general eric holder, former attorney general john ashcroft, university of chicago law professor geoffrey stone and jack fuller editor of restoring justice and former special assistant to edwin levy. this is about an hour 20. ..

and i know that day he imparted some kirchner and his consideration, but i can only remember one thing that he said. i remember as if it was yesterday. he said for years from now, 40% have you won't be air. last night and i looked last i looked right insulting my chair because i knew he was looking right at me when he said that. the irony of it was that four years earlier he wasn't here because president ford had called him to washington to the justice department brat after that catastrophe, the devastation of watergate. one of the things attorney general stopped to do to restore

public trust in the justice department system of justice was to set up a public integrity unit in the justice department. one of the young recruits for the public integrity unit was the man i have the honor of introducing today. eric holder served there for 12 years and prosecuted some high-profile cases, including some arising from the celebrated investigation of congress. he was appointed by president reagan to the superior court of the district of columbia and later served under president clinton as the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, where he led the successful prosecution of dan rostenkowski before rising to the position of deputy attorney general.

in 2009, president obama appointed eric holder as attorney general of the united states, the first african-american to hold that post. the job has always been challenging, but in the age of terrorism and cyberwar unctuously complex financial schemes, it is fair to say never been more complicated and challenging than it is today except perhaps in this very difficult days in which savoie assumed the post. general holder has a proud legacy. he's been a steadfast champion for the durability and advocacy of our article iii civilian courts. he survived justices ruled securing the civil rights of every american. he withdrew the government from its representation of congress or of the defense of marriage

act and because he and the president believed he was constitutionally dubious, he exponentially increased the prosecution of health care fraud case is a recovered billions of dollars in taxpayer money stolen from the medicare and medicaid system. perhaps no relevant if he is insisted on the high ethical standards that edward lee v. has held so dear and seven he was attorney general. i should tell you that eric holder has another distinction, perhaps a great distinction. one of them i will mention tonight is he's a graduate to stuyvesant high school in new york. eclipsing to whether or important graduates, bob zimmer and me. i say that without a trace of recent in. so what that come about as

welcome the 82nd attorney general of the united states, my friend, trained eyes. eric holder. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, thank you. good evening to you. thank you, david for this kind words. and mr., we did go to the same high school. i went in a different century. he's a lot younger than me regardless of how he met look is actually younger than i am. i want to thank him for his career and gave its commitment to training future generations of political leaders right here at his alma mater. it is a pleasure to be with you all at the university of chicago tonight and it's a privilege to stand with members of the family, leaders through chicago's legal community,

attorney general john ashcroft and so many faculty members who have always made the university of chicago and exceptional place. i want to thank you for welcoming me to your beautiful campus, for getting me out of washington d.c. and for providing a forum for two nights important discussion as we celebrate the legacy of a nation's 71st attorney general , edward levi and reaffirm our commitment to build number for that defined his truly remarkable career. it's fitting we come together in hyde park in an institution wonderful city that was always proud to call home on a campus that shaped him in which he would in turn help to shave. as a young man, student and faculty member, tina velasco and the university of the as president, edward levi and

was part of this community for his entire life from kindergarten through retirement. over the course of a career would take him from this site to washington and back again. he remained an essential member of the university of chicago family. his contributions are publicly recognized by another great attorney general, robert f. kennedy 49 years ago tomorrow during a speech at your law school in which attorney general kennedy praise for public service, and intellectual inquiry. by that time, dean levi hegarty spent several years at the justice department and the antitrust division among other assignments during the second world war here by the mid-1970s he was president of the university and a dirty built a national reputation as a

faithful steward of the law in a passionate servant of the law to protect and empower. he was widely known as a principal and independent later who as he once put it try to radiate the values of this institution at all times and he was in many ways the perfect choice to become attorney general of the united states after president gerald ford took office. in a moment of national crisis at a time of unprecedented difficulty in when the faith of the american and the government reputation of the justice department has been badly shaken by the watergate scandal. into this atmosphere cynicism, attorney general tried an air of calm. he raised the standards. he filed for transparency and restored a sense of integrity. he rejected politics and

ideology, insisting rightfully that every decision be based solely on the facts and on the law. he brought a fractured justice department back together and inspires his colleagues to redouble efforts come up reminded no tax has more to do what the future of our country than the work in which we are presently engaged. even more importantly as jack fuller snippet demonstrates, attorney general levi worked hard to win back the trust of the american people and build that confidence. he taught an entire generation of citizens and legal professionals when it comes to opportunities and the injustices done, even a single person makes the difference in that all of us have both the power and responsibility to try.

