it, she died probably of a broken heart. she had another baby with her husband. but she died very shortly thereafter within a month and then the baby died as well. so she was just not healthy. but it was very much a part of what they endured, and you could tell how hard it was. i did not go into the trail. these women, there were a lot of them. but the ones who went on the trail drive, once they were out, they had to drive them on horseback in colorado in missouri and chicago so i did quite a long chapter on the trail drivers and managers because they were absolutely

incredible. one of those i learned about from lucy johnson was he was giving my children and me into her of this land, which was part of the national park, and she told us the story of her great-grandmother, lyndon johnson's grandmother, who again came from a family in the east, moved out into the country where a number of her cousin had moved for the land and one of their neighbors was killed by a comanches in a raid and all of the men went to search for the comanches that have killed those neighbors. she was alone with her baby. and she heard the horses being rustled out outside and rush them into her basement.

she covered it and everything that she had in the house, her china and everything, and then there was silence in and the next thing she heard was her husband coming home and he was just obviously very devastated. so she emerged from the basement and said, i think we are going to move to san marcos. [laughter] so they did. but she also wrote the trails with her husband. there is a letter who was from one of the cowhand who said i had the honor of writing with mrs. johnson ahead of the curve. i verified the story. lisa said that this had been handed down through the family.

there was even more information. so i was able to put her in the book and it was right at the end of my writing it. so i was really so glad to have rebekah baines johnson. then i did and ends chapter. there were two women that were part of the goodnight ranch and then, henrietta king, who again, a woman who then turned it into the productive entrepreneurs that they were and both of them, mollie goodnight and henrietta king started out in a mud hut a

ranch is in the canon, one of the most beautiful places in texas, as many of you know. my last chapter was of the 20th century. and it's too great businesswoman. the most accurate man, emily austen, who is the richest woman in texas when she died in 1860. the next time she had really rich businesswomen. she took the first ferry to go back and forth. across the infiniti river and up the first time you could start to go out west from east texas. and then she eventually built this and she was a great investor and a wonderful woman. by all accounts, she was a very

generous and good person. she was revered and considered one of the founders and the woman in houston wasn't much the same way. they expanded the houston post and television stations were sold for hundreds of millions toward the end of the life. but she also made it such a success in world war ii, but it was clearly the precursor of women being able to come into the military. she was the only woman who had part of the world war ii memorial in washington dc. and she was asked by president roosevelt who wrote a

description of what volunteer women with you in the ward because they needed the man to be able to fight and fly the airplanes. they wanted women to do the best job that they could. and they began to also pilot the walks, as many of you know. they were also a part of world war ii training, the pilots to fly. and i'll all of you came up with a plan and roosevelt looked at it and said, you have to be ahead of this and she said oh, no, i'm going back to houston and her husband found out about that and said no one, your country is calling. so she did that, and that is where she met eisenhower. she still admire him after meeting him and seeing what he did, then she became the head of

texans for eisenhower when he ran for president. if you ever want to hear tongue-in-cheek stories, he was a teenager at the time and went to his first and only republican convention. so that is how i wrote the book, there is a lot of history in here, but my main reason was to show that women have the spirit of texas, which is so vibrant and fun and it was much about what i've done with the american women in leading ladies, the other book that i wrote. i will just end by saying in washington, sometimes people think that we talk a little too long and have a little too much to say.

but we came into the nation is a nation by a treaty, including votes in the senate. it was a law that brought texas and in terms of the treaty. but it had only passed by one vote in the house and one vote in the senate. so i always try to mention that we probably are. thank you very much. [applause] >> i would be happy to take questions. >> are there any questions?

>> someone asked me last weekend when i was doing a preview, they said what of the women he would trade weaponize said none after reading the book. all that they went through, we think we are on the cusp of getting her. but every obstacle that we have i cannot tell you a favorite because each one was no amazing in her own right. strong and vibrant and resilient >> [inaudible question]

>> someone wrote about this recently. >> oh, yes. i never could find the source, but it is in my book. as an unquoted source. the quote starts in the chapter in the very beginning that texas is heaven for men and dogs. and women and horses. [laughter] >> you have any other questions? >> i would like to ask you what is the most difficult issue that he felt he had to do with. [laughter]

>> immigration reform was very difficult. they are taking this amendment very seriously. same thing with immigration reform which was very hard. always when you vote to give the president permission, which we did in iraq, because we were told there were weapons of mass destruction and the delivered. that is a tough thing. there are so many times when you're struggling with two sides of an issue. >> on the question?

>> i just want to say thank you for all of your hard work throughout the years and everything you have done for not only the area, but the way that you represent our state is like nobody else. i am so proud of you and everything you have done. we have my father-in-law's granddaughter who is 17 years old. you may not realize it today, but you will have a lasting contact and i thank you for that. >> every weekend, booktv offers 40 hours of programming focused on nonfiction authors and books. watch it here on c-span2.

