time what has happened looking at the recent stumbles geopolitically in economically bedded is a power on the decline in that disposition of the region should reflect that change. o they will find they're not without economic difficulties as well. is said of making them rethink instead of negotiating with an existing is rising power if they

increase their since of grievance. things are changing in will be affected by the fact u.s. is recovering in china may be in difficulty. >> to the point of the united states of america has seven treaty obligations in the world by the senator in the asia-pacific area so we have had those obligations for a long long time. >> i think we have to be concerned what china thinks what we're up to and what they believe is necessary. china is the number one trading partner so to say the u.s. is trying to contain china that is not

the case. we will continue to do business with china and that is the primary source but they don't want to be dominated and that is why the strategy makes sense of how it is being pursued so to say we have 2500 marines that is not exactly a containment strategy. [laughter] to say that we will ruth -- rotate ships through singapore is not a change with the balance of power. the changes have been modest but it sends a signal to say we understand the power to say it is inevitable to get

bigger and smaller read what the united states is saying with our allies with the seven treaty relationships that yes it will be empowered so they should not be seen by the chinese to say skews the power in the way that contains that prosperity that has been generated. it was a time for agents to take care of asians and us to get out but then who

replaces us? you? japan? india? to replace is that a stabilizing force? so we have to persuade them we are taking steps that their power is fully integrated the not seen as united states trying to constrict and effort of their growth that is inevitable. >> one that is historically an equal and to be a key contributor moi to cut more

than anything so in that language of the chinese it is indispensable to them achieving bad economic growth. now very few chinese are willing to say outloud i think what you agreed to over the last two decades stick legs so that existing architecture is that

something that sure is -- should survive the next few decades. i believe during each of you will end with with those islands. with the secretary's defense but we have never had a president who applying to lung dash two o points on that but the philippines a and vietnamese we did not make a big deal of it but now the chinese do it is a big deal so one can and understand where their views

are coming from. >> from their point of view it is a reasonable are -- to make it is completely disproportionate they did not build the islands to the elaborate construction and to fly airplanes into them the chinese would say that is them but we are different and we are always in charge. but the point the is states helped build during that 10 years period after world war ii it was about coalitions of common interest to establish international law and with the chinese are doing is they refuse to a

knowledge international law to resolve these disputes with those international bodies to that is another dimension of this because if we see a world from international law then where are we going? with his it has done pretty well complex our problems are disasters, yes but over a 30 year period the most horrible words in the world period if we have had nothing like that because of though world order and needs to be adjusted end with disregarding international law in my opinion the real

issue is these disputes with the south china sea. >> we were not part of making of those laws in that is a reasonable point to help them and the rest of the world i am not clear that has happened. >> the chinese took a seat on the homeless and security council in did have a role that was much to their benefit that the u.s. military has done a lot worse in this regard. >> was so let's talk about

the headlines over the last few days. if you could talk about your experience and what lessons you learned and what you would tell president obama of but we should do about north korea today. >>. >> wafers share as secretary we came very close to a conflict with north korea that was happily resolved with the framework by which they agreed to freeze their activity but the framework

was terminated early in the administration of george w. bush and no such constraints i think it was a mistake but that is history now. we have two or three administrations now the head then proceeded to tolerate them and now with day dangerous arsenal and the mechanism used is called the six party talks that has ben unsuccessful wasn't just on

the object of the results of moi the situation is very dangerous today to make it bigger and stronger and farther reaching for aggressive comments or how they use the nuclear arsenal. to of the serious diplomatic effort to deal with the problem the six party talk may be the right mechanism primarily because united states and china can never agree what to do about it. perhaps with this latest development the chinese may come to believe with serious

action. so to try to formulate a program to base negotiations and try to get an agreement on the goals and strategy so with that negotiating strategy it is called no new nuclear weapons no more nuclear weapons and no transfer of nuclear weapons. that is not the same to give

up that nuclear weapon if we can agree on that as a strategy but maybe then we would go farther to the gatt negotiations but ici history of 15 years of complete failure not that there isn't the right people at the table but we don't have the right strategy. we need to put serious attention on this problem and is a danger of these

dangers of are aggravated. by the way the most recent task most likely objective is a test to make it smaller or more compact to sit on the warhead of a missile. it was a hydrogen test but even if not but not small enough to get on to a warhead. >> i think the proposal is certainly reasonable as an objective for us but the question is what do the north koreans get an exchange of a very difficult negotiation?

that the chinese will always be reluctant to put pressure on north korea because it is the prospect of an extension north word him prospectively u.s. influence will worry the chinese. but it isn't clear the of the quid pro quo what do they get out of this? what have they been? they have been engaged in nuclear extortion to fuel us

before we strike again or explode against the one thing they have been getting is more food -- food or fuel so i hope they look at what they are subsidizing to find ways to moderate that in a way that cents a very strong signal that they are unhappy with what north korea is doing. second to build a multilateral sixth party talks or another form of what needs to be done long-term but we should be prepared to act unilaterally and much tougher squeeze on the north korean deletes to impose the sanctions.