in 1975, i was still law school at columbia university in new york, another place. like all who are old enough to remember watergate, i will never forget those tumultuous days of the poisonous political climate the scandal created. despite this climate and in part because edward levi has restored the justice department, i did not give up on my dream of a career in public service but kennedy sought to generate when i graduated from law school in 1976 i moved to washington to work for the attorney general and a component of the criminal division created under his leadership and corruption. as an idealistic attorney i try to bring accountability to those who violated the public trust. i learned also attorney general

levi was not only to be admired but to be emulated. a role model and personal hero whose example is how to guide my entire professional life. this is why when i became attorney general three and a half decades later, just across from robert kennedy and steps from a private office. it reminds me every day and successors must aspire. particularly difficult moments it reminds me of nearly 40 years ago although the agenda of the department is inevitably unfinished, it is always also boundless. for me and for each of my colleagues for nearly 116,000 dedicated men and women serving the justice department office around the world, advancing the agenda of silent responsibility,

but also a breathtaking opportunity as these know all too well and attorney general ashcroft and i is seldom easy. our attorneys, investigators and support staff is the most challenging and complex issues in all of government. addressing issues in rising to challenges remain to support today as never before. in recent years the department has responded to a financial crisis that left our economy severely crippled. he contend with budgetary difficulties including sequestration an aside innovative ways to accomplish more with less. we witnessed our nation's most severe environmental catastrophe, the deepwater horizon disaster and have taken action to hold accountable those who are responsible. we also mourn the loss of innocent lives. we struggle to understand and respond unspeakable acts of

violence including the terrorist attacks just two weeks ago on behalf of all who were killed or suffered industries on such violence and we've paid tribute to far too many law enforcement who in the line of duty and in service to their country has made the ultimate sacrifice. despite these and other challenges, my colleagues and i have taken meaningful and historic steps to fulfill duties to the american people, to carry on the essential work like edward levi. this work will always be unfinished. i believe we can all be encouraged by the progress we've seen in the last two years. nowhere is this clearer than the civil rights division. since 2009, the division is that more cases than ever before come

and put in record numbers of police conduct in human trafficking cases. we are working tirelessly to protect the voting rights of every eligible citizen into combat all all forms of bias intimidation. the department has reinvigorated by deconstruct trafficking. we have refined our ability to protect the american oil and a range of global threats to his convictions sentences against scores of dangerous terrorists. and we've done it all while our most cherished principles rely on our most big, powerful and bringing terrorists to justice, our federal court system. as we speak, wexler agrees to improve american criminal justice system to track down

barriers to prevent from incarcerated individuals from becoming productive members of society to address unwarranted sentencing disparity in where appropriate to give judges for flexibility to determine certain senses. we also work with congressional leaders to bring essential legislative changes including comprehensive immigration reform so 11 million people are hearing an undocumented status can step out of the shadows and we are absolutely determined to pass commonsense measures to prevent and reduce gun violence. despite my frustration at some recent setback such as the filibuster in the senate that presented a bipartisan majority to pass a straightforward proposal to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, my colleagues and i are committed to standing people of newtown, connecticut, with citizens in chicago where you

seem shocking levels violence and countless others whose lives they shared a concurrency gym every day. as my colleagues and i work to advance these and other records, we continue to benefit example set by leaders they attorney general levi. of course i recognize the justice department will never be able to complete the work or secure the results are nation needs on its. the active citizenry is committed to chain that is always transform our country for the better. especially this evening as they gather at another institution that edward levi lead with distinction, i can't help but feel confident to keep moving forward together and i urge everyone here to be mindful of the unique role you can play as students, public servants, educators, advocates and members of the private bar to extend the

legacy of a man who was without question one of the greatest attorney general of american history here in hyde park at the university of and served all his life, legacy is very much alive. his work goes on like that and go legally clinic which edward levi once described as a major step in american legal education. it goes on in your efforts to foster public engagement and a commitment to public service among all members of the university of chicago community and goes on in the advocacy of passionate leaders like distinguished guests, including john levi, an attorney who services chaired the board of the legal services corporation has helped to provide legal assistance to millions who cannot afford it. john, you are truly a father-son and i can think of no higher

compliment. i join you in his enduring contributions this evening. i'm proud to tell everyone here is a colleague and a partner and very eager to see where every seat is in ahead as we see the boundless opportunities before us, as we fight to protect the rights to safety and interests of the american people and as we strive as i wanted to build a brighter future that all of our fellow citizens deserve. thank you very much. [applause]

>> well, i am delighted to hear. it's really an honor for me to be on stage here with the panel we are going to introduce shortly. and i am also honored to be able to discuss one of the most extraordinary period in the life, an amazing man, edward levi. i don't plan to recount the details of levi's biography, which are well-known to everyone in this community presentation in his role as an alumnus to our law school president of the university. part of a plan to describe his critical of monumental role as attorney general, which are panel i promise to introduce in

a moment is here to discuss. they do want to say a few words about what someone means to me as dean of our great law school. i've been thinking a great deal lately about leadership, male leadership of the law school and what i hope our law school does to generate great leaders in many of her students in the audience today. for anyone who holds the office of dean of the university of chicago law school, edward levi looms large. then legacy of leadership is everywhere in the law school, which he did so much to shape. it would be an exaggeration to say in my decision-making process, i often ask myself, why would someone do a quick since i was not fortunate to know him, and must rely on our alumni, faculty, his family and also the

writings, including those ratings included in the book we are celebrating today. part of the job of a great university and great law school is to train leaders in chicago is no exception. our job is not to indoctrinate, but to truly educate, to train minds, to delve deeper and think critically go against the grain and most of all seek out those who disagree for spirited discourse. our country needs more of that kind of leadership and i can think of no better example than edward levi. i take immense pride and bring integrity and healing to our country at a time of great stride that is our law school and university that helps make them capablef leadership.