>> now on booktv, a panel discusses her career and examines the former attorney general who took office following the watergate scandal. he died in 2000. it includes attorney general eric holder and john ashcroft and geoffrey stone and jack fuller this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> good evening. i want to welcome you to the university of chicago i'm so pleased to be cosponsoring this program was in law school.

i came to this camp is 41 years ago and on the very first day, i went to an assembly and was up on the podium on that day he imparted some encouragement. ..

and one of the things that attorney general trained to did to restore public trust in the justice department was to set up the public integrity unit in the justice department. one of the young recruits for that integrity unit is the man i have the honor of introducing today. eric holder served there for 12 years and prosecuted high-profile cases, including some from the celebrated apps can't 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 is attorney general. to hold that pose on the job of attorney general is challenging and tear is done and monstrously complex schemes. it's never been more complicated and challenging that it is today accepted this very difficult days in which edward levi assumed the post. general holder has a very proud legacy. he's been a steadfast champion for the durability and efficacy

of our article iii civilian courts. he survived justices rule and civil rights of every american. he withdrew the representation of commerce around the defense of marriage act annie in the president believed he was constitutionally dubious. he exponentially increase the prosecution of health care fraud cases to recover billions of dollars in taxpayer money that was stolen from the medicare and medicaid system. perhaps most relevant for today's program is that he is insisted on the high ethical standards that edward levi held so dear when he was attorney general. i should tell you that eric holder has one other distinction , a great distinction. many great distinctions, but one i will mention tonight and he's

a graduate of stuyvesant high school in new york, eclipsing two other graduates. bob zimmer and me. and i say that without a trace to resentment. so it back, let us welcome the united states eric holder. [applause] >> thank you. good evening. thank you, david for those kind words. it's true 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 might look. he's actually younger than i am. i want to thank him for his dedication and the obama administration emperor davis

community future generations of political leaders right here. 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 leafy family and chicago's legal community. attorney general john ashcroft and so many of the faculty members and students who always made the university of chicago really an exceptional place. i want to thank you for welcoming me to your beautiful campus, for getting me out of washington d.c. and also providing a forum for tonight's important discussion as we celebrate the legacy of the 71st attorney general, edward levi and reaffirm our commitment to really define his truly remarkable career. now it is fittingly come together this evening in hyde park at an institution and a wonderful city that attorney

general levi was proud to call home on a campus is shaped in in which he would in turn helped to shape. as a young man, student and faculty member committee that the law school at the university's first provosts and later as president. edward levi was part of the community for his entire life, from kindergarten to his retirement over the course of a career they were taken from the southside to washington and back again remained an essential member of the university of chicago family. it's another attorney general, robert f. kennedy exactly 49 years ago tomorrow during the speech of your law school in which attorney general kennedy praised dean edward levi for his public service and intellectual inquiry. by that time, he dirty spent several years at the justice

department connoisseur in the antitrust division at something called the war among other assignments during the second world war. britain in 1970s, he was president at this university and had already built a national reputation as a brilliant scholar, faithful steward of the law and a passionate servant the taxing powers. he was widely known as principal and independent leader as he once put it to radiate the values of the institution at all times. 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 come at a time of unprecedented difficulty entering appeared in the faith of the american people and the reputation of the justice department had been badly shaken or the watergate

scandal. into this atmosphere cynicism levi ray sanders, thought and restored a sense of integrity. he rejected both politics and ideology, insisting rightfully that every decision be based solely on the facts and on the law. he brought the justice department back together and inspired his colleagues to redouble their efforts, reminding them that quote no task is more to do with the future of our country than the work in which we presently engaged. even more money has been in the demonstrates, to limit the trust of the american people and rebuild public confidence. he taught an entire generation of citizens and legal professionals, and looting needs, that when it comes to expanding opportunity, even a

single person can make a difference and that's all of us have both the power and the responsibility to try. 1975 and attorney general levi took office, i was thomas 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 creates. despite this climate and in part because of edward levi's restoring the justice department, i did not give up my dream of building a career in public service at the kennedy helped to generate peer when i graduate from law school in 1976, cutting her to washington to work for the new attorney general and have been created under his leadership to fight

against misconduct and corruption, public picardy. there's an idealistic young attorney tried to bring accountability to those who violated the public trust. thailand also attorney general osama not only to be at wired, but to be emulated. it came to see him as a role model and a personal hero is available to guide my entire professional life. this is why when i came attorney general three and a half decades later, i had edward levi's portrait in my room, just across from a portrait of robert kennedy steps are my private office. there remains them everyday to a china successors must inspire. and a particularly different moment it reminds me nearly 40 years ago that although the agenda of the department is inevitably unfinished, it is always also boundless.