i would hope also we would consider having them on their territory in this is important to have a defensive capability to knock down that kind of missile technology. finally, we should go back and inspect the inspection regime is the danger of proliferation rollings -- working with pakistan or iran there is still a danger there is a source of what could take place in iran or

elsewhere. we should look at ways to say shipments coming out of rooftree are suspect we should insist the allied is open that for inspection and those who don't face sanctions by the united states. the only nuclear weapons and nuclear materials themselves. of the nuclear materials i know that is what secretary perry has been worried about. but we are both concerned that would be a terrible thing in the world that it

has exploded in an area. >> but just a few days after it took office that the north koreans launched long-range missiles and other countries in the pacific that precipitated some new attention. in that within days had me at a press conference announcing we would build out another ground-based one

that was a reminder not very long ago and that is a reminder when new york i always believe it will be because the chinese are supporting the policies it is very clear that when you look at the chinese situation in that millions of north koreans of is the

hair trigger on this and as they know who again to korea one of you cannot calibrate and another point the we have heard in the asia-pacific that this north korean problem to have the military presence in the region to use as an excuse

one if they say that one why wouldn't that incentivize the and to some extent? it will be continued to manage that process but we will get a breakthrough for those reasons with the international six party talks as close as he can the japanese are changing their constitutional responsibilities as the economies build up in the asian-pacific more and more

awareness and interest to become more acute for every country in that area. >> let's move from an incredibly frustrating subject to where we have seen with taiwan with a political integration to establish diplomatic relations the yet we still have the obama administration recently notified with the arms sale to taiwan. with the knicks -- with the service to play out do we maintain the status quo?

about created by this or all that could be done? nobody wants that? [laughter] >> with the strategic distrust between china in the united states. to say we have elections now to change that scenario to be pro independent i think those strategic distrust one we were closer economically that was a major issue to deal with this as we have

done over the years that this was the thai royal relations act we also have the taiwan relations act to provide aid equipment to make sure when there is a unification to take place it takes place peacefully. can we maintain that for the next 20 or 30 years? can we find a way to reduce the amount of distrust that continues? that is the challenge. there is great progress made actually in the last eight years and now but that is a

non-issue in terms of the intensity was with those most recent are not such as significance so it is not rhetorical but verbalizing their objection to this relationship that we have to continue? in the second or third point is that other allies are watching because if we have a commitment to taiwan in fail to take measures and others will start to doubt those treaty obligations as well. >> i take it these transfers

are part of a congressional mandate from the u.s. point of view the signal to the prc and they cannot kill done this on the u.s. to be passive that may be successful takeover timeline by force in other words, would not really affect the a time -- an outcome of such a tempting but signal the chinese cannot be sure to not be a major conflict provoking reaction from the united states.

>> anything you want to add? >> but when i left office i spent quite a bit of time trapped into meetings with china and taiwan. in the best i could come up with the best way to reduce the likelihood to lead to a military conflict with to

have greater interface with social interface between taiwan in the mainland. but for what reasons to the chinese as well but that big break. is when they opened it up to air travel between taiwan and china. is now thousands of people every day is that industrial connection is a lot so if you think back to the days of the cold war that had mutually assured destruction

i would say they have mutually assured economic destruction and what will be destroyed is billions of dollars each month. is a huge deterrent. much more important than sending those groups to taiwan. >> if secretary brown is correct in sales are symbolic end secretary:is correct it is one of the seeds of distrust of the status quo or should we be

more actively advocating for a peaceful resolution? not reunification but a resolution where you would have a gradual reductions of the sales that some are advocating. >> the current administration's policy i say that because in this situation is with those geopolitical dynamics. but they have to leave all on their own time and in another part of the world to be the most powerful nation on earth. in those with their allies it does not mean we dictate

or impose an you need to help to manage through this without some conflict occurring three miscalculation or the accelerating of a dimension of the old architect used to say if it doesn't fit, don't force it all affairs of life when he tried to force those. nine dash event that new government does not start to unwind is the right progress

to the right kind of in agreement for china and taiwan. and also for that part of the world to put the united states in a position where we have to make a tough decision if we support obligations. >> maybe because i am the each turtle optimist and i got my start when president nixon went to china with the ability to compromise more but that is one for the secretaries of state. >> those are the fortune-teller's. [laughter] talk about the economic

relationship when you were there is virtually nonexistent now as apple is about to come up with their earnings over the last quarter of $7,818,000,000,000 of u.s. companies selling that amount talking how deeply those are tied in the disruption of the chinese market has an enormous effect how does that affect your thinking when you were secretary? how does that affect policy today going forward? >> it had almost no effect as you say. but now in essence a lot of

that's were made in the u.s.. but the value of the product is made outside of china. but that that trade is a very large part to the desert produce peace before the first world war and it was massive internet since

they act as a partial deterrent to call upon the business community frequently and those embassadors with the business community that was investing in china and chinese investment their ambassadors of goodwill and not so that is investing in china. these are issues to discuss

on a regular basis and had we continue to promote for what is happening or what island is artificially constructed in the south china sea. so we depend upon that business community to be ambassadors of goodwill. it doesn't mean he will always establish peace through prosperity but you have a better chance with those strands of interaction >> so that economic issue is the butterfly effect you see a little bit of bad news than the disruption of the chinese stock market was pretty big all markets were affected so this is the consequence of globalization

and what happens at a remote place in time has major consequences all the more reason why to look at trade and investment as a destabilizing force in the relationship. >> but what chinese businessmen do fine in the way to tell their government of the peaceful relations does that come up? >>. >> all set to address is there a negative side? with the u.s. technology companies selling all of the united states in terms of defense readiness.

