the true figure is 11000. there is absolutely no withdraw in the accusation even after he gets the figure. now he said there's no dispute in scotland and wales with the junior doctors. the reason for that is because in scotlandescotland and w andae not trying to create more of a seven day nhs. that seven-day nhs was not onlyy in our manifesto because i want th to make sure hard-working people can access health services at an equal rate right through the week because you don't justnd gs ill in the weekday, but also if. he reads his own party's report, into their election defeat, they admit that the concept of a seven day nhs was a very popular concept, a very popular concept, and it is. what i would say to him is you can see in england we areint putting 10 billion times more

into it. we have more doctors and more nurses. we are treating more patients. we now have a settlement of the contract. that's what this is about.er, w >> mr. speaker, we all want a strong and successful nhs.d you don't achieve that by that provoking and misinformation. it now amounts to 4 billion pounds.ihe in the prime minister's own local nhs trust. will the chair of the campaign b write another letter to himself asking of his constituents to

intervene and support his local nhs? o >> i'm very proud of the nhs and everyone who works in it. having met recently with the head of the oxford trust, i know that he supports this move toward more seven-day services. v's absolutely seven ..ital i'll ask another. i think i know what my mother would say. she would say put on a proper suit, do up your tie.

>> mr. speaker, if for talking about family advice, my late mother would've said stand upgr for the principle of a health service free because that's what she dedicated her life to. mr. speaker we are three courses of the way past this financial year. the deficit is alreadyllionun 2.26 billion pounds. 53% of nhs trust finance directors say the quality ofs care and their local area has ir worsened in this year. what will the deficit be by thee end of next month?>> w >> we will get deficits down because we are clamping down on the agencies. h to

no honorable, they have too sai recognize this.y, when you look at the nhs today, and my mother is equally surprised as i am, she would be pleased to know that 1.9 million more people and more operationsc 11800 more nurses and i have toe say, i think if he was here today he would want a seven day nhs because he knew it was foree patients up and down ourdo ou country.use] he would be turning in his grave if he could hear this.d >> he was a man with vision andl

he wanted a health service for the good of all.llyout i'll tell you mr. speaker, our health service is run by her brilliant people. brilliant doctors and brilliant nurses.r from i've got a question for the prime minister from one of those brilliant doctors. his name is as representative. he sent me a question saying this. as a doctor, i know full welle the stretches on the nhs and the shortcomings.havea we already have a seven day emergency services. how'd does increasing it improvv safety of the weekend. if it's truly a seven day nhs i wanted, we need more nurses, and all the other workers. will the prime minister now,he today commit to publishing the analysis of the real costs of

introducing a seven day nhs and will he be prepared to pay for it rather than picking a fight for those who want to deliver ic what is not clear is whether or not labor support support a seven day nhs or not. we do support it and that is why were putting in the 10 billion pounds. that's why were putting in 10000 more billio doctors. put yes, that is why we need to maks sure can work on a seven day basis. the truth is this, you can go to hospitals in our country. seven-day basis. they are carrying out consultation seven days a week. they carry out some operations in days a week. that is good for the hospital, good for the staff and above all

good for patients. we don't just get ill in monday to friday. i want a world-class nhs. we are funding a world-class nhs to think of world-class people working in our nhs and together we will build a seven-day nhs. [shouting] >> chris davis via >> thank you, mr. speaker. for such a large number of schools facing the prospect of closer, what could my right honorable friend due to encourage the welsh assembly to convert stays close into free schools than academy and order my constituents can benefit from improvement ratification they are cnn saving excellence closer and closer. >> obviously the issue of education is involved in web number possibility for the government, but i would urge them to focus a good education depends not only on the finance

which is fair because of the way of the formula works and the decisions were taken about funding hhs in england also requires high standards and the publication of the tables of people can see how children are doing and crucially requires structure of her friends from the pre-schools, academies introducing diversity, competition and getting organizations passionate about education to provide state education. we want all the best organizations providing the best education for children. >> mr. speaker, may begin by associating the party with the comment to the prime minister and leader of the labour party in relations to the tragedy and our thoughts about those affected. for the prime minister congratulate the government and his own colleagues who do not financial arrangements for the next phase of scottish devolution. the treasury position with

