which i find frankly substantiates come invalidates come occur operates a improves every point* that i had made in the case eight years before but failed to implement. that is the case but it is sad and important talking about issues of toures's kurt -- torture but the reason i wrote the book talking to you is much mored important that i think the policies i was involved in affected all of you as well as me although this happened out of sight clandestinely because it's it has made us

as a society in the paradigm of the acceptable behavior in the comportment from the schoolboy to london new hampshire to cia officers at langley our attitudes without our knowing it have shifted some measures and practices that would have been dismissed as completely incompatible are nowcan discussed as rational of options infrequently, there is a number of polls and "usa today" did a poll twough months ago. in the spring fact asks

americans about their attitudes toward torture. americans 35 and a board -- above is the ab answers that is not who we are it is wrong we don't do it and 35 zambo the majority say cia officers protecting us if they need to, it is okay to do what you need to protect usok. i find it that frightening. that is not a the america that we believed in and the law was clear. the geneva convention which eleanor roosevelt wrote are clear. uniform code of military justice, the lawyers in the justice department, it was

clear what american radios and radios should be. of small number of people suffered in them. literally. we were ordered and it was legal it was the executive order to do things that was greeley incompatible so it is the gravest threat to our institution in societies believes that it was done out of sight but the broad support because we have to be protected that is the rationale because it shifted the bell curve now has

enhanced interrogation techniques to replace a clear understanding of the term that is not the america i took the oath to protect even today that is the case. are wrote the book because the only tool that we have for the weapon that we have is the truth. it was clear. . but it is easy to usurp the lot and it is a terrible dilemma. that is the important thing to seize when the president and attorney general, a th director of caa, secretary of state and they all say this is legal and authorized in the national interest your order to do it but then you have the lieutenant

colonel, what did you do? this an acute dilemma. hardie make it right? you bear witness only by knowing what we have done to the laws have a chance of being filled to make living. that is why i don't support prosecution of anybody that would be more divisive and a butngthen the laws perceived as an act of vengeance. i want the americans society to understand to repudiate what we have done to ourselves to embrace and strengthen our social contract and commitment in turn lead to the laws that

we already have. so that when the u.s. legal system will apply wherever the flag will sway and that is the flag that way serve. i start the book that it is slightly ambiguous but the challenge that we face in thisin operation that which is why i hope you will read it. this is our daily challenge. two except doubt and realize there is no certainty but yet to act with principal finding meaning and purposes. and confusion in the gray intelligence has

filled me and then to becomeand an interrogator on the global war on terror to travel to a far and dark place where i found the elements on human endurance, integrity in a terrace life in my hands and perhaps the lives of many americans alone i had tos decide how to fill my mission and what was right and i came to the point* where i tried to oppose the orders whose actions granted the flag that i sort to serve. [applause]

>> the last couple questions and open it up to the floor please state your name will get to a microphone and ask your questions this is phenomenal. thank you so much four telling your story. and force the conversation and have not wanted to have for political reasons but needs to happen so we can move beyond this and moveso stronger from it but until that day we have not learned lessons by doing one of the most authoritative databases

every day we kill tend low-level militants in pakistan with a program the u.s. does not recognize as part of the u.s.a. strike program but treading on end similar territory i just want to reaffirm until we have those tough conversations that programs like that and the implicationsit p will not be treated with the attention that they deserve. to i first want to open with a question broadly, given thatthat washington decided to move on and not have any kind of reckoning, what kind of a

response have you received so far? how has the response been? >> i resume -- assume it is the people's preconceptions those that would be hostile wou those in the middle are supportive torture on the right two i am a a traitor and in the middle people say i am glad that you spoke out. what have reach me there for reviews that has been overwhelmingly supportive and there has been a small percentage it is hard to

quantify, mobile supportive by the public. >> not by the institutiinstituti ons. >> i will open it to the floor for questions and then we will have a back and forth. where is the microphone?ern you can state your name when the microphone comes. >> recently retired over 35 category i enjoyed your speech very much whoever in the end indicated prosecution in is not suitable, what other

methods? it looks like it may be veryay few so the impact of just getting us back to legal propriety may not occur in time and what about a truce commission as an alternative? >> in the book the proposed by step out of the narrative to say what does this mean?r i propose a truth commission to give everyone immunity to have immunity but no less reticence to speak. i assume that is from what b it was written and congress has shown no interest to do that. wro i wrote it to bear witness