>> i can't add these things and they always tried to with as wide of the scope will based is why aid as a reference as i can't get there are violations of everything everywhere and that is not new in people take advantage of technology for the wrong reasons. is there some risk of companies doing business of the totalitarian dictatorships? yes. but i believe in that wider scope the president or

secretary has to make that you have to realize with the release -- an iranian negotiation and no situation is perfect but is it moving in the right direction? they will not unwind with they have started. not to be unwound or unleash. this is of interest to me. said to be pushed since

world war ii in respect for human rights toward dignity and as you see though world build out and to push for more trade end development and opportunities for us portrayed partners and now they get to the point person but it is part of the environment to push back if it is bad.

to do things in their interest. overall from longer-term future i think trade is pretty clear the more you engaged commercially as good of an ambassador is we had in the world. >> anything to add briefly? >> on the specific question i am concerned the chinese view of the south china sea is very different from the international waters as far

as the trade efforts. the chinese have a more proprietary use and that is the one to set the stage for major disagreements and that is the fundamental problem with giant -- china it is seems to me that is more of the focus of the potential security problem today as there were 10 or 20 years ago. >> at least three or four stars, a former ambassadors, former secretaries of commerce so i

will open to the audience should we be training with congressional restrictions? it is the policy question i know you don't like them but should we be training others that institutions? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. america command-and-control systems do you worry about the command-and-control systems in china that was not aware of and could not control? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. [laughter] select yes.

>> this is double jeopardy with. [laughter] >> do you think the greatest threat to security in the pacific is climate change? >>. [laughter] notes short term yes long-term but not defining long-term. [laughter] . .

the chinese announced aircraft carrier, the fifth one they ever constructed. the last one they bought from ukraine. what are the implications and should we be worried? >> i wouldn't say we should be worried. i don't think -- at least i'm not surprised that they would

make that decision. i think an aircraft carrier not only strategically, tactically for them, is important, but i think the symbolism is particularly important for them. i was told when i was there, and when i visited that aircraft carrier, the retrofitted ukrainian aircraft carrier, which is not much of an aircraft carrier one you look at today's standards and ourna navy brothers and sisters here know more about it than i do. but the reality is as the chinese reminded me, the weapons systems that they have, the technology they have, to attack aircraft carriers is rather significant, and i don't think any of them said to me they're outdated. i received a pretty clear

implication that they are more vulnerable aircraft carriers than they've ever been so my opinion is, i don't think the chinese see this as any particularly new tactical strategic weapon that's going to give them any more significant dimension to their defense capabilities, but i think it is important to them for other reasons as well and those are symbolic reasons. >> i'd go a little further and say it's probably good for us, for the u.s., if they want to spend their money on that. >> sect collins? >> the aircraft carrier has always been important from the united states' perspective as a sign of our commitment to the security of other countries. it's been one we said they want to feel us but not see us, on

the territory, but we'd be over the horizon as a presence, which was reassuring. i think if the chinese develop aircraft carriers it's going to be so they can see them as well as feel them and that would be an important part of their strategy within the south china sea and east china sea, et cetera. i think it would be a very different purpose than ours because house as been force presence, reassuring allies were with them, over the horizon. >> let me open the floor to questions. still have a few more minutes. the lights are bright enough. are you media? right here. okay. the chinese woman right here. she's not chinese. >> my name -- i'm the president of the fuller institute.

my question there is are many military experts internationally who are saying that we are closer to nuclear war than at the height of the cold war period. if that would happen by accident or otherwise it would lead to the annihilation of mankind. there are many other destabilizing factors, one is that the -- said we're in front of the perfect political storm because of the new financial quest. te u about to debt donate over the refugee crisis, we have -- >> where is your question? >> so my question is, why can we not make a new paradigm where we answer to president ping's offer he made to president obama at the apec meeting 2014 that the united states should cooperate in a win-win strategy with the -- and in his new year's

address he again said we must build a community of the common destiny ofman -- of mankind. why cannot be build a security structure based on cooperation. >> i think to some extent we have. i think things would be much worse if there weren't economic cooperation. but to say that you're in favor of peace and cooperation is is it just a very first step. the mechanics and the details are everything. >> can i just add one quick comment because i want secretary perry to talk about this. i think we have become too lax in our concern about nuclear weapons. i go back to churchill who said

we may one day return to stone age on the gleaming wings of science. i think we're seeing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. pakistan is building more and more, north korea is building more. iran certainly may be building more at some point in the not too distant future who it's ten or 15 years. i think this existential threat has to cause us, as well as climate change -- cause us to really think or rethink about how we're going to survive on this planet because i believe the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons is much greater today because more and more individuals and groups and radical groups are trying to get their hands on them. so, i put that in the context of an overall architecture we ought to be concerned about that even more today than perhaps before because we had rational governments at one point dealing with this issue, even coming to the emof brinkmanship and possibly extinction.

