i try to tell the story of how we got involved in politics and what made me an embrace the principle i did and why i chose to become a republican, and i told it in a way that some political level visors have said was a little too honest and probably shouldn't have admitted something, but i did that again so that the reader can relate because it's not about how many mistakes we have made or if the if ever fallen because you simply cannot pretend to be perfect. it's too exhausting to keep up the facade. we are human but what it's about is whether you get back again you get an up to your mistakes and whether you are willing to correct your mistakes and forge ahead in sight of the opposition so that's why i chose to address the things i did in my book and talk about its where i came from

and some of the hardships of a personal plea in the -- personally endured some people could get involved. ..

>> after 9/11. the book is very timely, out in this week, this month the taking "taking liberties" the war on terror and the erosion of american democracy." right to thinking americans will naturally defer over the activities and consequences of terrorism and our response. but what is important is we know the facts and the stories and we have a

tremendous feat while dispassionately not losing your at edge. so i thought we may start by simply talking about some of the stories you have compiled sometimes not so ordinary activities. >> guest: thank you. i wrote the book because most americans are not aware of the policies of 9/11 often do have they cost and sometimes people know the individual story but it is important to put them together so in the first chapter i call it the web master and the football player is about one who is an american citizen.

>> host: midwestern college students? >> guest: university of idaho. first was a saudi exchange student going to idaho because he was studying computer studies in while there not surprisingly being from saudi arabia and 9/11 to place and led day candlelight vigil for those who were so shooting muslims with the radical jihad and 9/11 and he wanted people to understand that is not most of islam most are put -- peace-loving people. he was working with the organization called the islamic assembly of north america at trying to get people to understand about islam he served as their web master. and then just to get the facts.

to get links including people explaining why they thought jihad was a great idea. at some pat -- point* coming under investigation after a lot of wiretaps and surveillance, they did not come up with all lot of evidence from the sleeper so they thought they discovered and this story is about -- . >> host: was there? >> guest: no. of that is when you think you have something government agents of good faith can start to jump to conclusions. they thought because he was making donations to muslim charities, they thought they had found a sleeper sell. they were prosecuting for material support of terrorists. his action was to close the actions on the website.

>> host: the fbi document alleges that he had facilitated the recruitment of terrorists through the dissemination of propaganda through the internet and attempted too actually try to solicit funds through his own contributions to the charities. did he? >> when prospect alleged that there was a link to another website to make a contribution to be a terrorist but his lawyer pointed out that was disabled. the contribution to charity was nothing on the blacklist and to support terrorism and the fbi theory began to shift as they went along in for saying supporting al qaeda and then they said it was a 00 when it came down

to what is this the concrete evidence that could remotely be imagined as terrorism but made it possible to read ideas and people might be convinced to support terrorist. >> host: he contributed by providing the link to the other web sites that he had no party and creating creating -- part of creating >> guest: in fact, the organization he was working with was not on any blacklist nobody suspected them so it came down to that he was just been prosecuted. >> host: and the support jihad links the basis was that hosted by a group that is designated? >> i am not even sure which one because in the end the

government did not connect him with that link just that somebody else. how do prosecute him? his lawyer did make a motion to dismiss but the lawyer did not do that. he argued if you could prosecute him for links you could prosecute the near times for the editorial by members of hamas in but i thought was fascinating decide how was a conservative state and it was say typical residence and after thinking about the first amendment the jury acquitted to say this is not just talking but saying what they think enabling other people to talk and conversation cement the first amendment protection is very interesting analogy and argument why did the judge rejects that?