7 billion pounds of public finance got been at the beginning of this week reduced to 3 billion pounds yesterday morning to point out what she tells them agree to it or not i'm no worse off? >> let me agree with the right honorable gentleman. this is an excellent deal for scotland, but also an excellent deal for the united kingdom. for those of us who want to keep united kingdom together, what we have demonstrated as you can have full and devolution with a powerhouse parliament, a fair physical settlement inside the united kingdom and and that is something to be celebrated. now we will move the situation with the scottish government and parliament will have to start talking about policies and decisions rather than processes. happy the negotiations went to baghdad and i'm happy laura smith responsible for so much work it out a statement saying this delivers smith and the

principles in full. no more grievance, no more fussing about process. no more arguments about the arrangements. now it's time to get on and govern. [shouting] >> we are indebted to scotland's finance security note that human field from scotland. prime minister is right that all parties will have to layer their plan with the may election. could you answer this question? is it true this time the lesser day, his party, the conservative party is planning attacks cuts for higher earners in scotland? >> you will be with davidson is the only proper opposition figure setting out the plans. if you are buried in scotland about having a one-party state and the lack of accountability, if you think the labour party lost its way, there's only one

choice. i think there are opportunities to sharpen incentives. there are opportunities to attract businesses and people in the scotland. as she does, whatever she decides she will have my full unequivocal support. [shouting] >> i believe industry council, 96% of the 1100 residents are more satisfied with my counsel services. with my great honorable friend join me in the conservative leader perry richardson to counsel a colleague and all the office of employee district council are continuing to deliver to the residence.

[shouting] >> i'm happy to join my honorable friend in doing that. he does make an important point that we have to make difficult as spending decisions not only in the last five years, the satisfaction actually when not. this proves the larger point, which is you can reduce spending levels, find efficiencies and provide better services at the same time. >> mike tichy went to someone turn due to depression but is no longer down for espn cannot think gse due to his job and could not leave his highly skilled job as a sheriff due to the threat of punitive sanctions. will the prime minister look at his case specifically, but also the wider richer people with mental health issues unable to work? >> i'm very happy to look at the

individual case. the way our system should work is clear that if you are unable to work, but without good work on the sugar 12 employment on the work-related activity group and get that out. if you're unable to work, get a higher amount of money. it's not been tested, not time limited. people who have difficulties also have the new personal independent payment system which can address some of those. a generous and compassionate country with the benefit system to port those who cannot work on making sure those who can work are encouraged to do so. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the unemployment constituency has qualified 62%. however, even more work toward full employment. that is why on march the 18th

had been halted between the job fair, bring together employers to find out the many ways you can get employment or indict the prime minister and see for him of -- [inaudible] >> i'm sure i'll be doing a lot of touring country in the weeks to come. perhaps a visit to era watch as well. we have not had much lower unemployment rate. just about 5% is one of the lowest in europe. even at that rate, a lot more to do to match the jobs created, to the people that want to work in job fairs and apprenticeships are absolutely essential. this is full employment. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the prime minister on the seventh of january, we debated the issue of women's state pension and the fact women are discriminated by the increase. the house debated the 1580 i. for government to mitigate the effects of this. why has the government not respected the parliament? >> first of all, i argue strongly where not discriminating against women. we are making sure there is an equal page of retirement and two women have been discriminated against in the pension system in the past, the single-payer pension means many more will be retired with a full pension. as they do so, the triple lock of nine pensions will go up by wages, prices are 2.5%, whichever is highest. that is a pensioner poverty is a record low and pensioners that they can live in security and dignity in our country.

>> mr. speaker, behind much of the south east and many embassies i lost the landscape regeneration alliance that brings together community groups. can i invite my right honorable friend and the minister to this gem on our doorstep to see for themselves what it could and indeed should be? >> i'm very happy to put us for the coming months. we remember battle he fought back stitching me. i sat at the coastal command assigned with a dedicated mr. the government to help coastal communities and i will make sure officials meet with this new alliance and make sure they both got the coastal community team and what they can do to help. >> mr. speaker, for two years, they campaign against the development of a luxury breaker. they rejected the plans, but

then i can ever do is called in the decision overturned the wishes of the community with disrespect for local democracy. the prime minister of vocalist and finally admit only believes in the devolution across not the devolution of actual power in the community. [shouting] >> we have a long and system for local planning, but also being able to: session that operated all that time. if anything, our local planning system is putting more power in the hands of local people because once they've completed their local plan, it is much easier to say yes to developments within the plant had no to development outside it. i've tried to have a child