>> we haven't mentioned terrorism today. are we working with the chinese too little? too much? just right in our attempts? >> well, because i'm the most recent secretary of defense, and i think the real terrorist threats of really -- have really been defined since 9/11 in ways we have not seen before. i would say that we are working with the chinese, we're working with all nations of the world, in the areas where we can to assure our own self-interest. the chinese have clear self-interest. the russians have self-interest. that this scourge of terrorism

is a plague on all of us, and is a threat to all of us, and it's real for all of us. now, it varies with the area, the dimension of the threat in all the variables that are in this, and there are different views by each nation as to how to handle that, which is not easy to resolve either, but, yes, we are working with the chinese on this, and i think we have had -- i think we have had some success with working with the chinese. >> depends on where you sit because, from the chinese point of view, one big terrorist threat is from the rigors? well, it's not clear we want to cooperate with them in suppressing the terrorism. >> i think it's a different issue -- another issue involved, and that is the reconciliation

between the dealing with the threat of terrorism and protecting privacy and rights to privacy. china may have a very different view of protecting rights of privacy for their citizens compared to what we in the united states might insist upon. >> not to mention the europeans. >> this is going present -- chuck was talking about this -- a challenge how to reconcile the viewpoints about the need confront terrorism in a way that doesn't turn you into a stalinist state where even some of our candidates are suggesting we just start employing everybody to look at everybody else, and so you suddenly start worrying about and listening to conversations and looking at individuals for their signs of misconduct, et cetera. so i think we have to be careful. we have to deal with terrorism

and what identifiable groups are employ moating terrorism, and also have to be concern about protecting what is left of privacy in this digital world. >> recognize the woman here. >> thank you very much. thanks to all, and very nice secretaries to meet you here. jennifer with media group. i would like to know what will be the most challenging position you have made when you are secretary of defense regarding to the south china sea and how did you comment on the current situation and what resolution. thank you very much. >> i didn't have an issue. it did not exist at that time. there were no reasons for the chinese at that point to be concerned about the u.s. presence in terms of posing any kind of a threat to its sovereignty. i think what has happened over time because china has grown as

an economic power, and they are now growing as a military power, that the claim of jurisdiction over the south china sea or east china sea, parts of it, has become much more of a prominent issue, and i think we're going to have to really insist that we don't see a -- we see the chinese rising as a military power. we originally had the foreign minister of singapore say that we have to recognize there's going to be more powers in the region, and that's true, and the united states can't stop that and shouldn't stop that. we are not going to be able to dominate as we have in the past. india may have certainly some issues about freedom of navigation in the south china sea. they have a lot of traffic going through. so it's not just china versus the united states. japan, all of the countries in region have an issue about freedom of navigation. i think what is most important is we be very clear about what

we're saying and not send mixed signals. on the one hand we can't say, well, it's innocent passage that we're requesting, but it's really freedom of navigation of the seas. if we say it with ambiguity, we're con fussing our own allies and we are angering the chinese. we have to be very clear on exactly what our position is, and this is something that goes back to tsun sao. be clear what we think the issues are for us and the chinese in the region. >> in my days as sect of defense, the seven dash line was an unknown document in the archives of the chiang kai-shek regime. >> one quick question ask then we'll go to final question.

there is something specific you suggest we should be doing we're not doing to improve the military-to-military relationship or are we doing everything we possibly can? secretary brown? >> well, you mentioned one -- >> one is sending cadets -- chinese cadets to west point. >> right. >> and annapolis. >> we should do more to encourage military-to-military relationships at the senior levels. now, you can't have a one-sided push to do that, and so far i think it's the chinese who have limited that, but i think i would push again. >> bill perry, anything? >> well, we should continue to promote minister-to-minister dialogue, which all of us have done. we should continue to support the chinese cadets at our

academies, which i think all of us have agreed to. beyond that, i think perhaps the single most significant relationship would be that -- our cinkpac can make -- we are closely tied on military issues in that part of the word and they can make an excellent ambassador, respond to the business. perhaps most important is. >> one we should consider is including the chinese in some of our exercises so it doesn't look as if it's just the united states, the australians and the japanese conducting exercises which appear to be aimed at the chinese or with the indians and at the australians and the japanese, et cetera. so i think to the extent we can find ways in which they can

become more integrated and this will rates the issue of, aren't we educating them about our exercises? they can see what we're doing. but i think that that's a way of trying to build more trust, even though it raises some questions about security. >> admiral lockhere was called up here he would have more to say because he recently come out of that job as pacific commander, so he knows how much our military has invested in the military-to-military relationships, and there's so many things our military leaders have done and are doing to build that military-to-military relationship that most people never see, which i said earlier in my comments tonight that much of what i inherited was a result of their continued good work on

this, but i think it is a continuation of reaching out -- by the way, we are doing more and more military exercises, training, with the chinese, and as harold pointed out, it's a two-way street. you can only go so fast. but marty dempsey when he was chairman, all of the chiefs all have been in china the blast two years, certainly sam has. but i think this is critically important. that isn't going to fix the issue, but the other part of that is, i would say someone who has walked on both sites of the street, on the political side, and the administration side, politicians have to listen more to our military, and i don't mean changing the constitution. i mean listen to our military. they get it better than most

politicians on things like this, and some of the finest statesmen i ever met in my life or military ewan foreigned people. now -- uniformed people. >> these not an advertisement for the military. >> an old army man but -- i mean, as -- you know what i mean -- across the board, but it is a universal use of all of america's assets and all of our government resources and leadership that i think is the biggest part of this answer, steve, to use them all more effectively with a broader policy. >> it's january 20, 2017, it's 7:30 in the morning.