for me and for each of my colleagues, the 116,000 dedicated men and women in the justice department office around the world, advancing the agenda constitutes a solemn responsibility, but also a breathtaking opportunity as he's committed public servants know all too well and is attorney general ashcroft and i've learned, this is seldom easy. our attorneys, investigators and support staff has some of the most challenging and complex issues than on the government. addressing these issues and rising to the challenges remain a support today as never before. in recent years the department has decided to a financial crisis developed our economy severely crippled. he contended his budgetary difficulties including sequestration an aside innovative ways to accomplish more with less. we witness our nation's most

severe environmental catastrophe, the deepwater is a disaster and have taken action to hold accountable those responsible. alongside federal citizens have more the loss of innocent lives and unspeakable acts of violence in the boston marathon two weeks ago. on behalf of all who were killed, all who suffered injuries as a result of such senseless violence. and we pay tribute to far too many law enforcement heroes have an alignment duty in service to their country has made the ultimate sacrifice. my colleagues and i have taken meaningful and in many cases historic steps to fulfill her duties to the american people can carry on to work like every tv. this work will always be unfinished. i believe we can all be

encouraged by the progress we've seen in momentum we built in just the last two years. nowhere is this clearer than the efforts of the department's civil rights division. since 2009, the division has smart criminal rights cases than ever before, including conduct in human trafficking cases. we are working tirelessly to protect the voting rights have every eligible citizen and combat all forms of bias, discrimination and intimidation. beyond these efforts the national crime network, gains in cybercriminals have refined our ability to protect the american people, including brave men and women in law enforcement from the range of global threats we have secured convictions and sentences against scores of dangerous terrorists. we've done it all while upholding our most principles

underlying the most respected, powerful and proven tools and bring terrorists to justice, our federal court system. as we speak, we explore ways to improve barriers that prevent some formerly incarcerated individuals from becoming productive members of society to address unwarranted sentencing and where appropriate to give judges more flexibility in determining certain sentences. we're also working with congressional leaders to bring about essential legislative changes including comprehensive immigration reform so that a million people can step out of the shadows and we are absolutely determined to pass the commonsense measures to reduce gun violence. despite my frustration of some recent setbacks such as the filibuster senate earlier this

month prevented a bipartisan majority from passing a straightforward proposal to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, my colleagues and i are committed to seeing them at the people of newtown, connecticut the citizens here in chicago for use in shacking novels of gun violence and countless others whose lives are shattered by concurrency chin every day. as my colleagues and i work with other critical affairs, will continue to benefit from the example set by leaders like attorney general levi and remain true to the values he instilled. of course i recognize as he got the justice department will never be able to complete this work or secure the results our nation needs on its own. we will need the help of the concerned that is committed to positive change and especially this evening.

i can't feel confident. i urged everyone or of the unique role you can play as students, public servants, educators, advocates and members of the private bar tricks in the legacy of a man who is without question one of the greatest attorneys general in american history. here in hyde park at the university of the insert all his life, his legacy is very much alive. because on-campus organizations like the legal aid clinic at once described as a major step in america may coeducation. it goes on in their efforts to foster public engagement and silly commitment to public service among all members of the university of chicago university and goes on the advocacy like many distinguished guests, including john leahy, another

chair of the board of directors of legal services corporation has helped to provide legal assistance to millions who cannot afford it. you are truly your father's son and i can think of no higher compliment. a minor to join in celebrating enduring contributions this evening. i'm proud to count everyone here is a colleague and partner and i am very eager to see where your efforts only does in the days ahead as we see the boundless opportunities before us as we fight to protect their right to safety and interest of the american people and as we strive to build a brighter future at all of our fellows citizens deserve. thank you very much. [applause]

>> well, i am delighted to hear. it's really an honor for me to be on stage today with a panel we are going to introduce shortly. and i'm also honored to be able to discuss one of the most extraordinary periods in the life of an amazing man, edward levi. and up in my introduction to recount the details of levi's biography is well-known in this

community as an addition in his role as an alumnus and president of the university. what i plan to describe the critical of monumental goal is attorney general, which are panel which i promise to introduce a new moment is here to discuss. i do want to say very few words. i've been thinking a great deal lately about leadership, my own leadership of the law school and also what i hope our law school does to generate great theaters in many of our students in the audience today. for anyone who holds the office of dean of the university of chicago law school, edward levi lived large. his example and legacy of leadership is everywhere in the law school, which he did so much to shape. it wouldn't be an exaggeration

to say in my decision-making process, i often ask myself, what would edward levi do? and those not fortunate enough to know him, i must rely upon the memories of our alumni, faculty, family and also the writings, including those ratings in the book we are celebrating today. and it's a law school to train leaders and is no exception. it is to truly educate and train lines to go against the grain and most of all free-spirited and civil discourse. and i could think of no better example than edward levi.

