>> everyone thought when he became president there would be a major change of counter terrorism policy. for awhile he continue those policies was a combination lacked the courage of his convictions not as committed as his supporters hope to and the presidency is out of control. whoever gets there will exercise massive powers. presidency is more powerful and larger has more tools than ever before engage with

or without credit and affiliate's and that transfer of power on the indefinite basis does empower the president like never before. that is only half the story the other half this house strain to the presidency is the other institutions have done a remarkable job to observe, ruutu no out the secrets and scrutinize and push back and let it made to the policies. i describe this at length. some reasons he continued policies are different. access to different information, many precedence

were available he did not want to walk away from. but the biggest explanation is right under our nose those had been vetted by the other institutions of the government altered and blessed military surveillance govett detentions, and other issues i talk about. this is a story of unprecedented actions. the congress the most hapless institution is engaged with the commander in chief during war. it is not really known how congress 2005 stock the bush administration proceeds

terrorists policy in its tracks. arthur schlesinger said whenever check presidents during wartime and courts have given the president many defeats with the enemy soldiers the other institution that i describe has done an extraordinary job to expose errors and abuse of the government. in the traditional vein but it is about revealing a more complicated system. and with two others 10

racketeers inside the executive branch but also affix monitors and the inspectors general that are independent watchdogs that did an extraordinary job to report that to congress and finally human-rights organizations got lourdes networked and powerful waves with people inside the government, military, of the press, bringing pressure to the government that there was a of course, like this describing the use and how they work the reason gitmo is open today not because of obama's but congress

basically prevented him from closing gitmo. that is a very powerful check on the presidency. this is a rich description from those below the radar screen. it sounds complicated. vindicated the basic system of checks and balances the basic framework established not the way they 110. they work through self correction. to where we're in a position in 2012 to be remarkable

political and legal consensus. carry over under president bush. whether we have the precise policies, it is hard to know. our values defer, i do say that many constraints on the presidency, the book is "power & constraint" of the presidency with the war against terrorism we worry about the powers of the presidency as much as the terrorist threat, the constraints are important to go against the excess and to strengthen the presidency among the dimensions

allowing them to do what they would not do. gitmo is off the radar screen because the courts intervened, reviewed tensions forcing people to be released in directly but they blessed it. the reason senator obama went along with the revision of the surveillance program because there is a watchdog of the inspector general and i trust that independent actor to keep the mine. military commissions are going because they have been blessed by all branches. is deeply checked and accountable is in important element.

that is what the book is about. charles will speak next. >> in the the kiss, a jehovah prohibited bal shalt not to seize the kid from the mother's milk thereby indicating the emblematic act of cruelty and inhumanity. based on that the rabbinical lawyers have created something complicated as what jack describes so good jewish have two sets of dishes and all glass was some molecule of meat or milk remain after watching.

abraham lincoln and 1863 promulgated the most remarkable document still worth all of your attention. executive order 101 the is echoed for the conduct of four. first ever. as 86 basic act of cruelty and inhumanity we now have an army of lawyers everywhere. from julius caesar to napoleon to patent and everybody has understood to

wage a war you have to have surprised and flexibility and intuition. the phenomenon that jack so strikingly describes and appears to celebrate, i deplore. but the same thing. it made some surprise, in the conduct of for virtually impossible. st. francis a xavier said you should never attribute to a man that is more exalted to explain his behavior. how did we get here? i look at the center for constitutional rights and its leader and ask what is

the motive? no more exalted than to explain the behavior he hates war, use of force and not particularly fond of the denver mint of the united states. those things are all at work. there for what would i like to have been? if we could return to a simpler time when a simple code enacted by a great and decent man would be enough. is it? i am afraid not but we are left with an absolute monstrosity which is so powerfully described in this book.