and it is my effort to speak frankly. you will see i am as truthful as can be. there is honor and truth. i thought along time ago what we should do and many historic precedents in mind but my goal is not to protect the guilty, but to strengthen our society and one of the great triumphs in american history was at the end of the civil war 2% of the public had been massacred. the country was torn apart and within two or three hours general johnson were playing poker on a river boat together. the postwar history was very mild and few people most

weren't immediately accepted back into the fabric of the united states. that was one of the keys to american's success then henry kissinger wrote the nation is great prices reconciliation. and that is why is. big goal is to change our society's assumptions that comes by moviny'g ahead in the above theth administration o gets that right rather than focusing on the wrongs of t the predecessors to continue the hitters -- hideously pricee situation but the cost to those who have enhancedho interrogation those who have the legal guidance carry-on

but the benefit this society ships away is a small price to payn >> >> a fabulous talk. i think a few months ago and op-ed piece isn't it ironic that given we have been unable was a country to come to a way to handle detainee's that we solve this problem by killinged them?now i am curious if you think that is a fair y characterization of our an improvement of our not?d, a >> that may be the toughest question.

[laughter] i don't oppose in principle l but my opinion i don't know how relevant it is the reason i am standing here. i think it is a little flippant he was kind enough to writer burma -- blurb for my book but as replacement policies for struggles of what to do with a detaineend and i don't know how low level they are but the policy is distinct from whatdi to do with detainee's not just a decision is simpler to kill them then figure out what to do with them but a t

placement for rendition i hope. >> i am a u.s. army jagged turney my father was then the death march in have been prosecuted for war crimes including war -- waterboarding we prosecuted service members foranam waterboarding and in addition, recently with nazintly germany many of thend justifications provided by the new conservative have legal theory provided by carl smith so first wire

they given immunity from prosecution when they violate and in fact, the harm is continuing? because some of those things that we're doing to a sum of bin laden to provoke more people from towing with al qaeda? the story is not over now it is just hindsight but the problem is aggravated as some say by the fact they could act within themav constitution that we don't take an oath to serve thean flag but to defend the constitution soon to be openly calling to set itg aside referring specifically po why we need to set the constitution is side.t dealing for with people who are openly calling for the

constitution and to describe further acts the why shouldribe they not be prosecuted? >> but if we don't prosecute people will we not be tacitly allowing people to get away with under ashley constitution? all of your points are powerful. i am not 100% p certain how to move forward.no you want to hold people accountable reverses the position that i suggesttion which is the most important is thing to have us as a society repudiate thosemp values from embracing the good practices which is moregood easy to do for those who have been a big u.s. in to denounce the convictions and

actions of a substantial section of society. a but, that said coming year points are powerful. is a hard thing to suggest we allow american officials to justify it explicitly they're rationales and our actions upon a war with 60 million dead. very powerful points.re

getting at which is well, then we must act to stop and to hold accountable people who do that. i mean, that's stunning for american officials. it's stunning. the greatest crisis since world war ii at least. i don't say your approach is wrong. i wrestle with what is the right way. i embrace reconciliation in the hope that it will diminish the support for these egregious policies in the future, but i don't claim to know the right answer entirely. >> okay. here, and then some in the back. >> i'm trying 20 get a picture of the story. i don't have background from where you came to all of this. can you say something about your background, how you were raised

and your beliefs and that kind of thing, and then i'd have a better picture of who you are. >> well, i won't give my whole autobiography, but it's relevant to the story, and i'm hardly no person representing everybody, but i'm in many ways not an every man, but my story is relevant because in this context, i am. i think anyone would react similarly, and i say before i answer that the book i hope readers find is not a partisan book. it starts -- i took an oath to serve the flag and constitution and fulfill my orders and serve my mission. anyone, the agency is full of civil servants who are fundamentally a-political. you would come to the same reactions of concern, dismay,

and conclusions i think. i wrote that. i'm from new england. i'm a central casting new england -- my ancestors go back to 1700s. most of them were loyalists actually. one was convicted for spying against the americans. he was a british spy. i went to harvard, john hopkins school of international studies, and i always wanted to be involved in public service and foreign affairs, and that leads to the career i have in the agency. i think that addresses your question. >> great. okay. in the back. lady in the black shirt. >> i'm a policy fellow at the american library association, and i'm interested in whether you have any advice for someone who might be aspiring into entry

intelligence officers, if you want to do something in the field, but care about these concerns and don't want to be in that sort of thing. >> overwhelmingly, and i was honored to serve with my colleagues there. they are bright, dedicated people, but there's an unusually devoted group of committed people. that's all true. the careers of an operations officer is wearing. the cost are high. the rewards are different. i can talk offline how to go about it. people ask if i'd do it again, and i hem and haw when i answer. the sack -- sacrifices are so great and rewards are so unusual, it's