i take immense pride in bringing integrity and knowing it was our law school university of such leadership. the panelists are examples of that kind of leadership. the diversity of opinion in this room as wide and deep, that the intellectual tradition of the university of chicago brings them all here today to discuss our panelists, jack fuller's wonderful new book, "restoring justice: the speeches of attorney general edward levi" let me first introduce jack fuller. n. may have been educated elsewhere, that is very much chicago. he is very chicago as you'll soon see. a graduate of the mcgill school of journalism and the yale law

school is a retired president and ceo of tribune publishing co. and former publisher the "chicago tribune." he began writing in 1973 in one brief exception. from 1975 to 1976 served at the tribune. he won the prize for editorial writing in 1986 and to make sure he deserved his reputation as a renaissance man, he's also the author of five novels. his service is both long and varied and he has been a member of the university board of trustees since 1994. i'm proud to say that for university of chicago law school

alumni, four have served as the united states chief lawyer pairwise here in spirit and thankfully one is here in person. john ashcroft is that the incredibly varied career in public service. he graduated from law school in 1967 had first ventured into public life in missouri or he served as auditor in attorney general. from 1995 to 1983, served as governor of missouri hamas elected to the united states senate in the 294. perhaps most relevant to our top today, president bush appointed him attorney general of the united states in 2000. much like edward levi cover attorney general ashcroft served a difficult time for the united states, taking office less than one year before the attack of september 11, 2001. since leaving the attorney general's office in 2005, he

said at the ashcroft group, a law firm consultancy committed to integrity and leadership. our moderator today is my friend and colleague, geoff stone him fit stonehill fittingly holds the title of edward h. levi at the university of chicago law school and embodies many of edward levi's virtues. as a graduate of the university of pennsylvania received his degree from our law school in 1971. he was a law clerk to justice brennan at the u.s. supreme court enjoined or faculty in 1973. bike edward levi, served as the dean and went on to serve nine years as provost of this great university. he's the author of more than a dozen books, including the preeminent constitutional law and the award-winning book, perilous times, free speech in

wartime from the sedition act of 1798 to the war on terrorism. he's extremely a than the community, serving on boards including the american constitutional society and the aclu and editor of the supreme court review. perhaps most important to her students is one of our most popular and revered teachers and those of you who do know just already will see why in a minute. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] >> i'm delighted to welcome me to this conversation about restoring justice. jack fuller's book of edwards

speeches and his attorney general. i want to begin by underscoring a phrase that attorney general holder used in his address about edward levi because it reminds me of an incident i had when he returned to the university of chicago after serving as attorney general and a decade later i had been offered the opportunity for the president to service after his successor and that bothered us for advice before making a decision. of course the first person to invite him to join me for lunch at the faculty club at the university. i basically said to advert, what is it like? letter the challenges you face? , to about 49 minutes of

questions. every question i have in this went on for the entire time and which typical edward. at the end the last question was what makes a great leader? said the ad would put me in the eye and said a great leader greediest institution. i want to repeat that phrase particularly for those of you who are students here, who are thinking about public service are trying to affect the world because i think that was so important to edward and how he achieved one of his many skills, but how he achieved what he did a particularly prior to attorney general. edwards never forgot whatever institution, lawson made the institution special and valuable

and important and he did radiate those values that i think that's in part lesson all of you should learn. so when edward levi became attorney general, it was not a very good time in the united states. he was the fifth attorney general to serving six years. two predecessors were in jail. the federal bureau of investigation was in disarray of his repute after watergate investigation of president nixon had been president ford scooped out of the university of chicago , levi is taken on a momentous challenge. i want to begin, jack fuller, what do because he served as edward levi's assistant during this year's end had us go a first-hand look at the experience and challenges he faced if anyone. so what was that like at the moment in time?

>> it's familiar in washington today. it is more divided than it was then, but the anger and resentment and so forth developed by with a chorus of the nixon years and the watergate scandal was still very much present and the press was -- the media was full of themselves briefly. feeling good and aggressive and the political system was

reconsidering because of watergate 40 years of cold war history looking back on things held secret and would have been possible for them not to be secret by a vast majority during those years. it's like reliving 40 years of history without worrying what made us afraid. and so, all of that stuff had come out and for reasons because of the way the watergate situation develop, involving the cia things and so forth, and all got completed together. so part of the challenge for

edward and gerald ford recognizes to do two things. one is to change the environment and restore people's sense within the institution and then in the larger population restore the confidence of justice on the square and important values being considered taken seriously. the other was to reform the institutions that were under siege it is important for the fbi to be involved in counterintelligence civil code were still with them. there are spies out there in the cia do not become completely

stymied. it is this interesting moment in which the one hand and was leading a process, which is deeply involved to rethink the way these institutions, not just the fbi, but particularly the fbi did their work and at the same time trying to protect and strengthen it and strengthen the public confidence to go forward. so that's the kind of moment it was. >> when you're attorney general shortly after, you faced a different kind of crisis, but one that obviously should the nation with 9/11. i wonder to what extent it the issues and challenges you face. he drew upon the legacy of edward levi. are conscious of that legacy and not on trying to the problem.