givingup one minute to give her advice -- give at the person advice on the u.s.-china relationship, the security aspects of the u.s.-china relationship. so in 60 seconds what do you tell her? >> every promise you have made. >> i would say rerun this program. >> let me be serious about this for a second. what is happening in our political system is that we are witnessing the polarization in our politics which is really settling in and becoming much more cemented. as opposed to in the past. and when we make promises in order to appeal to our respective bases, you're going to find once you get in that office, mr. president, your now going to have to think about the consequences what you promised in order to get elected. so you have to be careful. i urge this to all presidential

candidates. don't make promises for the most part. if you do, make sure you break them because you have. to president carter, when he was running, made a pledge to pull 5,000 troops of south korea. i thought that was a bad mistake and he came to the conclusion it was mistake as well. but nonetheless that was a pledge during the campaign. so i think we have to be careful. on the chinese side, the chinese have been -- they have much more m mature today than ever before about our political system. ten years ago, when bill perry, or 15 years ago, the chinese might have reacted quite differently to our political system than they do today. they're more much more mature looking at what we're saying and prepared to do. second thing, mr. president, get a fiscal policy in place, and by the way, consult with congress once in a while. it's a coequal branch of government. >> dr. brown. >> i don't think -- i think

specifically on china, the advice i'd give is this is in the long run the most important bilateral relationship. take it easy. don't take big steps. certainly don't take big steps without thinking it through much more than most of your predecessors have most of the time. >> bill perry. >> much more important than you realize to get the u.s.-china relationship right. definitely much more difficult than you realize to get the u.s.-china relationship right. >> okay. secretary hagel. last word. >> one word? listen. >> to the chinese, too? >> listen. >> i want to thank everyone on

behalf of the national committee on u.s.-china relationship, for joining in the beginning of the celebration of our 50th 50th anniversary, and our four secretaries of defense i think secretary hagel summed it up perfectly, this was a great program, tell the next president, take 90 minutes out of your day and watch this and you'll learn a lot about u.s.-china relations, but please join me in thanking the four secretaries here. [applause] a.

>> now a look at the future of guantanamo bay. speakers include the director of fordham university's center on national security and the cofounder's of group that advocates closing the detention facility. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, welcome to the americas. i was going to say foundation but we now call ourselves juster the new americans. we want to get money from other people. >> i run the international security program here. and thanks for coming this afternoon, and thanks to our viewers on c-span, whenever this is broadcast. we're 14 years to the day since guantanamo was opened, and we have had one of these events

each -- now we have weaver as well, done this for many years, and it was hard to predict it would be sort of still be here, given the fact it was george w. bush who said we should close guantanamo, and it was one of president obama's election promises when he was first elected. so, to consider the question of what is going to happen over the next year, what is going to happen with the prisoners in goon, we have a very distinguished panel. karen greenburg, to your right, to the right of me, is the director of center of national security of fordham university. she wrote a book about guantanamo called "the first hundred toys" which focused on the decisions in the first 100 days which are critical to where we are today. it could have been in a very different direction. and in fact, karen has a book

called "rouge justice" published in may which examines some of the legal and department of justice kind of machinations around this issue. we have andy worthington in the middle. andy knows more about the prisoners a guantanamo bay than anybody on the planet and wrote a book at looking at who is being held. when andy's book came out it wasn't clear who was being held. who the -- he put a name and a face to many of the prisoners. and he and tom wilner set up an openings called "close guantanamo" and we'll hear more about that, and then tom wilner work earth one of the most important cases in american legal history, which gave habeas rights to guantanamo detainees and the youngstop case in terms

of kind of rolling back executive claims of authority and re-establishing what is after all a rather old principle which started in 1214, habeas corpus. so in terms of order, we'll start with andy and then kearn and then tom wilner. >> thank you for the introduction, peter. hello-everybody, good to see you here. obviously we have been doing this for such long time that this is now the preferred location of new america. either you're moving around quickly or it's been open a very long time. sadly it is the latter. i've just been outside the white house with campaigners from a variety of groups and the international and a lot of grassroots groups, colleagues for the closure of guantanamo, and this is the sixth time i've been outside the white house. so we have all been in this for the long haul, and i have to say the feeling today was that we have got more reasons to be

optimistic about guantanamo finally closing than i think in any time since obviously 2009 when president obama came in promising to close the prison. and then who are any of to us think he didn't really mean that at the time. such a prominent statement, right at the very beginning of his presidency, and there are a couple of reasons to think that maybe we are getting somewhere. one, the more cynical one is that his legacy is being written, and when you come in making a promise to close guantanamo win a year and seven years late arer you haven't closed and it you have a year to go, it's bad to say that isn't going be a tiny footnote in the record of your presidency. it will be written in big letters. he needs to sort that out if -- as i think is the case as presidents, they do actually care about their legacy. but i think not to be cynical, there are other reasons to think that within the administration, i don't think this sis hundred%

within the administration but within the administration there are certainly people who care about the injustice represented by guantanamo the dangers it poses to america's national security. i do think that there are clearly parts of the administration that don't hold that point of view. i think we reached the point where prisoners are being released, where there is a push to close the prison, which suggests there are significant forces within the administration who want to make that happen before he leaves office. so the situation that we have today is that there are 103 men in guantanamo, and an announcement was made today that another prisoner has been released. of those 103 men, 44 of them have been told that they can leave the prison. 35 of those men were approved for release from the prison by the guantanamo review task force

that president obama established when he took office. so that was a high-level interagency review process. these guys met once a week. they spent time looking at the cases of the men to decide whether they should approve them for release, whether they should approve them or recommend them for prosecution for continue to be held without charge or trial on the basis they were too dangerous to release such as there wasn't sufficient evidence to put them on trial and i'll come back to that. those men approved for release, rate a shame for everybody responsible they're still held. to have a process where you approve people for release and then don't release them, for any significant amount of time in six years, surely have to be an extremely long time. just disgraceful, and i frequently make the comparison with dictatorships.