hard to answer. >> you know, in the military, there's a real ingraining, and the geneva conventions, and is the training for young intelligence officers strong enough so that there's future kernels to say no, i will not. do you think we're there yet in terms of the quality of the training? >> that's to the point i remember now that the gentleman in the front asked. i think the answer to your question is yes, but the agency is not, was not in the business of interrogation. i'm not an interrogator by profession. i'm an operations manager. my job is to find people who will spy for the united states. the skills i need to do that job i found are almost identical to those that i concluded are required to be good

interrogators, but we are not interrogators. the training is accelerated today compared to 28 years ago when i went through it, the pressure of war on terror to get people in the field has had unfortunate effects in shortening training. the seriousness we're trained, the focus given to honoring your oath, giving it life, not just the rhetoric, i think is quite strong. i think it's quite strong. none of us had any training in experience in, it was not our job, intrergs is not relevant or of an intelligence officers skills until 9/11. we were -- the tools and perspective we had were targeted

and framed for an entire different mission than we were given. >> lady in black and white. >> i'm lee young. i appreciate your opportunity. i'm trying to draw comparisons on abuse or power or authorities -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> they are all kind of rights, constitutional rights, all their property, their home, their car, has been robbed, but we call -- >> do you have a question, ma'am? >> my question will be do you

have any information or try to attempt to find some studies to address these type of issues. >> well, what comes to mind i think is directly relevant. one of the key dates in how do we conduct integ gageses, what's the responsibility of the intelligence community, military, and law enforcement in the war on terror going after to protect us from terrorists and to identify them. the 1% doctrine of vice president cheney was the operating guidance for many of us which is that if there's any possibility at all that somebody's guilty, you'll treat him as such. that's a wildly expansive approach that it justifies any action of any person and it's 1984. it's shocking really. it's an error in a practical sense saying there's a mushroom

cloud, so we have to inspect every car coming into manhattan. one does not write a law or develop a doctrine, intelligence officer or military i'd imagine, on the one theoretical example that's ten standard deviations from war, that might happen one time out of ten. what you do is develop your doctrine on the 9, 999, 999 more likely case that is does not call for stopping every car that comes in even if the theoretical harm is a mushroom cloud destroying manhattan. you have to make critical judgments and not be absolutists. the likelihood 6 these things happening -- of these things happening does not justify subverting the laws and guarantees for veg individuals in legal practice whether in law enforcement or intelligence work. >> gather two more questions, and then we'll wrap up, so right

here and then right there. >> i'm lincoln day, a retired sociologist, and i found what you had to say very moving, and i certainly share your value system as far as i can tell what it is from your talk, which is really important, but i wish i could share your hope. i can remember not only pearl harbor, but the dropping of not one, but two atomic bombs with the full knowledge that literally tens of thousandses would be immediately killed. you're talking about the two generals, the union general and confederate general getting together two days afterwards sort of tipped this off. they were the same crowd.

they spoke the same language. they had the same religion. they had the same color. one group took that out later on the blacks during the period of reconstruction, and all the other people on whom the united states has used torture and people like filipinos, asians, africans, and so on. i just wonder is this too much for us to hope that we can get beyond this and stop torturing, not only our so-called enemies, but just our people who are different? >> two parts to that. i think it has taken us 150 years 20 overcome, to achieve the goals that came to be the goals in the war, so that's a

depressing thought, but i think things may have been worse if they were vindictive and punished people directly who had probably a guerrilla war and been more soft today than we are. i do think -- i didn't put it in the book really -- but i suspect that if the man i interrogated looked like i do and came from the north of england where my wife comes from, he wouldn't have been detapedded for eight year -- detained for eight years. >> okay. final question here in the white search. >> i e-mailed you a few days ago, the old s. e. a. l.. >> right, right, i remember. >> i write the blog, powerful peace.net. you made a comment how the

murmured released and the quiet apology was rhetoric, and there's murmuring apology after destroying a man's life. when i was there, we had guys in there for six months who were innocent. that was the early release program. they validated releasability, and by then, his wife was a prostitute. i'm not -- i'm a deep patriot. i love our country very much too, but have you spoken to it in the book? i only spotted it, about the incredible fire power for our enemies to use our facts of reality because bob gates said we're creating more terrorists than we're killing. >> i focus in my institution today and focus of my book on what we did to ourselves. our falls and assumptions with respect to the laws and