>> i wish you would say what you really think. [laughter] >> next time. [laughter] this is a tremendous book and a pleasure to read every page has insights i will highlight the themes that are related to but beyond what jack summarized. the subtitle comment the accountable presidency after 9/11", is the most interesting avenue. the book introduces the idea of accountability techniques beyond the constitution demonstrating how the branches could interrelate with checks and balances. the new accountability technique is within the

existing branches freedom of in permission act created by congress available to other private actors to produce a non transparency. the book demonstrates in the process and results, the combination of new activities with the old branch and a new use of instruments has produced enormous transformation web for the dynamic among the bridges. but whether in fact, the declining resources that are existing for investigative journalism abode ill for

that dynamic? media is a critical player in this story. and the investigative journalism that discloses the horrific behavior of yahoo! ghraib to secret surveillance depended on a financing i am not sure exist going forward. those activities from the development on the field of journalism are quite profound. they anticipated the question there is a market for national news. particularly with global moors. you cannot imagine how expensive this. what will there be in a pitcher?

-- in the future. looking at the end nonprofit human-rights organizations organizations, like the aclu. good day operate to in the same way? can they find the funding sources they have had in the past? the third aspect the book describes is the role of lawyers rarely inside the military and the branches and those that sets constraints but the book argues lot cam provide a basis or a substitute for military action. as it becomes a tool does it provide the same checks the

book describes? it makes a very interesting argument that people on all sides of the debate to of the presidencies feel that they lost. military, nonprofit, the media, but by the people of all sides there is something to meet. it is a tragedy rather than a solution rather than frustration. i close by saying that with

their right to equilibrium i would push the question again different way have we reached that right mechanism? for with those new institution spit . >> this is an interesting and settle book if he stops the first chapter of the book obama was stuck with the same system, interesting but that is not the book. it is profound from madison democracy for the digital age. that is original the book is

worth reading for that to a loan. i published this a year ago i spend a lot of time defending the basis of that argument it. people pull out to the trump card. the political system is broken. as a mad as sony and, it is not. not ruling over king george or anybody else. founding fathers were concerned about freedom, not to effectiveness. creating a system that is frustrating but preserve freedom.

is a great deal of worry that that system was broken. you could not take medicine and happy -- madison with separation of powers. if you read the book it works. checking interest with interest or faction with faction but my initial reservations and their reaction is a profoundly wrong that one per cent could be execution, a judge, jury, the concentration of power that

i found offensive from the madison pointed view. if somebody asked to in the period after 9/11 with the least on paper the presidential power be have seen may invade bush cheney addington, would you expect the supreme court to overrule the long tradition courts static habeas corpus issues? or they would allow wireless surveillance or ratified military can -- commissions but who prevails? human-rights lawyers are a

tough set of people in the executive branch. a bunch of human rights lawyers is a tough set of people then you read the book and it is explained. not only the questions of the government but a fifth branch you may call up the stomach communities but like mine did networks. they could be a bloggers, human-rights activists, read cross officials. stalin's said about the pope have been divisions says he have? that was a put down. but every division has judge

advocate general's. is not how many divisions but how many lawyers your division has and how did it work with the new consensus? this describes how this happens it is an abomination forward james madison we have evolved for those that madison had.

if madison n word to come down from have been if he could not get here but somebody sent him a copy of the book it would put a smile on his face. well done. >> 84 the comments. i will try to respond. on joe, i agree with your assessment of short-term thinking the bush unilateral strategy. i did a short comment on the cheney, bush, rumsfeld nemours. cheney was unapologetic with

the approach and the need to expand the presidency but rumsfeld said the biggest mistake we made not this way but did not work more with congress that allow the courts to be involved which was worse than if we had gotten them on board from the beginning. bit -- bush said the same thing all the briefer. that this great acknowledgement. i disagree with the charles. not his description but those are messy with a lot of lawyers there is extreme name-calling the people asking for documents it

demonstrates that the military is extremely effective there are few commanders you can talk to including david petraeus not to say the military is a better off all of the lawyers talking about the cost in the book that on balance they helped to act prudently especially in the world that is entirely networked that constraint turned out to to be important for power. some of their viggo mistakes were harmful to the effort.