suffering from acute to help difficulties css. colleagues from across the chamber are all too familiar with such visits. i welcome the prime minister's recent commitment to reform mental health division for young people. i asked him to consider reviewing the provision of a mental state treatment and after he continues to be the champion for these vulnerable and brave children. >> i think my honorable friend for his question. he is read to children and young people's mental health is a priority for this government. we can all agree across this house this is not an area with adequate attention or adequate investment for many years. i would have a particularly the problems of psychosis, sometimes caused by drug use. i would also raise the huge problem of eating disorders where we see a rapid increase in the number of people suffering. we've gone a long way in increasing the number of talking

therapies. something like 740,000 more people are accessing therapy is when the government came to office. we recognize more to be done and we are investing 1.4 billion systemwide transformation across children and nonetheless in mental health. >> richard are close. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week, the apg crucial new evidence was uncovered. i am utterly convinced over 2000 constituents in half a billion people in the u.k. has scottish power. given this a scandal of huge proportions, with the prime minister agree to meet with me to discuss how we can ensure that these ordinary hard-working people receive cash backs promised? >> i'm glad the honorable gentleman has raised this because it's been raised on previous occasions by abbott, and another cross party group has sent some useful work. my understanding is that any alleged wrongdoing should be

fully investigated. they can impose fines if they find companies have reached license and i'm happy to arrange for a meeting between him and other members of the group with the relevant ministers in the department of energy climate change to get this fixed. does my right honorable friend agree with me that with a nato summit with that said of the national security threat, we are right and this is our 2% of gdp towards defense? are we shocked the failure the party opposite to do likewise? >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point, which we do face an insecure and unstable world with what putin has done in the ukraine, particularly what we see in syria. 2% spending on defense and making sure we review is the right answer.

they have got an answer. they are not going to spend 2%. they are not to renew submarines, but they come up with a really brilliant cancer. they are bringing back as their spokesman and spin doctor, damien arrived. this is the leader's opposition. we can win in 2020 but only for spend the next five years building a movement in putting forward the new politics. honest, kinder and more kerry and. six months old, and damon mcbride is back. [shouting] >> the colleagues are calling for more. there will be more.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. last week i visited palestine along with several honorable friend where we visited the home and family who lived in the old city of east jerusalem since 1953. however, settlers are now trying to force 60 years under our many other cases. does the prime minister agree with me that illegal settlements and construction are a roadblock that handle peaceful negotiations and what is this doing to help the injured palestinian bias and land? >> to question the general bull raises import. i am well-known as being

rendered is what i have to say the first time i visited and had a proper tour around that wonderful city and saw what is happening with the settlement of these servers on, it is genuinely shocking. but the government has consistently done saying we are supporters of israel, but we do not support illegal settlements. we do not support what is happening in east jerusalem and it's very important the capital city has maintained the way it was in the past. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of my constituents is fighting to defend drawback to the u.k. after being taken to the poland by the mother illegally at the hague treaty. for the prime minister outlined that interventions the government can make to du and polish authority with regard to the information. the object of children

>> my honorable friend is right to raise a case like this. sadly there are far too many in our country. the standard answer is the return decision and governments can't interfere in the processes of another justice system. we do have a cot at the ministry of justice. they been in comp didn't touch processing paperwork. they are chasing the counterparts in poland and i will make sure the foreign secretary is aware of this case and does everything he can to help her and help her constituents. >> oil and gas has 300 billion pounds treasury. the scotch government treats oil and gas are calling for reduction to support the industry in its hour of need. yet in that of the so-called rock shelters of the u.k., what

we see are the sloppy shoulders of the prime minister repeatedly dodging. will he commit the fact oil and gas industry? >> what i was say to the honorable gentleman is first of all the budget last year we reduce the burden of gas and oil and taxpayers something we were able to do because of the broad shoulders of the u.k. that is just determined what has happened since that time. oil and gas revenues are down 94%. if there were broad shoulders of the united kingdom government that this was it ignorantly fiscally independent goblins, there'd be a massive black hole in your budget. you would be cutting welfare. you would be cutting the name, putting up taxes to my facing a financial catastrophe. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker.