>> >> we don't know the answer. after declining to dismiss the case saying no opinion ever followed. but what i think is wonderful to the constitution is the right to a jury trial and then equivocation acquitted of that charge. >> one way to distinguish the posting of the link for this state of argument clearly and visibly jihadist on the website. on "the new york times" op-ed clearly designated a terrorist organization in.

and then the the jihadist web site and then as a purveyor of "the new york times" could that be? >> it seems to me it is a little different but if anybody could be prosecuted for speaking the blended "new york times" on the website has a hyperlink to hyperlink as something else then it seems it is not concerned that these consistent that people have the right to listen to all kinds of speech and make up their minds before the government to have the theory it makes it too easy to confront the idea is to lead a path somewhere else. >> host: what about the material sport -- support that the government alleges with the phone contribution? >> guest: the jury did not think the government made out the case. you are looking as a lawyer and former prosecutor what the government alleged but i interviewed those at the

time nobody ever believed he was never a terrorist and that the government misunderstood and were misled. everybody said it was like were of the world hoax you just could not believe it. plus he was arrested at 4:00 a.m. 100 federal troops stormed the campus in addition to arresting him on this charge also immigration violation but interrogated all those people they called his associates arabs and muslims terrified everybody in the town and liver rents were at -- libertarians are pretty horrified it was just a mistaken wishful thinking. >> host: the other associates were not charge. and just to close the chapter, he was acquitted.

but convicted of immigration violation. >> it was a mistrial if the violated immigration law and the theory was he was not genuinely a student because he was also working with the as some like assembly so they said he was not really a student but to show you the example of the wishful thinking, one agent said that he was not a serious student and only in the country because he was really a terrorist pretending to be a student so one agent pointed to his dissertation advisor that shows he is not he switched advisor because his adviser had cancer and was almost through. he ended up in jail, agreed

to go back to saudi arabia shift away his wife and children while he was standing trial not allow them to stay in the country and a pretty horrific experience. he is in saudi arabia now scratching his head trying to match what happened to him with his life on concept that america is the land of the just. >> host: he voluntarily agreed to be removed? >> guest: he did because the family already had gone back. >> host: could he continue his education? >> guest: he could not finish his dissertation he was inches away he was in solitary 17 months while the family was back in saudi arabia trying to work on his dissertation. >> host: you mention the fbi was thinking back words and working backward and the jury agreed he should be

acquitted of the charges. how did it come to the attention of the fbi or investigators? what was the initial this red flag? do when he was making contributions to muslim charities but in then because of religious obligations and another story i tell which is more familiar is the lawyer who ended up that was suspected of the train bombing in madrid because this fingerprints for similar to those found on a plastic bag. >> host: but a flawed investigation and? >> probably one of the most horrendous mistakes you can imagine.

>> had you connect a white lawyer in oregon with the bombing in madrid than look at it from the lens of the fbi agent making the connection and you can see how those mistakes have been. look at that fingerprint instead what they are now doing after hundreds of inspector general reports a second person who does not know the first person made the identification do that independently. so later people assume it was right the spaniard said we don't think so but nobody paid attention. that is one problem. >> host: just to give an idea, we have a sense in the public reference six finance

and fingerprinting has been around is a precise science. it is unique in matching another is unique however the match is anything but scions. it depends on how many points you compare it too or how similar they are that is why this ago comparison comes into play when not a perfect match tease that they should. >> guest: it is an art. aside from the slot the forensic practices, once seat agents thought he was involved in the bombing favor reaching backwards for what must have happened but he was an army veteran and did not have a passport so how could he have gotten to madrid? he must've had a fake passport.

they said we want to arrest him as a material witness because we don't have probable cause and one of the reasons arrears telling you we suspect there is a likelihood he had a phony passport. >> host: there is a lot of reasoning that is backwards but it is not just a lawyer sitting in or and he is known to the fbi and justice department he had defended 9/11. >> guest: he actually represented jeffrey that the child custody case. they were run suspicious because they represented somebody he was a gentleman in oregon who was charged with terrorism. >> at least within the universe. >> that is a pretty vague universe period but you can

see how a fingerprint which it is questionable said the majors a red flag with the whole process of reverse reasoning. >> and it was the anti-muslim bias but what was suspicious is that advertising the legal business and the muslim yellow pages but it also advertised best western there is something suspicious about representing people who are muslim. >> host: it did they apply for the material witness? >> yes. initially led to the fingerprint identification but afterwards it was the religion he converted to islam.