>> in many ways the challenges are different. the challenge faced by attorney general levi related to a distortion of the responsibility of the department based on politics. we faced before info, international in scope they killed our people a single day than was killed at pearl harbor and did it in the heart of american commerce, in a state, not just a territory. i don't mean to be that all the way, that the time of pearl harbor was not a state as a military installation. so we are facing a different kind of challenge. but it was clear we would have to reform and improve our performance. i think the business school most often cite the maximum your system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting. if you don't like richard

denning, change what you're doing. einstein said over and over again and put it this way. and it's still too sure. so we have 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 the constitution, the maximum which i develop, we've got to think outside the box, but never outside the constitution. the patriot act, which was developed in the probably three days because the tuesday attack by saturday before the congress was mainly assembling authority that it didn't test did in other arenas, but never played against

terrorism and that's one of the reasons over time there have been any disruptions of the implementation, but it is changing the way we address the terrace questioned them to do so in the context of the rule of law. the rule that is essential to the freedom. whenever the law is uncertain, people have to retreat from activities, not knowing whether they can do them or not. i don't mean by the rule of law the rule of lawyers. i mean the rule of law practice in our profession we are so adequately superior to the rest of the world that if we just have lawyers making the decisions it is not so. they made a number of adjustments and i think the war on terror a response to the pterosaur en masse is going to have to be a dynamic response.

whenever we change what we're doing, we need to do it outside the box perhaps, but never outside the constitution. >> jack, one of the challenges edward levi faced and how the governor would of, how it came to light and how the attorney general responded to that situation. >> and sba program, counterintelligence program -- [inaudible] and the predicate for it and the basis for it was supposedly taking a positive step that one

could prevent violations of the law would have become the foreign agents. they were aimed against gymnastics and civil rights organizations and war organizations and became in the post-watergate. for the watergate rhetoric for dirty tricks kinds of things.

the response was to say that, to reveal the documents were discovered in pennsylvania. but then a second wave came to life and we revealed those immediately, as soon as they get the information straight. edward reset a group into motion called the fbi guidelines to write new rules for the activities that the fbi. there are lots of different areas in which the process of rethinking the way the fbi operated took place, but the

ones that are most significant in terms of restoring confidence had to do with the investigation of the domestic political groups and counterintelligence. we went back and forth on the subject of whether they would be circumstances -- we went back home for it to whether it be a provision in the guidelines. here are the circumstances and procedures under which the fbi can take affirmative steps into a situation to disrupt an organization or group for conspiracy that is about to do something. some of us, myself included thought it was better to have a rule and procedure that was strong and because we would probably do those under certain

circumstances anyway. adverted back and forth and in the end decided not to include any provision of the guidelines. the guidelines do not include. i'm not speaking for edward, but i think i understood the reasoning of those in the reasoning was really not that there'd never be an occasion in which this would be appropriate, but rather the occasion ought to be one in which it was a special unique event rather than something institutionalized. sir came to an end as did a lot of domestic political -- huge proportion of the domestic local investigations, came to an end as the guidelines operated because they require the fbi to

show there had been nervous about to be a reasonable suspicion that the federal law. if you could show that after a certain amount of time, a lot of these cases have been investigating for 40 years and never found any violation. could they find anything that satisfied the guidelines. so that was a major, major change. you have to remember when he came in, the bureau was still around by the people appointed by jay edgar hoover. it is still jay edgar hoover's bureau, said there is a wonderful man, but the low hand, the institution had not changed.

in addition to the writing of rules, huge cultural change. >> one of the fundamental things about the guidelines as they were not required by law, that is this is a self-restraint under the department of justice. so the question of whether the government could infiltrate, for example, organizations by using it for them is to find was not at that time seen as a violation of the united states constitution, any statutory law and so one of the things aggregated those guidelines is to say even though we had the legal authority to do this, we are not going to be. that was an important part of the way he changed the exercise authority as attorney general. john, did you run up in the world of post-9/11 against the

guidelines were circumstances they pose difficulties dealing with realities? >> first of all, there were a lot of additional guidelines, so let's make that clear. the guidelines are promulgated over a series of views from republican and democratic frustrations and obviously some of them work i've been such became troublesome and it's arguable that they inherited her ability to defend and one in particular a set of guidelines that prohibited the exchange of information between the intelligence side since the guidelines for gathering information were different for things that can be used for intelligence services for admissibility of evidence in court. it was thought that it was

improper. oddly enough two weeks before the assault on the twi and on 9/11, when fbi agents have commented about this set of rules in the department that prohibited this exchange of information, saying the only person that will benefit from this is osama bin laden that we will lose american lives in the process. we discovered that memo after 9/11. but that memo basically reflected the idea and the department that because they were different standards for use of evidence in the court proceedings that intelligence data couldn't be shared. that became a part of something that was addressed in the future that at oddly enough through a litigation finally to challenge this foreign intelligence act