every week to women are killed in england and wales by current or former partners. the perpetrator is the problem. the question is not why doesn't she leave, but why doesn't she stop. the commissioner is piloting the program which aims to change behavior of offenders. in advance of its new strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, with the prime minister join me in congratulating and tackling domestic projects? >> my honorable friend is absolutely right to resist. the crime of domestic violence we've got better tackling but there's still so much more to do. katie boren who i know does an excellent job is a good example of the sort of thing crime commissioners with a higher profile and authorities can give israel the time. i would urge others to do exactly that. we need to make sure we are policing and is properly and change the culture.

police and crime commissioners can help lead the way. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister knows for a fresh start agreement in november to help legacy cases. while the prime minister considered a kind of hinted by the secretary of state to help the police service of northern ireland face increasing pressures and runtime policing and will he take the opportunity to reaffirm that there'll be no rebranding of the past in northern ireland to legitimize terrorism or to promote the pernicious narrative bikini equivalent security forces on terrorism? >> what i was dead is a fresh start agreement with the good agreement to an important part is dealing with legacy cases and make sure they were dealt with more quickly. to me it's always been about trying to heal the hurt that the legacy cases rather than trying to write narratives.

i look at what he says about resources because we need to make sure the policing of arthur nylund continues to be properly resourced because they still face a terrorist threat today. >> the united kingdom and they says the referendum published by the european commission for democracy through law. defends equality of opportunity must be guaranteed for supporters and opponents of the proposal being voted on and equality must be ensured in terms of public subsidies and other forms of backing. yesterday, jeremy hayward sent a letter around the department preventing ministers from having tax is two briefings and the prime minister check that the latter with the guidelines? >> i'm very happy with the letter sent out for this reason, that the government has a

position on this issue. the government's position is we will be better off in a reformed european union. ministers are able to depart from the position and campaign in a personal capacity. that is a very important statement. it is right in terms of how we go about it, but it does not mean the government is neutral. the government has a policy for which people can depart. for the funding of the referendum campaign, we now have clear laws in place and rules in place in the electoral commission to make sure both campaigns are funded properly. i think that is good for our [shouting] >> order. [inaudible conversations] >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tomorrow morning republican representative from ohio and democratic representative from delaware,

both co-chairs of the bipartisan working group. they which was to discuss efforts to bring unity back to congress. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. join the discussion. >> secretary of state john kerry is on capitol hill thursday to testify about his departments 2017 budget request. you can see his testimony before the house foreign affairs committee live 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> how can we best get people to pay attention to wasteful spending so we can define things that are interesting, different, easy to understand because the government is so large a north station has to cut through a lot of noise and a lot of the other things that are going on, north

of congress talking about the wonderful things they are doing and trying to get people to be more involved and make it more personal so they understand the impact on them and their families and their children and grandchildren. >> sunday night on q&a, thomas schatz, talked about his organization's efforts. citizens against government waste publishes a book which compiles the excision of the unauthorized government programs. >> we work with a bipartisan coalition of members of congre congress, and they came up with those with the definition of what was then called porkbarrel spending and really still is eventually became earmarks. we went through the appropriation bills and started the book. i believe the first year was about $3 billion with all the way up to $29 billion in 2006. every year that we can find your marks in the appropriation bills, we release the book

sometimes around april or may. >> sunday night at eight eastern on c-span's q&a. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell spoke out against president obama's plans to close the guantánamo bay detention center wednesday on the senate floor. here's a look. >> mr. president, president obama has let the american people to wait many years for a serious plan, one opposes no additional risk to our nation or our armed forces. for instance, in pursuit of his desire to close the security tension facility down at guantánamo bay. americans have been waiting for seven long years to find out what a serious plan might look like. they are still waiting today. what the president sent to congress isn't a plan. it's more of a research project

if anything. it does call on congress to act. it turns out we already have. congress has repeatedly over and over again voted to enact clear bipartisan prohibitions on the very thing the president is again calling for and that is the transfer of guantánamo bay terrorists into our local communities. we've enact a bipartisan prohibitions in congress with split party control. we've enact a bipartisan prohibitions in congress with massive overwhelming democratic majorities. just a couple of months ago members in both parties expressed themselves clearly one more time. not once but twice. end on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. president obama signed of these provisions into law as well. so let's not pretend that there's even the faintest of

pretenses for some pain and phone cam pic here. congress has acted to clearly, repeatedly and on a bipartisan basis. the president has a duty to follow the laws he himself signed. it shouldn't be that hard when you consider his admonition yesterday about upholding the highest standards of the rule of law. as americans he said without ourselves on being addicted to other nations, a model of the rule of law, the president said. that's interesting in light of recent gao ruling that the administration detainees swap of taliban prisoners were bowe bergdahl violated the law. it's a special interesting in light of the president's continuing refusal to rule out breaking the law if he doesn't get his way on guantánamo. president obama's own attorney general says he can't unilaterally do that. it's clear.