have a review process, tell people you don't want to carry on holding them, and then not let them go. that is the particular cruelty i think is completely unacceptable. so, beyond these people approved release, and we know the state department is working hard at finding countries that will take them. a few days ago. garner took in a yemens that the u.s. doesn't want to return home at the drop of the hat. these involve negotiations with whatever that involves, cash, diplomatic favors, this is going on with numerous countries as we're talking. so hopefully that is not a particularly difficult problem with regard to these people. the majority of the rest of the prisoner, of the 59 men who are

held, are not going to be put on trial according to the latest assessment of who is facing trial and who is likely to face prosecution. that's just ten men. and i will just add as an additional note that if we add in the people who have already been prettied and have left the prison -- prosecuted and left the prison, that's a grand total of seven people. slightly less than two percent of the entire population have the guantanamo. the damage that has done to america's credibility as a country that believes in law and justice and fairness. what shocking statistic that is. but ten men facing trials, 49 others -- this is the area that i would very much hope president obama is going to put his foot down and speed things up. these are all people that are facing the periodic review board, the latest of many review processes that have the been set

up at guantanamo over the years, and the periodic review board process was established in 2013. it was established as a result of decisions taken by obama's task force in 2009. this category of men who were called too dangerous to release but the administration acknowledged insufficient evidence exists to put them on trial. that would set my alarm bells ringing if you haven't got evidence, you haven't got a case. and fundamentally i think that's true. these are people against whom purports to be evidence produced under circumstances that are not conducive to the truth being told. prisoners who were tortured, who are otherwise abused, prisoner who were bribed, prisoners were bribed with better living conditions, with perks. they were bribed with being told they wouldn't hassle them and wake them up in the middle of the night and take them to interrogation if only they would help them by telling them who

these people were in the photos, the family albums, is the way they're referred to. which is what was such an important part, relentlessly in interrogation, not just in guantanamo in black sites in proxy prisons where the -- of showing prisoners photographs and telling them, you know this guy. identify them. tell us about them. so people told them lies. those files that were released by wikileaks in 2011 about the guantanamo prisoners are packed full of unreliable witnesses, unrely able statements -- unreliable statements and part of the problem with prisoners called do dangerous to release, are people that have threatened their captors during detention. it could be that some of the threats are real but i have to say absolutely i think a lot of those threats are the things that people come up with when they're facing the kind of injustice they've been faced

with and what these people want is to be released and get on with their lives. ... >> when the president sets of the executive orders. two years before the periodic review, these take place within a year. very good at publishing statistics within a year. so the one thing that could happen is that these men are

being represented by military representatives in guantánamo. able to engage fully with the lawyers and saying to the administration through the review board i do not there lol against the united states. get on with my life. all kinds of things, all of them were other low-level foot soldiers wanting to get on with their lives. because the issue facing president obama whether he goes to congress or through an executive order is he will have to move people from guantánamo to the us.

us.us. and the problem was that this is bringing people to face trial, that's fine. the issue is bringing people to the us mainland and judgment. that will open up new opportunities. they have rights under the u.s. constitution. this been shut down very cynically shuts down the hideous legislation. more proof. and put them in a placea place that makes it much more love to have difficult for congress. a high-level interagency review.

the right wing maneuvering. people who don't really care. that held them for the rest of their lives. all the bases on which the law works. we drift into dangerous territory. so i hope that provided some type of summary of where we are at. opening up to questions. >> how do we get here? the 1st hundred days a guantánamo which begins to tell the story of how we got

here. trying to figure that out. i may be an outlier that are not sure will close the way we would to find closure. so i want to talk a little bit about the expectations at the beginning of guantánamo and now that has haunted this country in the process for a long time. if you had asked in the fall 2001 how long it was going to stay open they that guantánamo six months. i don't think that's true. i am feeling differently about what we have done here. going to make a bet with you. the commanding general said you know what, i'm going to

have retired and you're going to let this office and they are still going to be there. who would've thought 14 years later guantánamo it still be open. on the other hand you have a policy establishment which has seen since the beginning that this is a war without end. whenever predicted this is what would make it end. killing bin laden are getting out of afghanistan, what exactly. as soon as there was no hostility, no definition of the end in sight, the question of guantánamo has remained. i want to point out that at the beginning there were three reasons. the 1st was the idea that you take these people off the battlefield, put them in custody so they can join the

forces and harm anybody. the problem was if you put people in the kind of contention you had a guantánamo they became more dangerous. if you talk to the guards and officials say why do you think there so dangerous to my early on i interviewed a number of these people. they always said the same thing. they said there going to kill me and my family. so that is an interesting definition of what makes people dangerous in a wartime situation where i have been out. the 2nd principle for guantánamo is interrogation which happened very quickly but is not necessarily was some of the people started guantánamo thought it was going to be about. and this is not interrogation. in terms of who do you know,

you know, hurting on the battlefield come on the network what do you know and then later what about bin laden's network. very sophisticated questions at the beginning. the notion that these people are there for informational value. because the 1st 20 got off , who is waiting for them on the ground? there were arabic translators. ridiculous. they could not talk talk to anybody. but we knew about them was so scant that we needed them for what my former colleagues. you were so crushed, felt such a lack of information that became intelligence collection issue. there are other aspects, but this need for information tactical and strategic was very much a mesh in the

beginning of guantánamo. send out in november of 2,001, the executive order always there on the horizon. when guantánamo was created in your 96 hours to build, they thought they were establishing it for military trials. a fun to have a somewhat funny story charge of finding a courthouse, going around. after weeks and weeks and realize nobody cares. but these are the principles of started. and you look at them discreetly, we are still stuck with that and it is how they are playing out through the legislation. these are the three concepts we have to come back to.