court, we have the one case where the court sealed case, where the court indicated there was no legal requirement that there could not be an exchange of the information. in the meantime, we negotiated the patriot act and thought we were negotiating the wall between intelligence and law enforcement down. turns out we agree to a lower wall and the pastry bags created by law there is legally. and there are times within project teams a certain rights we have tied the hands of people who would be otherwise to default or protect against serious problems. one of the virtues of our

system, which provides the president with generalized power for protect in the country is against them the flexibility with a great deal of indigestion or heartburn. and it's done by the american people. the pieces -- it is important that you make guidelines, the responsibility of the government and we need to be careful to provide a basis for doing that and not provide a stumbling block which impair our ability. >> one interesting facet about internal guidelines are not

binding other department itself. one ratio that edward levi begin to think about was the intelligence culminated in the enactment in 1977 after edward left office. do i talk about the problem that was about and how edward levi came to conceive of those problems? >> this is another area which was remarkably uncomfortable. there was no statute that provided for getting moorings to do electronic surveillance, including break-ins to plant microphones and other surveillance. there was no statute that provided the power to issue a warrant in spy versus spy kinds

of cases or in cases involving positive core intelligence. that is you try to find out what none for sirius doing, not just doing against you in an intelligent site tv about to do to you. there's no provision. there is a lot of activity. there is still the soviet union at that time and there is a lot of espionage activity going. the watergate. had thoroughly discounted the idea that national security could provide a justification. the courts -- the supreme court had never spoken on whether there was inherent power on the part of the president to authorize electronic surveillance in these kinds of cases. the lower courts were beginning

to get rusty. the supreme court said there's no power that it is unconstitutional to do these warrantless surveillance is against domestic local groups. that happened before we got there. but it had not spoken on the question of foreign intelligence. one court, the d.c. circuit, 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 constitutions, but the findings was narrower, so you couldn't appeal it. so then the question is what does the president to? what does what does the attorney general to? dj stopped doing all this electronic surveillance? and permit the soviet agents to do whatever they want with

impunity, or do you continue to do warrantless surveillance under strict rules? president ford established a strict procedure and a set of rules and continue to do the surveillance. i reviewed every one of them, and made a recommendation, which led to a lot of dark humor between edward and i on close cases we'd have a lot time churning cells to discuss how we admit there are judgment of the facts in the case. but it was against that setting and the movement of the courts and the congress that edward had to add. the first thing he did was he

began talking about the subject in a very, very complete way. there is much that you could say and he gave this incredible piece of testimony in the book before the senate select committee's the top intelligence abuses and enormously 50 page testimony. most of the committee wasn't there for the whole thing, but he insisted on delivering out or early. and in that testimony, he talked about not just the importance of our ability to investigate soviet agents or other enemy agents, but also the values of

privacy and security of the things undermined the people in the country feel they sent a secret going on. it was against that setting that the justice department and the lead began pushing for an act to provide a warrant in these cases, which didn't occur. so that i would not without warrant. i'll tell you just a little and don't come a very short anecdote to get a sense of what the environment was like. there was a program, which a couple of us were privy to in the justice department and the caribbean so forth in which the fbi had established a listening post in a private collaborate

next to the soviet building -- [inaudible] and that listening post was monitoring the soviets monitoring of american microwave transmissions, namely between the pentagon and langley cia and other places. it is just a big funnel in the air, picking up any microwave it could get. the fbi was monitoring what they were getting, so they knew what they were doing. this of course like everything else at that time just became public, became a story. and there is huge waves. the wave is the fbi because it was assumed that 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 subterfuge to listen to private conversation. that's the environment we were in another sect duty took place. >> the foreign intelligence surveillance act to create a process that had to be followed to get foreign intelligence warrants that it existed before. the foreign intelligence surveillance court was select good to give special clearances to evaluate them up but otherwise national security classified information would be permissible. that became controversial when the post 9/11. , particularly with the advent of the surveillance program if it came to be known.

how did that connecting your experience? the advent of the national security surveillance program and size. many commentators -- of the commandeered desk and how did you deal with the? >> about to put some things in context. presidents in times of national security difficulty had been involved in surveillance that were substantial for a long time. george washington didn't open the envelopes. before we had a country that woodrow wilson on the first world war monitored all communications from the united state to settings in the second world war, roosevelt on december the eighth started a very

aggressive program, so the idea of their inherent powers in the presidency that related to the defense of the country think was a pretty robust idea and our culture for a long time and individuals believe that president had inherent powers. the question that is worthy of consideration is that the president does have inherent powers to defend the country for national security reasons, is that power amendable sitcoms to traditional power or can a statute on the enhancements in the constitution rather than limit the constitution? and is an unsigned opinion, but i think we know the members of the court and cootl be limited by the enactment because

whatever could be enhanced. in which to operate so people come to the president and say why we doing that's what the supervision of foreign intelligence under framework act and that is a great car for to the president. if he has powers a pretty readily remedy what they don't like about the president of judicial remedies take some time that the maximum of four years before you can remedy was strong with the president. if you see the people as having anything to do with american government and i don't like to exclude the analysis.