the panelists here today are also examples of that kind of leadership. the diversity of opinions in this room is white and deep, that the intellectual tradition of the university of chicago brings them all here today to discuss their panelists, jack fuller's new book, "restoring justice: the speeches of attorney general edward levi". let me first introduce jack fuller. jack fuller may have been educated elsewhere, but he is very much chicago. he is very chicago as you'll soon see, a graduate of the mcgill school of journalism at annual law school. he is a tribune publishing co. and the "chicago tribune." he began writing for the tribune in 1973 after serving in the u.s. army and with only one

brief exception, serving as special assistant to attorney general edward levi from 1975 to 1976 he served at the tribune. he won the pulitzer prize for editorial writing in 1986. to make sure he deserved his reputation as a renaissance man, he's also the author of five novels. his service to the university is long and varied and he's been a member of the university's board of trustees since 1994. now i'm proud to say that for university of chicago law school alumni, four have served as the chief lawyer. when his hearings. and thankfully one is here in person. john ashcroft has had an incredibly varied career in public service.

he graduated from law school in 1967 and first ventured into public life in missouri, where he served as auditor and then attorney general. from 1985 to 1993, served as governor of missouri and then was he to the united states senate in 1994. perhaps most relevant to our top today, president bush appointed him attorney general of the united states in 2000. much like edward levi, attorney general ashcroft served at a difficult time for the united states, taking off is less than one year before the attack of september 11, 2001. since leaving the attorney general's office in 2005, he attended the ashcroft group, the law firm and consultancy committed to integrity and leadership. our moderator today is my friend

colleague, geoff stone who fittingly holds the title of edward h. levi commissaries professor at the university of chicago law school and embodies many of edward levi's virtues. just as a graduate of the university of pennsylvania and received his j.d. degree from our law school in 1971. he was a law clerk to justice brennan at the u.s. supreme court and join our faculty in 1973. he served as the law school's dean and went on to served nine years as provost of his great university. he's the author of more than a dozen books, including the casebook constitutional law on the award-winning book, perilous times, free speech in wartime from the sedition act of 1798 to the war and terrorism. he's extremely a within the community, serving on boards including the american

constitutional society and the aclu an editor of a supreme court review. perhaps most important to her students he's one of our most popular and revered teachers in the city who do not have jobs already will see why in a moment. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] >> i'm delighted to welcome you to the conversation about restoring justice. jack fuller spoke of speeches when he was attorney general. i want to begin by underscoring a phrase that attorney general holder uses in his address about

edward levi because it reminded me of an incident i had with edward when he returned to the university of chicago after serving as attorney general and a decade later it been offered the community by hannah gray to service at her successor several successors later and i thought i should ask people for advice before making decisions even though i knew what my decision is going to be. the first person i asked invited to join me for lunch at the faculty club at the university and i basically said to edward, what is alleged to be deemed? what are the challenges you face? i went to 45 minutes of questioning and edward typical fashion did not answer any questions. every question i asked is answered by what do you think?

i became very exacerbated. what makes for great theater? suddenly looked me right in the eye and said a great theater radiates the values. i want to repeat that phrase particularly for those of you in students here who are thinking about public service are trying to affect the world because that is so important to edward and how we achieved and particularly what he brought to the position of attorney general. edward never forgot what it was that made it special and valuable and important indeed radiate those values and that's an important lesson all of us should learn. someone edward levi became became attorney general, it was

not a very good time in the united states. who is the fifth attorney general to serve in six years. the federal bureau of investigation was in disarray. it was after watergate and the resignation of president nixon. president ford scooped out of the university of chicago, certainly knew he was taken on a momentous challenge. i want to be cared with you because you served as special assistant during those years and had about occlusive first-hand look at the experience had retired as anyone. so what was it like to move into the department of justice at that moment in time? >> well, in some ways -- the atmosphere was poisonous, probably more poisonous, more

totally divided than it was then. but the anger and resentment and rage developed over the course of the nixon years and the watergate scandal was still very much present in the press was full of themselves. we were full of ourselves. we were a dragon slayers, so feeling very good and aggressive in the political system was reconsidering because of watergate 40 years of cold war history all at once, looking

back on things that have been held secret for decades and probably would have been if they had a secret staircase before would've been possible for them not to be secret, would've been supported by a vast majority during those 40 years. edward used to say, it's like reliving 40 years of history without remembering what had us afraid. and so all of that stuff had come out and for reasons -- because of the way the watergate situation developed, involving cia teams and so forth, it all got conflated together. so part of the challenge for edward and for gerald ford and why we recognize i brought them in was to do two things. one was to change the environment is to restore

people's sons first within the institution and then in the larger population research the confidence of justice on the square and that important values are being considered, taken seriously. the other was to reform the institutions under siege so they could function because they had to function. it was really important for the fbi to be involved in counterintelligence activities because the cold war was still with us and they really were spies out there. it's important to not completely stay me. i'm the one hand he was leaving a process, which i was deeply

involved in and the fbi did their work, but at the same time trying to protect it and strengthen it so they could go forward. >> so when you're attorney general, shortly after, you faced a different kind of crisis, but one that shook the nation with 9/11. i wonder to what extent in addressing the issues and challenges you face, you drew upon the legacy, were conscious of the legacy and model insurance to address the problems you confront. >> in many ways the challenges for different. the challenge faced by attorney general sub two to a distortion