i wanted to bring this up today. first i want to point to what george bush said. number one, he brought collegiate mohammed and the other september 11 defendants along with others who had alleged to commit legal attacks, high-level terrorism crimes. it was a transformative moment for guantánamo. because it addressed all of these issues at the same time. you have people who could not return who are going to be kept an indefinite detention. inside the justice system in the pentagon, inside the white house. that justified guantánamo. meant to be holding facility for the worst of the worst. the worst of the worst?

these were put soldiers and had itsit stay like that hollywood a president obama been able to continue 500 individuals that would not rise to the level of potentially dangerous for soldiers. all the sudden guantánamo became a place for the worst of the worst actually work. in terms of intelligence value the idea that there were people at guantánamo all of a sudden had a reality. alice somebody to try to head committed a crime against the united states. this was the attack of september 11, the embassy bombing attacks, etc. actually less important.

when obama came and office command this is not an excuse, this is what he inherited. not really pushed back against. -year-old mother had stumbled along for so many years as a push back. and so obama now has taken these three categories in today's world, preventive detention. when obama took office he was in office for months before he made a speech saying is part of the roster of options of your going to have. closing guantánamo is ending indefinite detention.

the idea of closing guantánamo may have passed for that particular moment. that was one model the thing was supervision value. in 2,007 i want to guantánamo the head of guantánamo at the time how is informational value here? things could happen. my be able to describe them to us, tell us something about them. for the detainees, i don't get that. i haven't seen that come up. it hasn't come up in the congressional hearing. the final thing is the military commission. they gathered tremendous team if not activity under

president obama. he had after attorney general holder decided that he would not bring them to the court system and kept them in the military commission system, this is the commission that is stolen phone continually. and it really begs the question, and what point to say it does not work. these need to be had, someplace where now we have the expertise and the structure to try these individuals. so ironically the way i see what is happening in guantánamo, who would've thought it would keep guantánamo. what has happened in the last six months, there is much more energy being placed into getting people out of guantánamo and the media is not calling attention to it which is good, number of individuals

of come off. very quietly. it is not a lot. half dozen or so. and if you look at the reasons, they are minimal. today's release, what they actually think about the war on terror. and so this is always the way to close guantánamo. notably, and this is something that we were talking about earlier. the idea of charging anyone besides these ten detainees seems to have gone away. when obama came and office he always said comeau we will have a certain amount of indefinite detention, 30 will be charged and tried. where did i go? the category from the point

of view of someone who studies the judicial system for we are not going to try terrorists anymore? so the only caveat i would say command i think is going to close, the military commissions will have to be moved for that to happen. what that actually means not for guantánamo but for how we deal with individuals who we don't necessarily want to declare prisoners of war remains to be seen. this problem started with the decision not to have prisoners of war. ii don't think it's a decision that should never be repeated. >> i neveri never come here knowing what i'm going to say and still don't after listening. what karen said at the end, i don't know what's going to happen with guantánamo. and i am concerned isys is

on the rise. you know, i think that we over blow the threat. i was thinking the other day , russia is filled with nuclear weapons. we don't take it as seriously. something very strange about where we put. the concern the public, what happened in paris, what happened in california is palpable. it is on the news all the time. it gives a great forum to speak. i am not confident that the obama administration will close guantánamo before the end of its term. there are all sorts of political things going on. very few of us seem to care

about closing guantánamo. it seems to me it is easy to stir up passions against closing it, the republican party and to build on the demagoguery and fear to say you're releasing terrorists under the united states or somewhere else. i am worried that obama will not take the action. i hope that he will. i don't know how hillary clinton is the nominee, whether she wants a cleared off before he leaves office or whether she will say don't do that, it will jeopardize the election. i am not confident. let me speak about a few other things. i am amazed as a washingtonian sitting in hearing the debate within congress on this and other issues that so much of it is premised on this information.

and that really started in the review that came out in january 2010, the obama review of the people at guantánamo and they created this category of people who are too dangerous to release but not able to prosecute. everyone reading that thought what it meant was you know these guys a dangerous horrible terrorists but there is some legal technicality that prevents them from being tried in a court. so you have got to keep them. and that is really not the case. what it really means is it was a horrible, stupid category. what it meant simply was not there is information and allegations against these people made mostly by other detainees who have been interrogated a lot, but it is not the sort of stuff you could ever try somebody on because it is so flimsy it would never stand up in a court of law.

you have some suspicions but no evidence which would make it capable of trying them. and another thing, we lose sight of the fact that the bulk of the people on that list, almost all of them were people who were in guantánamo before the high-value detainees were transferred there for five years after guantánamo opened, and it was accepted through security studies at the time that the people at guantánamo before these high-value people came and were nothing. they were either cop by mistake or low-level foot soldiers. the categorization of these people as too dangerous to release is misinformation. the prb's that have come out , 18 have been conducted, 15 people have been cleared. these people are not too dangerous to release, yet

people in congress don't know that. they don't even know the people at guantánamo have been cleared. they talk and debate based upon the misinformation that the people in guantánamo are trained horrible killers. it is a shame. i don't know whether the news media or the rest of it look at the facts. that is one thing that bothers me. another thing and he spoke about the court of appeals of the district of columbia when we started this just on the legal remedy. legal remedy, the right of habeas corpus as a fundamental precept of the united states and britain as the foundation of individual liberty and enforcing the magna carta, the product of liberty to go before court will you will have a fair