>> there in large measure the courts act as if there is no check on the president if there's not a judicial check on the president. [inaudible] they don't know what's going on. >> i suppose that is an argument that how that is the secret harmed that nobody knows about. i understand there are friends to dignity and the like and that there is what we refer to as a right to privacy recognized i think it's fair to say presidents have considered to have been exercised properly under the constitution.

the case suggested that authority is not amendable by statute. is a scholar. >> you know the answer to that. [laughter] >> i think you can in some places. if for instance you have the congress and the president responsibility related to war and the president has authority to do thanks to the congress has not sought to do anything in that arena, then it's a constitutional power to the president. if these are overlapping authorities in the congress decides to assert itself they are sick of a conflict between two branches authorized by the constitution, you may have an ability to adjudicate that in the quarter.

and now the courts are inserting themselves more in an assessment of circumstances relating to conflict. sometimes the court wants to make decisions which had previously been reserved. chief justice rehnquist had a marvelous book about this called all along but one. he talked about if there's a constitutional ban might collide with the congressional authority of this constitutional and congress has done nothing about it, the president is pretty capable. ..

i am not willing to up we to the conclusion. i think -- i think it would be -- it is important. we used it extensively in defense of the country. and i'd -- it is not a laughing matter as far as i am concerned to use it extensively. it was important. it was supervised by the court, and it certainly is an arena which gives the president's safe, if you will, even a cyclical haven. it gives them the comfort of doing things the way that congress is told in to, not the way that he might have decided that he had the authority to dubai looking at the constitution, even if he had legal scholars saying, you have the authority. you might prefer to do we have 435 congressmen 100 senators would you.

>> we will have questions. those of you who are thinking of questions and would like to ask him, we will be able to line up where? okay. right over there. i will ask one more question here, but those of you would like to ask questions, please do lineup and we will take questions from the audience. >> can i please -- just an interesting sideline on this discussion. a couple of points. first of all, edward actually believe that there was power, and he makes that argument. >> in a piece of testimony which she was endorsing the legislation, for the very reason that you cannot imagine. you cannot -- you cannot imagine in advance all of the things that you might have to deal with second of all, he did not believe that -- if i can use a metaphor, the right metaphor is that there is a machine and it

operates in a certain way, that is, the machine has a president and the president has these years in the congress says these years, the constitution as these years. he thought it was more organic. that is, the president's power was greatest when congress gave him power. the president's power was least when the congress tried to withdraw the power, even if it could not completely withdraw, the president's power was, in fact, recognizably -- moreover, even more fundamentally, he believed that end -- one of the reasons for the fisa port and many of the things that he did, he believed that allows the public generally believed that what was being done was being done appropriately and was being done for the right reason and was being done to protect the interests of the public, that

eventually bad things are going to happen. and we were living through one of those bad things at that time. it was pretty easy to see that that was the case. so it was an organism that we were dealing with more than a machine. >> questions? >> the recent overstrikes in the government's reaction, any potential? you address the constitutionality. a time generally, torture and particular. >> well, i am glad that you ask the question about guantanamo bay because it raises the question about what you do with people that are detained on the battlefield. and i think all of us know that there are very limit the options to what you can do. you can take them into custody and detain them.

you can take no prisoners, which generally has been coming in history more often than not the situation where you kill them on the battlefield, or, third, you could release them so that they can rejoin the balance a, well, you missed me the first time. take another shot. i don't think this takes searing intellect. i mean, even a person in the middle of the class of the university of chicago lafitte -- was like i was can come to the conclusion that we want to take those people and detain them and remove them from the stream of the conflict. you should remove them from the stream of the conflict's long as the conflict is an active conflict. there are real questions that i am willing to discuss if you want to. and this is -- this is really understood, not just in the united states, but among nations generally. this is a lot of war that you,

instead of take no prisoners, you do take prisoners and detain them. and you -- i think as a policy matter you should detain them in secure environments. you know, we now have a prison in afghanistan. the only place that the courts have said, we will not interfere with your prison if it is in afghanistan. keeping prisoners their puts them in the center of the conflict subject to maybe being released at the prison is overrun, and conditions that are not favorable. so the fundamental thing is that what do you do with people you detain and the battlefield and remove them from the strain of the conflict and you do so until the conflict is over. and normal war setting committee usually rely on a nation state that somehow yields and says, okay. it is over. we will be responsible for keeping our people out of the co. and it may be difficult sunday to know whether the war on

terrorism over, but because he can ascertain that something has been concluded does not mean that it is never possible to ascertain that it is still going on, especially of the individuals who are at the core center of it or are involved it -- involved in it and report that it is still going on. and hearkening back to some my university of chicago economics training, i asked myself, who should bear the risk of either premature release for a prolonged detention? and i think in a setting like we are in, the people of chosen a war that does not have clear boundaries and have decided to benefit from not wearing uniforms and have decided to benefit from the absence of compliance with international law. sun not nec relieved of the consequences of that.