>> host: before or after his experience? >> guest: devore that is one reason why he was suspected because he was a muslim. >> host: that was put into the affidavit? >> guest: yes his religious practices. >> host: fed judge granted that and held for six months? >> guest: i do not remember that was just as a material witness and the inspector general concluded the judge was not given enough information to assess the facts because they are really reaching for conclusions. what is the most troubling is the spaniard police said we think you are wrong but nobody ever listen to them. they thought so sure they were right 67 the fbi now has procedures in place too hopefully prevent maybe that

would not happen as much. >> a have to be partial that what is more concerning is the way the fbi was willing. on the basis of religion. a muslim from saudi arabia and that raises too many red flags. another person who is this. >> host: also coming back full circle, one of the associates the fbi interviewed on that if the -- evening in idaho is the football player who was arrested as a material witness. talk us through that.

>> one of the people that hussein happen to know in idaho was another man who converted to islam he was fined american citizen. his mother worked for ibm or something as a pentecostal minister and in college it appeared me grade to the ball player in the one an award but while he was in college as people do he started to rethink his religious beliefs and decided to convert to islam. the grandfather was unhappy but appreciated it. the government's investigation they were interested they thought who may be involved extended

because he was a muslim and in then to hypothesize part of the sleeper cell but not he was nine immigrated they could not arrest for immigration violations so instead they arrested him as a material witness. as you know, they can be taken into custody if they have important testimony to get a trial or legal proceeding good reason to believe they would absconded not be available. >> host: all of this has to be presented to the edge negative aj and they have to make the independent decision as to whether or not this person does have legitimate information to give to the court in if there is a likelihood he would flee the country are not cooperate with the truth

seeking process. what was the assertion? >> in terms of the first half? we don't know because he never testified anywhere. never called to testify. that document has never been made public with the allegations but the best we can tell that to federal agents said they thought what he could testify was if he was working as opposed to just being a student but he was never called. so we don't know but the of -- fbi talked to him while they were doing the investigation and he was fully cooperative the also offered to help out to give free lessons of islam to better understand what the muslims were up two.

he then decided to do graduate study work and when he was arrested he was at dulles airport on his way to saudi arabia and then he is arrested. >> host: how many days after the first one the? >> i don't recall on that i am sure the date is in the book. what he was held in custody 16 days a and shipped around the country from prison to prison and clear he was not held as a material witness because robert moller reported the fbi had great success arresting terrace u.s. captain the same cell as john walker am perfectly clear not because they wanted his testimony because they thought he was a terrorist it did not have the probable cause are

evidence. >> host: after 16 days? >> guest: he was released on stringent conditions and had to stay with his in-laws and could not travel, i can continue the studies in saudi arabia but the end up having problems getting a job if the family falls apart and was traumatized by the whole experience. never called to testify as time continued you had nightmares says it was horribly expense -- he finally decided to bring all lawsuit against john ashcroft for the pre-tax but it it was dismissed it went up to the supreme court on the fact that he was if you but there were connections because the affidavit that was given to the court for the material witness arrest

also had very misleading things to say, one reason they said what we think you'll of seconde he bought the $5,000.1 way first-class ticket but he hadn't he had 7000 round-trip ticket so that is part of well lawsuit continuing to be very much the valley and to disrupt what they thought was a sleeper cell would justify the means. >> host: this is a good it interesting segue into the broader aspects to say what you think about how believable and the evidence and it is hard to go away with these cases of thinking

that people were not mistreated. >> guest: but as you continue, he also had serious allegations he was mistreated while incarcerated and that was settled under the conditions and his treatment. >> host: that was not part of the lawsuit. >> guest: that was a separate lawsuit that has ben settled. >> host: but in dismissing the lawsuit against ashcroft with a pretext the claim is good that would ever you may believe, i know and whatever they believe i should with my legal obligations you cannot use that as a pretext to hold me for other grounds. by a speeding polio over not for a broken

taillight -- taillight which is the broken taillight and justice scalia wrote the efficient and fair administration requires that the focus of the facts and then not on the motive other they would be broken with the arresting officer. but the rule of loss of zero with the perceived of justice of the aspect is looking at a systemic global? >> guest: no. but by the justice scalia has been wrong about this for a long time. >> host: i am not surprised. [laughter] >> guest: betty been given

those opinions, and the attorney general making this policy inviting law-enforcement officers to use the material witness statute to never have any intention to call some as a witness is a different matter what troubles me is not just what happens but he was confronting the first amendment doing the end run around the fourth amendment the cannot arrest without probable cause. but it is okay because you can pretend that then to pull you over for a broken taillight. >> host: what about the independent and intervening action of the judiciary? that is said judge to approve the material witness