it is not just their importance but with the ngos what motivates the center for constitutional rights rights, one of the surprising things is our celebrate human right institutions and the ngo has played to make the presidency accountable and lead to debating it to. matter what you think it is motivated by, they have several important supreme court victory is leading to judicial review that led to the blessing of the gitmo policy without the lawsuits. without those which they triggered from it is a remarkable fact that with the blessing of courts and

widely accepted by the american people. it is a legitimate system. the center has brought back to within the rule of law. i can only answer a few of the questions. the first chapter that talks about the new regime is called accountability journalism. what they did at the heart of the system, there is a lot of discussion but with the large exception they have done a lot with the war on terror is them. and investigative journalism of budgets are declining. i tried to get the numbers come of the people i talk to

say those resources are not declining. i am skeptical but they are not. journalist are empowered there is the sense with new digital technologies has more what the people are doing but not focus how they make the government more transparent to hook up with people inside the government across the globe, ordinary citizens, the way the prison story could be broken because people slog the planes being flown and posted on websites. they are empowered more or less, but i don't know. on the other side of the

equation, one more question, do we have the right to accountability mechanisms. it farms them out to other institutions in the effective way. congress created the inspector general is a legitimate actor. giving more of a role to scrutinize. the foyer regime is a way to do delegate out to organizations like the aclu. the gao is now scrutinizing

that is another set to of adversarial issues. the presidency has grown. the presidency is in gigantic the department of defense spends a couple of read day you can at haq organizations like that to when things have been and why with the condition of modern times to see the growth of delegations' outside of actors outside the executive branch. >> to develop a notion of

checks and balances beyond what the constitution imagined. how well it works. leaking inside the executive branch as a tool that deliberately advances the policies you point* out they can handle that to be more transparent. not only move countermove but if there is someone to believe wondering if joe has said few?

>> if i understand, i am skeptical. the executive branch determines what is secret. it classifies too much fun. nobody denies there is excessive classification. when everything is secret, nothing is secret. every day on the front-page there is classified information. the reason there is so much leaking is there is excessive secrecy. obama came in and he has made tiny progress it is a very hard problem and i don't expect the government will discipline itself more than it has but i expect

despite the classification it is more transparent because it is hard to keep things secret. for people to figure out what is going on. also be are about to see all computer secrets are through computer networks. cybersecurity steal secrets by criminals to keep those secrets to our advantage their organizations like anonymous just like wikileaks to expose them i don't think it will clean up its act with that regard. >> the business of secrecy

is interesting. every part of your account is accurate. i regret to relive in the world to be described this way secrecy is the case everything is secret than nothing is secret. some things have been been revealed that should not have been. of "new york times" exposed the government was doing nothing illegal but something very effective. when exposed, and the efficacy disappeared.

it is profoundly eight unpatriotic act. when challenged comment to say it was there. like mount everest. i found that appalling. appalling because it showed no respect for the need for secrecy under certain circumstances but if the government makes everything secret to kumbaya the notion of discretion falls away. no doubt that has happened. >> with the carter administration i would see the morning briefing book. i would play a game how many of the things that i read top top-secret will be in

the press and within a week 60% was and within a few months, 90%. what happened to to the other 10%? >> that is a relief. then what do do and that age of wikileaks? the government has to do a better job to maintain. if you are a clerk going to mrs. jones account only authorized a look at mrs. smith's the screen goes blank and then knock on your

door from the supervisor. we have to learn what is justifiable secrets. it is possible. behalf to be smarter. >> come to the microphone i am wondering what the panel made the is of the accountability mechanisms to be in place last fall and then but if i am correct around the murder let me toss said the a question.

you thought the founding fathers were unhappy about the way the current process has jelled. >> unhappy with the way? >> yes. blinder stood that to the framers would be unhappy. clear up that misunderstanding. >> >> there has been no more scrutiny of the killing the operational leader from al qaeda. this is not an easy issue. and not embedded and flawless or embedded and

accountability and scrutiny. but by a news reports extremely elaborate process on the intelligent and loss side about circumstance. lots of debate with many targets not gone after because those authorities were not in mine. because these are reported to congress intelligence committee dissolved by statute or armed services committees they don't ask for mold veto rights and they often have. the covert action is reported what the action is and there was a lawsuit by

the aclu they have is tough as this is what it leaves to congress to show itself to be fully capable by every indication they are on board this is the transparency if they could do more by embedded in that system i do believe that it is. >> history shows the country tend to overreact when it feels threatened. case and point* is the loyalty of controversy engulfing harvard and other institutions in the fifties

and the president was brave to reject federal money because students were required to sign a loyalty oath. don't you think we also overreacted that are below the radar? under contract to the department event -- education. for full security clearance with a character conduct and loyalty to the united states of been a contractor who sets foot to bid a school. we used to think of national security it is no homeland security.