of the response ability of the department based on politics. we faced the foreign foe, international in scope that killed more people in a single day than was killed at pearl harbor. to did in the heart of american commerce in the state, not just a territory. i don't mean to belittle hawaii, but at the time of pearl harbor it is not a state and as a military installation and we were facing a different kind of challenge. it is clear we would have to reform and improve our performance, the business school most often cite the maximum to your system is perfectly designed to give you what you're getting. if you don't like which are getting, change what you're doing. einstein said ignorance is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

i saw this board of four times and it's still too short. five mac we had to improve what we were doing. so we needed to change, but we needed to do it in the framework of the rule of law and of the constitution, the maximum i developed at all times have got to think outside the box, but never outside the constitution. the patriot act, which was developed in the three days because they did tuesday attack my saturday before the congress was namely assent and thing authorities tested in others arenas but never played against terrorism and that is one of the reasons over time there have been any disruptions of the implementation, but it is changing the way we address the

terrorist questioning to do so in the context of the rule of law. the rule of law is essential to the limits of freedom. but nevertheless uncertain, people retreat from the committees not knowing whether they can do them or not. and i don't mean that the rule of law the rule of lawyers. i'm in the rule of law sometimes put this in our profession we are so adequately superior to the rest of the world that if we how voters make it making all the decisions that would do it. so we made a number of adjustments and i think the war on terror are response to the terror war on us is going to be a dynamic response pair whenever we change what we're doing, we need to do it outside the box perhaps, but never outside the constitution. to do with thee of the

public-health problem and how the government would readjust itself to avoid some of those abuses. we talk about how it came to light in how attorney general levi responded to that situation. >> so have been fbi program counter private accounts program program -- [inaudible] and it was -- the predicate for it as a basis for it was supposedly they take impossible steps, action, one could prevent violent violations of the law. what it had really become was a

program, which there were directed against foreign agencies, but the ones most typically not the once controversial oran became domestic political organization and they were civil rights organizations, antiwar organizations and so forth and they became and the language of the post-watergate. for the watergate rhetoric, were dirty tricks kinds of things. those that were not foolish for a vhs. and so, part of the response was to say that, to reveal some of

what had been rebuilt not because of the justice department, but because the documents were discovered in a burglary had taken place in pennsylvania. but then the second wave came to life and we reveal those immediately, the sinister ticket the information straight. edward beset a group into motion caused the fbi guidelines to write the rules for the activities of the fbi. there is also different areas in which the process of rethinking the way the fbi operated to place. the ones that were most significant in terms of restoring confidence with the investigation of the domestic political groups and to some

extent foreign counterintelligence. we went back and forwards on the subject of whether there would be other circumstances in which we wt back and fo whether ould be a provision within thelines that said here are the circumstances and besiegers under which the fbi can take affirmative steps into a situation to disrupt an organization or a group or conspiracy that is about to do something. there is some of us, myself included thought it was better to have a rules of procedure that was strong and because we were probably do this anyways, edward went back and forth and in the end decided not to include any of that in the guidelines.

the guidelines did not include that. i'm not speaking for edward, but i think i understood the reasoning of this in the reasoning was not there would be indication in which this would be appropriate, but rather the occasion not to be one in which it was a special unique event rather than institutionalized. so it came to an end, as did the huge proportion of the domestic article investigations came to an end under the guideline as the guidelines operated because they require the fbi to show that there was had been nervous about to be of reasonable suspicion that there had been a violation of federal law. if you couldn't show that after a certain amount of time, a lot

of these cases it is investigating for 40 years and never found any violation. on all the files could define anything that satisfied the guidelines. so that was a major, major change. when he came in, the bureau was still wrong by the people appointed by jayapura hoover. it was still a jihad or hoover's bureau, so there was a new director, a wonderful man, but below him, the institution had not changed. so in addition to the writing of rules and so forth, a huge culture changes. >> one of the fundamental things

about the levi guideline as they were not required by law. but is this is a self-restraint on the part of the department of justice. the question of whether the government should infiltrate and was not seen as a violation of any statutory law and some of the the things adra did in this guidelines is basically state even though we have the legal authority, were not going to it. that was an important part of the way he changed the exercise authority as attorney general. did she run up the road of post-9/11 against the levi guidelines were they pose difficulties dealing with realities? >> first of all, there were a lot of additional guidelines. let's make that clear.

they were guidelines promulgated over a series of years both from republican and democrat administrations and obviously some of them were guidelines which became very troublesome and it's arguable the inhibited substantially our ability to prevent or to fault the 9/11 attacks. one in particular were a set of guidelines that prohibited the exchange of information between the intelligence cited the department and the law enforcement side of the department since the guidelines for gathering information with a friend or thinks he is for intelligence purposes than they would be for admissibility as evidence in court. i thought it was improper oddly enough about two weeks before the assault on the twin towers of 9/11, one fbi agent had commented about in the rules

that prohibited this exchange of information said the only person who will benefit as osama bin laden. they discovered that after 9/11. that basically reflected his idea in the department because there's different standards for use of evidence in oddly enough through the surveillance court we have but one i believe appellate case for the court called the sealed case, where the court indicated that no in