>> guest: the one reason it was dismissed is thought he was not personally implicated if all of the bid -- misleading affirmation, and the aclu had the theory that the judge would never would have issued that warranted told the actual facts. but if given the whole picture that he was perfectly willing to cooperated called to testify he would testify. >> host: how was the it represented? >> guest: i am sorry. i don't recall. so one answer is we should be much more vigilant would ever the use of material witness and the one less

than it is we should be much more vigilant as the judge and prosecutor the consequences are pretty dramatic. about the of possibility. >> with a horrible experience but abandoned the material witness a rest. it is one thing to say we have these but we will use them carefully. once you say we will allow

the attorney general for a material witness to rest somebody for probable cause, that is a problem it just invites abuse of discretion and a lot of people think there is nothing wrong giving the government enormous dragnet powers to allow the prosecution in "the new york times" says it is one thing to be careful not to prosecute and away the violates the first amendment but the mere existence of the statute that invites the prosecution of people for giving humanitarian aid as opposed to posting wings on the website has a chilling effect. people start worrying maybe i should check out the you biography of osama bin laden and then the government become suspicious.

>> host: but now the support of statute is clear has to be a designated terrorist organization or specific intent to give to terrorism. you are right. we don't know if ordinary citizens what organizations are listed you can take as a given if you're giving to a designated terrorist organization you should be punished. >> guest: not so fast. we're not just tae from giving money the material support with the patriot act one of the things prohibited is providing expert advice or assistance. it used to be money or guns no expert advice can include

giving a day specific exceptions left out so there was one where you went home on vacation while he was in sri lanka to see relatives a tsunami came. at the time they were be controlled at the time of the tsunami so there if you were a relief organization getting food to those who were affected, you have to deal with them because they were the government. >> host: the department of justice position is whatever money the ltte or organizations does not spend they could spend because the money is fungible. so will have a constitutional court route to for all but activity is but otherwise money is fungible. >> host. >> guest: but not only money.

the supreme court made the first amendment enormous. >> host: let's hold that humanitarian because we will go to that discussion because that was envisioned last year by the supreme court regarding the constitutional regional situation and do that after the break >> host: susan herman president of aclu the book this "taking liberties" the

war on terror and the erosion of american democracy" we were talking about the material support statute there from giving money to a designated terrorist organization is illegal a statue has been expanded turnon military aid including providing your own efforts expert advice and assistance but the question is what if you give money or assistance to non terrorist activities of a designated terrorist organization to save money is fungible slow to give one part of the visit the the organization. >> the problem is this goes way beyond money they're not

giving money to anybody and the central idea of the support laws giving sense to terrorist of course, that is a crime but it was an attempt anyway so let me give you a couple of different examples is a group of people interested in promoting peace one of the things they set out to do was to talk potential terrorist groups out of committing acts of terrorism by showing how they can have a peaceful dispute resolution techniques with their grievances seven of the humanitarian law project working with the turk-- kurds in turkey and so they tried to explain to people instead of turning to terrorism there other ways they to get this address. and the patriot act expanded to go way beyond to provide

expert advice come monday started toward they could be subject to prosecution having a problem to tell the donors who is supporting the effort to get too close so after many years of litigation back and forth in the federal courts and 11 the supreme court and to my great dismay the supreme court said it does not violate. first of all,, it is broad enough to cover cherry taste showing a terrorist not to be a terrorist but in answer what about the first amendment? this is preventing people from speaking but that depends on what you want to say and congress is theory is terrorists have to be radioactive sell money is a fungible and to me the court's answer was far-fetched to say the

valuable service this training with the alternate dispute resolution that on a to come up with their own training that brings resources to use elsewhere. to me this is terrifying. one step further, a elena kagan at that time solicitor general arguing the case and i am sure this is not an answer she thought of five spurred the moment the one justice said it is broad enough to commit -- with the humanitarian law project, a could data cover a lawyer filing a brief? >> host: it was one of the facts in the case itself. >> she said yes. i think that is too broad park ave does have the power to a think barack obama will prosecute lawyers? no.