don't you think of the whole the government tends to overreact? >> it is hard to know. this is true of lincoln and roosevelt that was later regretted. we can call them the overreaction after the fact but we don't know what the time if there is the overreaction. sometimes we regret to there was a public demand to meet the threat not understood to understand how blind the bush should ministrations was after 9/11.

there are things the nation did that had been regretted. this is the executive-branch responsible and there is a lot of uncertainty of presidents will do what the public demands to keep the country's eighth. because other institutions engage and push them back. it is not possible to bring the extreme reaction at the beginning of a crisis. >> no question the bush should ministrations put to the country in terrible jeopardy to louis the constitutional

effectiveness. the checks and balances bought back successfully in the new form. that story is different than the jeff sesnon story of the overreaction to restricted speech and that argument is decades after it persist. your story is it took a little while but institutions of practices that they dramatically alter initially in the bushes administration.

can assist them be able to respond? with some familiar players. >> someone should moderate the use of overreaction many think of what have been in 9/11 of very similar reaction after pearl harbor after the firing on fort sumter, there had to be a strong reaction and jack describes it the time goes on that starts to moderate to see how much has to be kept.

it is not surprising it is not a bad thing on the first blow to shut down as much as possible then see what is too much? not the overreaction but approved a result if somebody ends up in the emergency room the doctors do everything. the heart is all right but you would not want to alas comprehensive reaction if you don't know what you face >> what was interesting was

not as much as world war ii. with the pendulum swinging back and forth it did not swaying and as far. if world war ii you have the suitcase you bring in the institutions coming not with a decision and is okay to enter those. we did not go that far. as dr. johnson said the dog walking on his hind legs. it is not a remarkable. the political system was

remarkable but not overreact as badly as world were to. >> i am from brown. the duke where excellent talk. they used to the tension between the accountability function the institutions serves led gao and inspector general they miss constrained the presidency but yet the paradox they legitimate eight what the presidency is doing but increases public support for the policy is. accountability function and the jiddah rating function if they image innovate in

which the supreme court approved the policy of entering japanese-american then for the public support for the sun just policies. >> that is a good question. a paradox those institutions are also empowered it. those that are scrutinized by the adversarial institution the executive pass to account an actor can decide to approve or not approve the executive action. look into the future to say

that is a mistake. to have the full gloating gauge meant with very few exceptions did not bless with the executive was doing but in some cases sharply pushed back like military commission. of the times there was the power of it. for those anime combat in san gitmo. we may regret that but looking for the legitimacy.

where there we read read it i doubt it but i cannot prove that. obviously. >> falling upon the last question i am curious to the panel's thoughts on the issue of farming out to of regulatory lourdes checks and balances of congress through the aclu or gao or for a request the panel seems to agree with lion

exception from the latest batch, wondering about the future. with the financial industry, there are many regulators charged with overseeing to protect the safety of the system of. overtime phenomenon of regulatory capture authorities hold the philosophies of what they tried to regulate. if you have the inspector general as the highest person to regulate the agency. and hoping you can touch on those issues. >> it did say constant

concern within a regulatory agency. but they are rewarded and develop the identity so the affiliation and attachment is to the role of the inspector general. there is a rather clever device from firsthand experience. >> people inside the executive branch think that is okay. >> one of the things we have seen created by congress signed by the president may

be not a machine but those devices that the play self-interest of success that produced disclosure then i would have predicted. >> but to suggest the state or government tends to be captured by one or another of the major societal crisis. it has often been suggested the u.s. government is what is called the corporate class for this day colder class is. what would you say the patriot act national of

dispense authorization and act crackdown on civil liberties in the interest in the same corporate class? >> lucky add a crackdown of civil liberties, those deployed been but it is a worry with the age of indefinite war those corporations that benefit i am worried about the size of the bureaucracy with the defense they shape security

policy is. is something we should be worried about. >> these are so large a in part because there deliberately increased in size so they become a bureaucracy. then you have three times as many bureaucrats. >> thank you very much and to my distinguished panel. [applause]