the exchange of information. in the meantime we negotiated the patriot act and thought we were negotiating the wall between intelligence and law enforcement down. we agreed to a lower loss of the fact and what father is legally what we thought we were lowering the barrier, which would allow the exchange of information. so there are times when in the bcs and we have for protecting right that we tied the hands of people who would be able of the race to default or protect against very serious problems. one of the virtues i think of our system, which provides the president with generalized power for protect in the country is that it gives them the kind of flexibility. that gives some people a great

deal of indigestion r. harper, but there is in my judgment ability to call presidents to account and is done by the american people. i don't mean to minimize the abuses that took place that you referenced in the jay edgar hoover, but i think it's important when unique guidelines, that you understand the responsibility of the government that has scores to defend the liberty of the american people and we need to provide a basis for doing that and not provide a stumbling block, which would impair our ability. >> one interesting facet about these internal guidelines are not binding on the department itself, but one issue that edward levi began to think about was the foreign intelligence rounds culminating in the act of

1977 after adra blest office. do i talk about the problem that was about and how someone came to result in fisa? >> this was another area that is remarkably uncomfortable. there is no statute provided for mark items to do electronic surveillance including break-ins to plant microphones and other surveillance. there is no statute that provided a court's power to issue a warrant and spy versus spy kinds of cases or in cases involving positive foreign intelligence. you're trying to find out what an adversary is doing, not just

of it against you, but intelligence that the video you're about to do. but there is no division. this is still the soviet union at that time and there is an awful lot of espionage going on. the watergate. i've thoroughly describe the idea that national security could provide a justification. the supreme court had never spoken on whether there was inherent power to authorize electronic surveillance in these kinds of cases, the lower courts are beginning to get arrests. the supreme court said there's no power that is unconstitutional to duties and when the surveillance against domestic politicals.

that happened before we got there. one court, an important one in the district of columbia circuit had a case in which they said a plurality of the judges on the court said they thought it was on constitution, but the finding was not that. the finding was narrower and did not touch that, so you can appeal it. so then the question is what does the president do, what does the attorney general do. did we start doing all this electronic surveillance and do whatever they want with it unity or do you continue to do warrantless surveillance under strict rules when you

established a very strict procedure and a set of rules governing and continue to do this surveillance is. i reviewed every one of them, and made a recommendation, which led to a lot of dark humor between edward and i about how close cases we have a long time joining themselves to disguise what our judgment of the fact has been and how we make the wrong judgment of the faction of the case. in this sense does that mean in the movement of the chorus, congress against us that edward had to add. the first thing my cv can talking about the subject in a very, very complete way. there he thinks he couldn't say because they were secret, but much he could say that happens

and he gave us incredible piece of testimony, which is in the book before the senate select committee in investigative committee looking at the elections uses. an i nervously 50 page testimony that most of the committee wasn't there, but he insisted on delivering it poorly as well. and in that testimony, he talked about all the values, not just the importance of our ability to investigate soviet agents, but also the values of privacy and security in the things undermined when the people of the country feel there's something secret going on and it

is against that setting at the justice department under sub to sleep began pushing for an act to provide a warrant in this case is, so all of this activity carried the seventh two years were not without warrant. i'll tell you at the time as a short anecdote to give you a sense of what the environment was like. there is a program going, which a couple of us are privy to in the justice department and were purging and so forth and which they established a listening post in a private club that sat right next to the soviet embassy embassy -- [inaudible] it should be the soviet embassy. up this name post was monitoring

the soviets monitoring of american microwave transmissions , mainly between the pentagon and cia and other places. it was just a big funnel in the inner and the fbi was monitoring but they were getting, so we knew what they knew. this of course like everything else that this time became public, became a story. and there is huge outrage. the outrages at the fbi because it was assumed the fbi was really not trying to monitor the soviets to see what the soviets were up to. they're obviously doing this as a sub of use to listen to a private conversation.

that's the kind of environment wherein and against which all defect dvd took place. >> so it did in part created special process that had to be followed to get floret intelligence warrants, which hadn't existed before in the foreign intelligence surveillance court was created with judges selected the special clearances to evaluate an otherwise national security classified information to decide whether it be permissible. so john, that became controversial during the post-9/11. , particularly with the advent of the surveillance program if it came to be known. how did that connect in your experience that the advent of the national security surveillance program in a

surveillance program, many commentators come to your desk, how do you deal with? >> well, i i'd like to put things in context. presidents in times of national security difficulty had been involved in surveillances that were substantial for a long time. george washington teamed up in the envelopes. before we had a country that woodrow wilson in the first world war of monitor all occasions from the united states to the settings and the second world war roosevelt on december the 18th started the aggressive program and said the idea that there were inherent powers of the presidency related to the defense of the country was a pretty robust idea and our

culture for a long for a long time a long time individualists believe the president has inherent powers. the question i think is worthy of consideration is that the president does have inherent power to defend the country for national security reasons, is that power and then do both at the constitutional power by a mere statute or can a statute only enhance within the constitution rather than limit the power of the constitution? the suggestion, which is an unsigned opinion, but i think we know that members of the court and they were unanimous in the approaches the powers of the president constitutionally could not be limited by the fisa enactment because whatever powers were constitutional, but they could be enhanced. i believe fisa is a wonderful thing because to set that aside

because the president president a safe haven and a set of checks and balances in which to operate so if people come to the president and say why were you doing this? you say i did it but the supervision of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, under the framework established in the foreign intelligence surveillance act and that's a great comfort to a president. if he has powers constitutionally and seemed that people could readily remedy what they don't like about our president a judicial remedies take some time at the maximum of four years before you could remedy what is wrong for the president did he see people as having to do with the american government and i don't like to exclude that sort of analysis. they are in large measure, sometimes the court act as if there's no check on the president.