hearing to see whether there was a basis in fact and law for the problem is personal liberty. the military when it picks up, very few never conducted any hearings. back at the time, censorship. a simple hearing before court really a basis. we won that right in 2004. congress then revoke that, and we again won the right, the constitutional right for the people. i mean,, this might seem terribly technical. is important the dc circuit

that heaven dominated eviscerated that right. first of all of these people may have the constitutional right to habeas corpus. but they have no due process. they don't even make a standard. follows and challenging their convictions. then the support went through basically any evidence of the government could be really challenging. so as a result the court took away a legal remedy from these people. and that happened in 2010. for the past five years to

get out they have been dependent on the political process maybe it will work, maybe it won't. the obama administration justice department took advantage of these absurd legal decisions and challenged every grant of habeas corpus, opposed every grant of habeas corpus. if the court ordered these people released the congress did not restricted. and yet for some reason the obama administration just as having control the defense department controlled the justice department, taking advantage of absurd legal opinions to prevent they grant of habeas corpus. i hope we can change that. two other things, you know, guantánamo is a test of what this nation stands for. unfortunately it seems to me

looking back through history that our nation of great principles seems terribly willing to sacrifice those principles whenever there is a threat. people yell about security and sacrifice principles like individual freedom and habeas corpus someday i hope and we realize that adhering to our principles might be most difficult in times but it is most important. i would like to somehow get that message across. there was something moving to me about the bridge of spies. ..

>>

>> he will be judged by more what he does on this. >> cell with the military commission? >> they were vacated. >> gruffly prisoners at the beginning to be successful? >> okay then with the american system? so it is a very small percentage. >> how long has he been in custody?

>> said he is the architect of the 9/11 attack. when you anticipate he will get inside a courtroom? >> a couple of years the military commission protest always will be. >> and they made that from the major commission so if they hold up pre-trial hearing is below pulls. and later what looks real because that fundamental problem that we cannot

proceed with anything that the is men were tortured. so i was confused in that they will migrate into a federal trial? >> but then to move those guantanamo is. >> is their money to do that? >> so that has to change one way or another about what i was trying to say is what we felt was a real problem that they are too dangerous you

cannot close guantanamo. then we still have the military commission. >> if he does close that? and then to face a trial. >> in the formal -- former counsel in "the washington post" said obama has executive power but with that ability to place people in combat is the presidential authority. and in many cases before the supreme court. >> i think it is a good

argument but there is tremendous political implications. if he exercises executive authority what president does that set for trump and what will he be able to do? you will into stand up to congress with actions of how far do you go? >> absent that? >> the way out that john mccain wants to close guantanamo also. if he can bring around some republicans, then you could try to do deal with congress a part of it. but there are personality problems but mckean hates obama and mccain has lost

his power within the republican party and some see him as a moderate. >> he keeps asking for a plan. i don't understand why there is no plan because it seems to be a plan of action but he left the door open. >> with the use of military force wouldn't that be a poison pill with that provision? the with the use of military forces mostly? >> in theory. >> you could look at the right to detain people under international law. >>.

>> see you say they're not held only under that a u.s. but under something else? >> under presidential authority in times of crisis >> with that article to authority? >> this is a very technical area but yes. >> if that aumf currently stands, that would be to say you don't have that authority anymore but with that executive decree to come in you could make that argument but with that production of military force in the new one gets rid of the old one we don't know how that goes.

>> i have a hard time understanding why that would be closed under what scenario makes that possible? >> get as many people out as you can see were left with 50 or 60 people. then you go to congress to say how can we be spending $400 million per year to house 50 years 60 people? taken to the united states we will save money, it is more efficient and be protected from the population. that is the plan. >> that federal terrorism case since the 11? >> 91%? >> what were the 9%?

>> people not accused north there rises to any level. >> but those involved in the attack? >> so typically how long are these tiles? >> 80 months -- 18 months. >> if we are charged with those military commissions commissions, not trials with the debate was going on we can hold them and that is what happened if you want swift justice. [laughter] the obama administration has been no one into guantanamo. >> but first.

>> but there has been zero under obama. >> summit in alexandria. others go to brooklyn or manhattan. >> if they are convicted often of the terror support a average around 18 years and they're put away for life. >> with those military commissions with that indictment is that a war crime? >> but they fell completely because they were vacated. >> en forma to assert -- material support now is the

same case of the guantanamo detainee it is now on appeal from a space. >> key was of bodyguard? >> questions from the bbc. [laughter] >> the detainees that was brought there a long time ago, what will happen in with him? what does is they have to say about closing guantanamo ? >> i think he is one of those people if we shrink the population down and down

he to be returned as far as i can see. with the origins of palestine will palestinians have been released because israel will not allow that. this man was never the al qaeda member is the great shame of the torture program saying he was number three but the last i heard they believe they're trying to prosecute they decided he was the leader of some type of militia. i don't think that is a plausible but for him to facilitate after the u.s.-led invasion i don't

think there is any kind of case against him. and it does suggest they have walked back from that but i don't know what they do. he has seizures regularly his wife says. is a terrible story. there are probably a handful of others hiding in the shadows we don't know about the or so terribly abused there an awful place that is when nobody wants to go near them. but the issues of people that there appears to be more of a case. but we have to get everybody out as a significant