president obama's own defense secretary says he cannot unilaterally do that. president obama's own military officer says he can't unilaterally do that. in the words of one of our democratic colleagues, he's going have to comply with with the legal restrictions. simple as that. going to have to comply with the legal restrictions. breaking the law is the way this was what uphold the rule of law is just as absurd as it sounds. it's time the president on the ruled that option out categorically. and then you should finally move on from a years old campaign promise and focused on the real problem that needs solving today. i would hope the commander-in-chief will not put his own chain of command in a position of having to care and unlawful direct order. but look, closing guantánamo and transferring terrorists to the united states didn't make sense in 2008 and it makes even less sense today.

we are a nation at war. the ministrations efforts to contain isil thus far have not succeeded. the next president may very well want to pursue operations that t target, capture, detain and interrogate terrorists. because that's how terrorist networks are defeated. why would we take that option away from the next commander in chief now? let's be clear, the two options on the table are not keeping guantánamo open or closed it by keeping guantánamo terrorists at guantánamo or moving them to some guantánamo north based in the u.s. community. changing the detention centers of zip code is not a solution. it's not even serious. the fact that the present is the deadline president aplenty the isil last week was only because he was just too busy working on his ancient campaign promise is

just completely unacceptable. some of the most senior national security officials within president obama's own administration are already working to better position the next president of the national security challenges that we will face in 2017. it's time president obama finally joins them and us in the serious work of keeping americans safe in a dangerous world. >> next a discussion on the guantánamo bay detention center. national security council counterterrorism director daniel rosenthal who was in charge of closing the facility took part in this panel after leaving his post in january. this event took place before president obama's announcement. it's one hour 45 minutes. >> okay, we're going to get started.

so if you take your seats if you're not seated. i want to say before we begin just as a cautionary note that c-span is taking us tonight. so if you don't want to be in came a you might want to move over to the sides, and just keep that in mind keep that in my into q&a, although i will try to remember to remind you when that happens. as you know one tunnel is -- were delighted to be able to get another panel on guantánamo some of the more thoughtful people about the issue and many of them have been think about guantánamo since the day it opened in 2002. it's hard to imagine that when it did open that if you it's a in 2016 we were just another panel on this place to talk but maybe thinking about ending it, but that would've been a reality. when guantánamo is opened the with no idea of having it last more than six months or 18 months. the pentagon would've been

appalled by the idea. a number of things happened along the way which made the emptying of guantánamo, the closing of guantánamo nearly impossible. today what we want to find out is how impossible is it to close guantánamo and was opposed by the end of the obama presidency? if it does close by then, what will it take which we are joined by a superb panel which i'm delighted to have year and i will introduce them briefly. you have their bios. to my right is wells dixon is on the center for constitutional rights. the thing about the center for constitutional rights is you can't think about guantánamo without thinking about ccr. they were the first of the civil liberties organizations to understand the indefinite detention issue was a crucial importance. they followed this through with many other haiti is cases but it is central to the conversation -- kbs -- some of the historians

write about guantánamo. ccr will be at the center of it and much of wells work will be at the center the. to his right is daniel rosenthal. we are very lucky to have a new. his e-mail to me when about two men said will you come and be here, he said four hours ago i left my job at the white house. good timing. so among the things he did in his work with the national security council was to head up thinking about wonton will and how to get people out of guantánamo. we are eager to everything are not allowed to say that you were not allowed to say before you left. so think about that. prior to that he worked at the department of justice, in national security division and a number of federal jobs related to national security. he brings a good perspective and interagency perspective and a white house perspective. we know he has the answer. we are going to hold him to it.