>> is that at a lot of this has been secret. one of the problems on the people is they don't know what's going on. >> i suppose that's an argument. but how bad is the secret nobody knows about? what if an armed and i don't know with? i understand there for us to dignity the lake and that there is what we refer to as a right to privacy and that is recognized in the law and established in griswold versus connecticut, but i think it is fair to say that presidents have been considered to have an exercise properly of quality under the constitution. i don't know -- i just raised the question.

the case suggested that authority is not amendable by statute is constitutional. can you imagine the constitution with the statue? >> i think you can in some places. ..

chief justice rehnquist had is little book called all the laws but one. he talks about the fact that if there is a presidential authority that is constitutional that might collide with a congressional authority that is constitutional and congress has done nothing about it. the president is pretty capable so i think these are tough questions but i just don't wanted to look as if i don't think it's fair not to state what has been the clear way in which presidents have responded at least during the 20th century. they exercised inappropriate kind of national security, their power to defend the country and that included surveillance power and whether or not that suggested by the foreign intelligence surveillance act by think as yet has let -- yet to be litigated. i'm not willing to leap to the

conclusion. i think it would be, it's important. i like fisa because we used it extensively in defense of the country, and it's not a laughing matter as far as i'm concerned. it was important. it was supervised by the court and it certainly is an arena which gives the president, if you he will even a safe political lead in the comfort in doing the way the things congress is told in two and not the way he decided he had the authority to do by looking at the constitution even if he has legal scholars. do you may were preferred or do it if you have congressman and senators. >> we will have questions so for those of you who are thinking of questions and would like to ask them if you would line up where? right over there and one more

question here but those of you who would like to ask questions lineup and we will take questions from the audience. >> it's just an interesting sideline on this discussion. a couple of points. first of all edward actually believed that there was and inherent power and he makes that argument, in a piece of testimony in which he was endorsing the legislation for the very reason that you can't imagine -- you can imagine all of the things you might have to deal with. second of all, he did not believe that if i can use a metaphor, the right data for is there is a machine and it operates in a certain way and that is the machine has president and the president has these gears in the constitution has these gears and it's going

to operate and in a particular way. he thought it was more organic, that the president's power was greatest when congress gave him power. the president's power was released when the congress tried to withdraw the power and even if it couldn't completely withdraw it, the president's power was in fact recognizably moreover even more fundamentally he believed one of the reasons for the fisa court and many of the things that he did, he believed that unless the public generally believed that what was being done was being done appropriately and was being done for the right reasons and being done to protect the interest of the public who believed it, that eventually bad things were going to happen. and we were living through one of those bad things at that time

so what was an organism that we were dealing with and not a machine, you know? >> questions. [inaudible] >> well, i'm glad you asked the question about guantánamo bay because it raises the question about what to do with people that are detained on the battlefield? and, i think all of us know that there are very limited options to what you can do. you can take them into custody and detained them. you can take no prisoners which generally has been in history more often than not the situation where you kill them on the battlefield or third you

could release them so that they rejoin the battle and say i missed the first time that i will take another shot. i don't think this takes searing intellect. even a person who was in the middle of the class at the university of chicago law school like i was can come to the conclusion that we want to take those people and detained them. and remove them from the stream of the conflict. i think you should remove them from the stream of the conflict so long as the conflict is not a conflict. there are real questions about and i'm willing to discuss it if you want to do that, and this is really understood not just in the united states but among nations generally. this is the law of war. instead of take no prisoners that you do take prisoners and you detained them. i think as a policy matter you matter you should detained them

in a secure environment. we now have a prison in afghanistan, the only place that the courts have said we won't interfere with the prison in afghanistan but keeping prisoners there puts them at the center of the conflict and may be may be released at the if the prisoners overrun in conditions that are not favorable. but the fundamental thing is that what you do with those detained on the battlefield? you remove them from the stream of the conflict and you do so until the conflict is over. in normal poor settings you usually rely on a nation-state to somehow yield and say okay it's over and we will be responsible for keeping our people out of the conflict. it may be difficult sunday to know whether the war on terror is over but because you cannot ascertain that something has been concluded does not mean that it's never possible to ascertain that is still going on.

especially if the individuals were at the core or center of it purport that it is still going on. and hearkening back to some of my economics training i ask myself who should bear the risk in a premature release? or prolonged detention? and i think in a setting like we are and the people live chosen a award that doesn't have a clear boundary and to have benefit from not wearing uniforms and the benefit from the absence of compliance with international law should not necessarily be relieved of the consequences of that and able to impose the risk of premature release among society generally. i think antonin scalia in one of

his decisions at the university of chicago star, he pointed out that one of the individuals, because we have sought to release people at any moment we could and know it just didn't people who are not threatened are not part of the united states and one one of the individuals for example decided in the supreme court was responsible for going out and perpetrating and killing about three dozen other people, a suicide bomber. i don't have a problem with detaining people apprehended in the war and whether they are force fed or whether they allowed to starve themselves presents a question that i'm not calling on emphasis to get involved in that. the point of this that i believe we should be able to detain people and we should be able to detain them pending the termination of the conflict and to reinsert them in the conflict