and able to impose the risk of premature release on the society generally, so i think antonio scalia and one of his decisions, he pointed out that one of the individuals was released because we have sought to release people at every moment that we could. there is no interest in keeping people at the federal government's expense who are not threats, are not part of the threat against the united states. one of the individuals, for example, cited in the supreme court opinion was responsible for going out and perpetrating a mass killing of about three dozen other people as a result of becoming a suicide bomber. now, i don't have a problem with detaining people apprehended and more, and whether they are forced fed or whether they are allowed to starve themselves presents a question and i am not -- will have to call on some

ethicists to get involved in that. but the point is, believe we should be able to detain people, and we should be able to attain impending the termination of the conflict and to reinsert them in the conflict is unwise, if not sheer idiocy. my son was two terms in the navy and the gulf boarding ships over there to ensure that the terminals were not violated. i certainly, when my son was in jeopardy, would not want to say, well, you miss me the first time sharpen your vision and maybe you will give me the second. it would not give me, but obviously something that is very close to me. >> part of the dilemma here, which mentioned in passing is now wearing uniform parts because typically in wartime and the laws of war the combatants or uniforms, and one of the hehernobyl ty are. uniforms is and so you know a few captured then they should be treated according to the difference is

that the army does not wear uniforms. so there for many of the people maintain that they are not combatants. there were picked up in the fog of war. they were, and back, and said, and they want a procedure. they think -- we are going to detain them for 11 years now, that at some point there is a responsibility to have procedure. you mentioned earlier that you talk -- you believe not only in traditional process, but other forms of due process as well. what would you do here? >> well, the courts have ruled that they are entitled to procedure by determination. the courts to my believe, they did not specify the procedure, but they said that it had to meet certain standards, and so people are able to challenge. and this is a clause i judicial

procedure without the complete article three structures. and they're is a regular review process in addition to -- the contest was, the traditional plea on the part of an individual at a guantanamo is that i was a social worker and i was not carrying a kalashnikov, i was carrying a whole. i was helping in the agriculture of the area. if i did carry a kalashnikov, it was only when we learned the americans are coming and they gave me the rifle to shoot this is actually the formulate a response. and, frankly, there are methods which were devised and implemented by our armed forces for assessing this. it is a little tougher than you pointed out, and i think that we

ought thomas to say that. the united states of america offered a bounty to individuals or groups operating in the area to deliver members of the enemy to us, and so there was -- you know, the argument is that maybe people delivered people they just swept up in order to get the money. i think that makes the case more difficult. but, frankly, and every -- virtually every wartime situation we have been during my lifetime, which is not forever, but substantial, we have had allies, and we have taken their word for it, and then made our own assessments about whether the person should be maintained as detainee's. end it there is only one way to make sure that you never detain an innocent person. that is never to detain anyone. that is as true in article three courts as it is of military

processes. and maybe i -- i will just say this. for people who give their lives in the defense of freedom, and that is really what i think our forces are entitled to credit for doing, i find it a bit offensive that some would say to them, they're the least likely to accord rights of free people respect for human dignity around the world. those who put their lives on line to defend human dignity and freedom at least deserves some respect from us and not just rank suspicion. >> i think we have time for one more question navy and then we will close these proceedings. >> thank you. [inaudible question]

[inaudible question] >> the answer to the question of whether enormous crises that are threatening large numbers of people that the government is responsible for protecting creates a dynamic in which

executive power increases. the answer is yes, it does. the question of whether the power can persist after the crisis passes and in an unexamined way the answer is yes , which is why periodically you have to ask a question. the hard question right now is, has a problem passed? and in some ways we know that in some ways we are sure that it has not. in some ways we're sure it hasn't. >> we have to have three short memories to think so that it hasn't. you know, 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 could not be, but i don't see that there is linkage. i certainly think you would be

-- it would be important to try to figure out if there was linkage. the real political risk, if finders of theuestion, as their political motivation for either maintaining are not maintaining the whate'er , i think the political risk would be to say that the war on terror, there is no reason to do any of this in the next week and have somebody blown out. then the politicians would be sitting with the sort of idea. well, you're invited additional disaster in the american public by saying the war was over and clearly it was not. so i think there is a sense. maybe after looking at it this way pragmatically, inevitably if someone ever says the war is over it will either be too early or it will be too late to. nobody is going to get it at the right second. now, do you what your governm