to his right is tom wilner. no, was one of the very first people i ever talked about guantánamo. i believe it was 2003. i called them up and i said i heard you were working on guantánamo and i don't understand anything. will you meet with a? he did. i went to his office and he just opened up a whole world for me understand what it meant to function in the middle east, how he had come to about guantánamo which is different than have a civil liberties lawyer comes to guantánamo but had to do with what it meant to represent individuals on the middle east who then cared about what was happening out of guantánamo. his perspective he's been there from beginning to end is invaluable and i am completely thrilled to have him here. to my left is janet weidman. she's with a number of award-winning stores for "rolling stone" magazine. she's written two that are important to the study of terrorism and terrorism prosecutions domestically. one of them was on the boston

bombers. one of them was on isis that i think we did a panel on the isis one. before her recent piece came out this month is on guantánamo and i just can't wait to hear her sort of, she's the newcomer and has done a wonderful job of covering your bases and try and understand what's going on. and to her left is carol rosenberg. carol, it's hard to think anybody would want to a panel on guantánamo without having to go. i would advise against it. i once had a phone call with carol years ago when we did so remember the beginning of guantánamo. she said, you know, when i went to guantánamo for the first detainees coming off the plane, it suddenly dawned on me that this was the first time that i was in a place where they were

not going to be cameras. there was going to be nobody to tell the story. i was actually the camera. my words are going to be the camera. that always stuck with me as a sense of calm as a metaphor for the larger, her eyes have been the only set of eyes and that includes the military and include the detainees at that includes the entire apparatus. the only set of eyes that we have had at guantánamo from the very beginning. i don't know it will be to end but to this point to us think by the end of some realistically. i'm delighted to have this panel. we are going to start with will is going to talk a little bit about how we are going to close it. right speakers i'm going to be answer right now. first of all thank you. thank you for inviting me to join the panel. is guantánamo going to close eyed into the administration? the question everyone wants to

know the answer to, and my answer is i hope so and it depends. very much on the president. i think president obama has the power to close the prison. the moment is no. i think the moment has been every day since he got into office but it depends on what he does in the next year. he's always had legal authority to close the prison. that's a view that we've had throughout his administration. and yet what we have seen is a lack of willingness to use all of that authority and to use it in a bold and even aggressive way to close the prison. i can give you many, many examples going back to 2009. one of the earliest examples was when the president balked at bringing the uighurs to the united states. but these missed opportunities continue up until now.

i think ultimately the are two things that have to happen. two things the president has to do in order to close the prison. what is he needs to get his own house in order. he needs to get all of the agencies in his administration moving in the same direction to implement its mandate to close the prison. there's a dynamic that exists. i think everyone is aware of it if you follow this issue. the state department is trying to transfer people. you have the defense department which is up stopping at the link this at times. that needs to end and that needs to come from the president. the second thing that needs to happen is there needs to be some fundamental policy changes. as an outsider it seems like the administration continues to adhere to policies that adhere to policies and sentences never really make any sense. for example, the resumption of the military commission system. or adhering to policies that may be made since in 2342006, even

2009 potomac sense anymore. example of that is the continuing effort by the justice department to fight detainee legal challenges to their detention. just doesn't make sense in a lot of cases. but there's a dynamic that occurs still. i'll give you one example in terms of litigation. a colleague of mine at the center represents a yemeni man who is 74 pounds. he's been on hunger strike for eight years. there's a disagreement about his health status. he could die in guantánamo at any moment. he's been cleared over lease for many, many years. we filed a legal challenge to his detention, he needs to be transferred under the geneva convention. that sets in motion a machinery. what happens is that sort of by default or by policy the administration gears up to fight

that case. the justice department goes into litigation. they could fight that case. there needs to be someone to step in and say wait a second, why are we doing this? maybe this doesn't make sense of more. why do we want to fight to keep a person in guantánamo that we ourselves have said needs to be transferred? and by the way, is 74 pounds. from the outside what it looks like is that you have this fight within the interagency system and made it gets kicked up to the white house but ultimately i think gets kicked back onto the agency and so he still in guantánamo. that's not the way to close guantánamo. that is not an approach to guantánamo policy that's going to succeed in getting everyone out of prison. in cases like his are the easy cases. that are covered the state department is making great, great strides in transferring

the men who are clear. there's been a number of transferred this month including two today. they been doing a great job but those are the easy cases. to our sort of, there are other categories there are other categories that meant that% more difficult challenges, made and the indefinite category. we don't think it should be in one and indefinite detention but nonetheless of the at this moment. there's nothing really does being done to get those men out of guantánamo. there's a periodic review board process that tries to gym and whether these men can be cleared for transfer. that process is moving very, very slowly and is not going to be complete by the end of this year. it's not going to be complete by the end of the a bomb administration saw the has to change. vignette prosecutions. there are 10 people who have charges against them right now who have been already convicted,