is unwise if not sheer idiocy. to ensure that the oil terminals were not violated and i certainly when my son was in jeopardy was not one to say well you missed me the first time, sharpen your vision and maybe you will get me the second. wouldn't get me that something very close to me. >> mentioned in passing is not wearing uniforms. typically in wartime under the clause of war one of the reasons we wear uniforms is so we know who they are and if you capture them they would be treated according to the laws of war as prisoners of war as long as the conflict continues. the difficulty here of course is the enemy is -- in there for many the people

maintain in the lawyers maintain that they are not combatants, they were picked up in the war and they want a procedure. if we are going to detain them for 11 years, at some point there is a responsibility to have a procedure. you mentioned earlier that you believed not only in the judicial process but other forms of due process. what would you do hear? this is one of the dilemmas. >> the courts have ruled that there entitled to a procedure of determination. the court i believe in hamdi, they did not specify the procedure but they said it had to meet certain standards so people are able to challenge and this is a quasi-judicial message here without the complete article iii structures, and there is a regular review

process in addition. the contest was the traditional play on the part of an individual at guantánamo that i was a social worker and i was not carrying a kalashnikov. i was carryinga hoe and helping in agriculture the area and if i did carry a kalashnikov it was the americans coming in they gave me a rifle to shoot. this is actually a formulaic response and frankly there are methods which were devised and implemented by our armed forces for assessing this. it seems a little tougher than you pointed out and i think we have to honestly say that. the united states of america offered a bounty to individuals

or groups operating in the area that deliver members of the enemy to us so the argument is that maybe people deliver people that they just swept up in order to get the mon i think that makes the case more difficult. but frankly in virtually every war situation we have been enduring my lifetime which is not forever but substantial, we have had allies and we have taken their word for it and that made her own assessments about whether a person should be maintaining these detainees. and there is only one way to make sure that you never detain an innocent person that has never been detained anymore. that is true for the article iii courts as it is of military processes. i would just say this. for people who give their lives to the defense of freedom, and

that is really what i think our armed forces are entitled to do, i find it a bit offensive that some would say the least likely to accord rights of free people or respect around the world. those who put their lives on the line to respect the dignity and freedom at least deserves some respect from it. >> we have time for one more question and david axelrod will close the proceedings. [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> well, the answer to the question of whether enormous crises threatened large numbers of people that the government is responsible for protecting creates a dynamic in which -- increases in the answer is yes. the question of whether the power an persist after the

crisis passed in an unexamined way, the answer is yes. just like periodically you have to ask the hard questions. the hard question right now is the problem -- and in some ways we know that in some ways we are sure that it hasn't. >> you have to have pretty short memory. we have 180 or so maimed people in boston and several people dead. now it may not be related to and i simply would hasten to disavow a suggestion, not to say that it couldn't be but i don't think there is a linkage but i certainly think it would be important to try to figure out. i think the real political risk if i understood the question, is there political motivation for maintaining or not maintaining

the war on terror, think the political risk with the two say that the war on terror, there's no reason to do anything and next week have somebody blown up. then the politician would be sitting with sort of the idea well, you invited additional disaster and the american public by saying the war was over and clearly it wasn't so i think there is a sense, maybe you have to look at it pragmatically. inevitably if someone ever says the word is over it will either be too early or it will be too late. nobody is going to get it at the right second. now, do you want your government to protect you a little more aggressively even after the risk is gone? which is to be too late, or do you want your government to abandon its protection before the risk is gone and the injured which is too early?

it's a little bit like the question, there is only two times to go to war, too early or too late. the second world war churchill wanted to get us off the -- more quickly. we didn't than 50 million people later in terms of death, we concluded the war. did we go to late? you go to the war memorial in the u.s., 400,000 people died. when i walk through there i'm thinking, it's better to go to her early advantages to go to late. these are tough questions and it's easy to sit as an academic or another -- catbird seat and seat the united states would you thanking? i think in terms of risks on the war on terror it would get very substantial political risk to say that it's over if it's not. and i'm going to have to trust

my government at some level when it comes to protecting me and i hope it does not end in its protection of me one day, one month or one week to early that results in serious damage to the country and my family or my committee. >> before he turned us over today but i want to put in a plug. jack's extraordinary compilation as attorney general. it was an extraordinary mind and sense of his integrity and his efforts to grapple with the competing pressures on trying to maintain an effective government and at the same time to create and re-create a principled government with real integrity. it's a great read. >> may i just second that? i think there is a unique virtue that was displayed in the life

of ed levi and that was his confidence and the transparency of his deliberations. if you read these things and i'm not a scholar. you can tell that by the way i've spoken. i am not a scholar but he really believed in laying this, even the complex difficult decisions out before the american people. that constants in the wisdom of of the american people and the willingness to share with them the nuances of the decision-making, this is not easy reading. this isn't the class a common book. the story that the butler did it in the pantry with a knife. he literally goes and i believe this concept in the american people resulted in the justice department a far better servant of the american people. >> at going back, i want to

read, so much of this book is worth quoting but one passage from a speech he gave in 1976 about this notion of his responsibility and our responsibility through transparency. we seek to emphasize the kind of government and public society we hope to be. ours is a government by reason and our goal is not to manipulate the public but through enlightenment. if one believes in the government by reason the victory comes when there is understanding. the problems we face are not easily solved and the beginning is made when they are understood. this is of course much to ask but it has a great deal to do with the role of our country and continues to be the best hope of the government. at two goodies like this program and those sponsored by politics are very much in the spirit of the conversation. david.