but. >> and just to be fair, i do agree the statute is historic the bride and the supreme court recognizes that it is as broad as it has seen but to be fair if there are unconstitutional applications that discount the fact that it does harm by its mere existence about a but the power is there and the statute of limitations

allow people to be prosecuted by future the administration for things they're doing now. plus president obamacare colder to determine the agencies and those below them. >> host: they are responsible for their own actions and the further compelling part is how the very thinly veiled disappointment that you portray from candidate obama is very different than president obama and has been a continuation the presidency and also a recognition that the president has seen it and your perspective? >> guest: my disappointment is not available.

[laughter] one thing you could hope when the president takes measures that seems to me, too broad that the executive branch has to have all of this power they cannot know enough and therefore a whole series in with the regiment and then to me. >> but there is a difference >> guest: the patriot tax provides ways for the president and agencies avoid oversight by the courts with the surveillance provision but the courts have much less say, they go into library to take the records. >> host: only when

congress acquiescence. >> guest: that is the problem. >> guest: you are right to have a beef with congress. they have abdicated their own role going way too far to take the courts out of the picture. with the checks and balances giving power to one part of the government, to have checks and balances and also to be exercised in secret is a recipe for abuse. >> why have they not agreed or recognized? >> guest: obama's said during his campaign new-line national-security letters and those have been expanded and allows the fbi and other

agencies to get certain kinds of records telecommunication providers and a library no court order. this is emblematic let's make it easy for the government to get more information and take the courts out of this. >> host: i'm sure you agree that page reacted not have national security act created 1988 by congress and used in that regard. and then to clarify the procedures and then to layout all of the facts. >> it has been horribly abused lengthy fbi and the

issue of national security letters and everybody who looked at it said no question. it has been abuse but congress has three authorized to make the judicial review and the recognition is there is always potential of of use force of law. and it was. >> guest: by have to disagree not letting congress off the hook and i agree it is supporting the executive branch to have this enormous power but what happens with national security letters is they have not been used that often after the pager back they started to be using hundreds of thousands of times a.

>> not just that but the fbi wanted to and a good substitute for the real involvement of the courts to have of officials and have to sign off on with the police itself and the inspector general reports look at what happened when the fbi was using its own internal instructor and then called this report card that there were thousands of violations. and maybe even to 3,000. >> host: i was on vacation at the time. >> guest: it is stunning. but in then to be more careful about fingerprint

identification. and then to be exercised by one branch of the government it is a recipe for a view is that is a less of the via applied what are they doing about the national security letters right now? why doesn't obama changed all of this? jack goldsmith brought an interesting book of the american people have bay unrealistic expectation to keep us safe to say you guarantee our safety but the 9/11 commission said no president can promise that. you can do your best but you cannot guarantee safety. >> host: to their credit they accept the fact that

absolute safety is no longer a realistic expectation. >> guest: also renewed normal people how of excepted there is power. >> host: to read a beautifully written passage also very, very depressing from your book. i am sorry my review copy is not the same as yours. >> the 11th chapter. >> again and again as the executive branch exceeded powers again and again congress fails to fulfill its responsibility to look at the executive agency action, but then i ask myself who was left? again and again in the accords discarded serious

constitutional challenges to the president and congress action for procedural reasons. >> host: you have managed to denunciate all three branches of our government, we don't want to have jack nicholson and to say you have to bridges left. all three branches are complicity in the erosion of our liberty and the target of your concern. we have not talked much about that. would do you think about the accord's? >> guest: met me be clear. i am glad you read the passage but there's a lot of stuff in the book and some who really do and opinions. [laughter] but here is the problem. one of the things that you

know, is president bush although the patron act gave him all sorts of powers to do surveillance, he wanted more therefore he started the national security agency without going to congress that terrorist surveillance program going on for several years before that near times exposed this was going on because people in the agency were so troubled they had all of this power it was secret nobody knew they were doing. a terrible problem. when that was exposed, congress the president went to congress and said they said okay and actually gave him a little more power than he claimed for himself. those of us who cut our teeth during the civil rights era thinking if president and congress are doing something of a constitutional the courts will save us to uphold the constitution. the aclu brought a lawsuit