>> i just want to say that this program -- bill. [inaudible] these are not easy things. it becomes a wrestling match with the principles and i'm happy we have been part of paying tribute to someone who has done so much to exemplify it and to take these complicated issues at a very perilous time for our country and wrestle with them with great integrity as general ashcroft said with transparency and with fidelity of the principles of this country and we were lucky to have such distinguished scholars and nonscholars. [laughter] practitioners and understand

general ashcroft we at the institute of politics we cherish practitioners to participate in this program and thanks to all of you for joining us. i hope you come back again to these programs and we will have continuing to me leading discussions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> thank you, john. >> the old adage is a wonderful book. if you want to move the mouse you have is move the cheese. there has never been strong incentive for focusing on the issue information technology and technology generally. the last group of people that are going to come in and

advocate in the budget crisis for technology over health care or over programs for seniors, they just don't exist. people don't line up with stickers. they don't line up in in buses coming down to city hall or state government to mandate more information technology. and so the challenge for governmental leaders is to realize its potential and its possibility and its meaning and its purpose. that said, it doesn't surprise any of you that last week a big headline in the "l.a. times" and department of motor vehicles just gave up on a six year effort to update its 40-year-old technology for the issuances of licenses. we have already spent more than half the money. it's not even close to halfway done and they just end of the contract. is it a surprise to any of you when we talk about scandal in government that the court system

of california in 2004 identified the 260 million-dollar upgrade that was to be complete in 2008, $260 million. today the estimate is $1.9 billion to connect 58 counties and the case management system with no expectation inside that it will be done before 2015. the payroll upgrades in california, contract, the contractor was also just fired. the calpers our term assistant consolidating 49 data centers into one, the cost overrun is $228 million everyone now is more upset with the consolidation than they were previously. yet we fixate don't we on something all of you know i'm californian that as we had a few extra million dollars in the

recreational parks department that we didn't expect that but the money still there and it wasn't used during the downturn. there have been hundreds of articles and not about billions of dollars of inefficiency and i would argue corruption by those that service that industry. so it's not a surprise. >> they didn't even know the money was there. it's it sort of went underground. >> no one is pleased with that ended deserves a lot of attention but my gosh think about all these other examples and i could go on and on. >> the government is not working as it should be. >> where did the citizens command? >> so increasingly my argument in the book is there is this new digital divide taking place and it's less and less. five years ago, we were talking about free wi-fi in san

francisco and so show shoo economic issues of technology and providing access to broadband and high-speed speed not just in in terms of ubiquity. increasingly that is beginning to take shape that the cost of the device is dropping precipitously. using the access now and around the rest of the world, 63% of the people in india have access to cell phones and that only 47% have access to toilets. we are becoming more and more wireless and people talk about it but with government this divide continues to get wider and wider and wider. you can shop 24 hours a day, seven days a week and have something delivered and they go to the dmv. you go down to your local building department. you go and pay a parking ticket and all of a sudden you realize the divide. my fear is this, citizens are now more engaged peer-to-peer, more engaged or as we move

through free market not just social networks but mobility and localization of services and now the access and ubiquity of the cloud. we are are stuck with this old top-down i.t. cartel mindset. this notion that we'd built a system and service in a world where now you have this on-demand resource, the cloud and you are always getting the next best iteration. you are renting not even buying and yet we are still building in government. it's no longer is relevant to the world we live in. >> using a book that the cloud is going to transform everything. you talk about engagement citizen to citizen we are talking about virtual engagement , aren't we? >> that engagement why talk about peer-to-peer i think about donors and a kickstarter. these examples where people are saying do you know what? i'm kind of fed up with local and state government and federal government.

i am sick and tired of paygo hearings and cloture, don't even know what the heck that is in sequestration who made that word up? but i want to solve problems and i want to engage. i want to make a difference particularly this millennial generation 30 and younger this generation they called the generation of choice, the net generation. they world where everything will be -- >> but great deal of faith and confidence and i must sell value in many respects aside from wanting to permit themselves because of horse i work with them as a college professor and so forth and but perhaps maybe some of your confidence is a bit inflated in terms of optimism about their commitment and many of them seem quite apathetic here they care about environmental issues but fixing government which is really what you are talking about reforming government a lot of them have checked out of apathy and disillusionment.

>> as a means to deal with our great challenges. this generation is more apathetic than any generation in history. this generation is more engaged peer-to-peer and volunteering and the data bears that out. >> you can watch this and other programs on line at booktv.org. >> 's, michael d'antonio reports on the sexual abuse scandals and the catholic church in his look "mortal sins." the author examines 30 years of sexual abuse claims against priests and the church's reactions. mr. d'antonio speaks on a panel with the president founder of the survivors network of those abused by priests. reverend thomas doyle, attorney jeff anderson and former priests and monks, patrick whoa. this is about an hour and a half. [applause] >> good evening