challenging the national security agency claiming it was a violation of the fourth amendment and the plaintive was a lawyer who had relatives in yemen and they would no longer talk on the phone or e-mail because they were afraid the government was listening and on the no-fly list or to attract attention. scholars trying to talk to moderate islamist. the lawyer has to fly to yemen but we won that case it a district court. nobody could know about this but the fifth circuit court of appeals reversed them say the plaintiff had no standing the only people who could challenge this it is those who can show that they themselves have been under surveillance.

that is a catch-22. how do you do that if you don't know? so to challenge those who found out. >> host: when they are prosecuted. >> then the case does not look so attractive so those few that have come up the accords say that to there was one case where it was disclosed that that there is wide case where they did find out they were under surveillance because somebody had mistakenly sent a telephone log that show the lawyers were eavesdropping on but by the government but that was classified so they told them they had to give back the document to pretend they had never seen it so when it came time to bring the

lawsuit they wanted to claim in the government said you cannot rely on that document is you're not supposed to of seen it the district judge found a way to find that they had standing without relying on the document. >> host: so they were using the state secret document? >> guest: i'm not just if it was a classification but the judge decided instead of taking on the argument just to find other grounds. the second court justice cited the challenge to the fisa amendment and where the court had a panel decisions saying the plaintiffs do have standing but also looking at prosecutorial immunity the others going on state secrets privilege but talk about guantanamo and torture and the things that affect ordinary americans

but another story the aclu has a number of clients with very credible claims with rendition of torture not a single one has added day in court every single case has been dismissed based on procedure. >> host: getting to where we are you alluded to this that there has spent a circumscribing of the public's concern for civil libertarian abuses over the last decade. what i read in this book to give the full benefit of the doubt, if what hearsay is true, a very bleak world where all liberties are suppressed and congress plays dead, the courts are too scared to stand up in put a we just have a good

sense of the people buffet been told by the fifth year by the government success of accusing them that no liberty is being eroded and the only hero is that is often litigated and in then to protect the liberty. but with the constitutional system. >> guest: igo said it was only the aclu there were others it is not a minor thing and linda greenhouse referred to my book as a wake-up call i am trying to give the american people and information.

of ed lazear results and so the first tory i was telling you about, i think that was the case for the executive branch with this statute for going after 74 resents that were inconsistent and the judge failed to do anything about a but we have a right to do anything about it. freedom of the press? publishing the story in "the new york times" marinara roadways the constitution protects it sold. >> host: said alternative story is there is concerns about liberty and security and you and linda and "the new york times" are just wrong they need not be will cannot be tests all of this time we just happen to

disagree with your view of the world and your vision of the constitution in. after all, winning a pulitzer prize and those that were supported by 78%. >> guest: what i would say to that is the american people have been left out of the debate with the mosaic glare of secrecy and that you cannot tell anybody anything because if the terrace find that we are planning to deport this president may help them but it was so overblown it went way too far but the instinct to secrecy and that is said national-security letter is a great example. a lot more has been hidden from the american people. we barely found out about a

number of them and people had a good conversation. i am not sure we would agree. what happened to the patriot act? never has there been a good discussion of some of the things that we did 2.into our days that are effective and cost-effective and counterproductive? we have never had that discussion. i tried to give people the information. if people really understood some of the things we thought might be true right after 9/11 may not be. does not to refinancing terrorist. that was one theory that diggs of -- existed in 2001 but it is not true. >> i completely agree we should have more congressional involvement

but with respect there has been involvement, there was a michael moore documentary with two votes to reauthorize and the democratic process. >> guest: one reason of the subtitle of the war on terror and the erosion of american democracy" so many ways to marginalize the american people. but when final story that to is there are a number of you rose in my story. not only victimize the individuals who stood up and never prosecuted the government never went after them but going after for constitutional values. the library connection is connecticut demanding information on all library patron and is shocked. attorney general gonzalez