and you see sort of a very similar scenario i think as an outsider from a policy perspective, you still have this preference for military commissions rather than article iii, federal court prosecutions. that seems to us to behold over from the failed effort to bring the nine 9/11 defendants here to new york several years ago. from that point there doesn't seem to have been any appetite to try to transfer men out of commissions or to federal court even to bring new charges in federal court. i'll second the president has the power in our view to do some of these things. in terms of federal court that are possible avenues to bring people to federal court if that's something that needs to happen. again it's just one specific

example. they are detainees who i suspect would plead guilty in federal court. people who are not uncharged, i don't represent them. i don't speak for them but i suspect that they may be willing to plead guilty to i don't know that it's ever asked. and if guantánamo is going to be closed you have to deal with cases like that, the more difficult cases, more difficult than the men who were transferred today. i just don't see any progress in that regard. we don't see any movement in that direction. we see continuing as i said military commissions. 14 a half years after 9/11. in fact, we are losing ground on military commissions. the charges that were brought in a number of these men including one of my clients are being struck down. you are losing ground here i don't shed a tear for those loss

of charges, believe me, but the point is the president is really not taking the necessary steps to do something about the situation. we saw at the very end of december the president's last press conference where he said we will continue to try to work with congress to try to change the law. in our view that's naïve if not out right delusional. you have potentially the worst congress, the president faces the worst congress right now that he is ever faced in terms of guantánamo policy. that can't be the strategy for closing guantánamo. there needs to be more aggressive -- >> the voice anymore, what power does he have? congress pass a law which says you cannot transfer detainees to the united states, right? what's the power that you think he has to be able to do that? >> well, i think there are all sorts of avenues that he can

pursue and explore. to our questions of statutory interpretation. if someone pleads guilty on this subject to these laws? to our scenarios that have been discussed in which the president could potentially make decisions about himself or go to court potentially to get rulings on the poster child of some of these issues. there are many avenues that can be explored from a legal perspective. i don't think any of those have been tried, and that's the point. you can miss one of% of the shots you don't take. if the president doesn't try -- 100% of the shots you don't take. he will not succeed in closing guantánamo. >> that puts the spotlight on you, dan. that was not a positive review.

constantly you can't write about the thought of the idea closing guantánamo without saying president obama promised on the second day in office that you going to close guantánamo within a year. we don't have to get into the reasons he wasn't able to do that, or decided not to prioritize that but the real question is, is wells right? is a just too much? as he dropped the ball? house the white house dropped the ball? have they picked up the ball and they'rrunning with it and we jut don't appreciate it? >> there's a lot there so first of all thanks for having me on this bill. thank you all of you for coming. very important issue and it's great people are focusing on it i guess what is at the outset that no longer work for the administration to reduce unwanted first of our own and they don't reflect the white

house views although they might be informed by my time there. i do have slightly more rosy picture i think ben wells does from my time at the white house, what i saw people at the white house, people of the department of defense, and at the other national security agencies that work on this department of homeland security, the justice department and intelligence community working very hard to try to close gitmo in the last year during my time there. we successfully transferred nearly 40 detainees which is a huge uptick in and out of transfers that have taken place. there's the welfare period of time. 10 were transferred last week. to were transferred today. there's an uptick in the amount of transfers. that's for the category people who were already cleared for release and had been cleared for release for a number of years. >> some of them come off the indefinite detention list spent there's the indefinite detention list backing up a little bit.

we call an eligible for transfer. i don't know i would call the indefinite detention list because the idea is to not be detained indefinitely. the rpg art -- periodic review boards that review the case that has been a public high success rate. when folks go through them i do know the exact percentage was something like 80% -- >> 85%. >> that's a great rate. we're taking people are currently ineligible for transfer, prb process is determining they can be safely transferred. moved over essential into the other bucket of people who are eligible for transfer and then dipping teed up for attention. that's going to whittle down the number of people who present the hardest case wells is talking about with what you do with these guys who remain too dangerous in the comments duty transfer but you want to continue to close the base?

let me also say in terms of the slow does or delay. wells said there is obstruction at dod. i don't know. i'm not inside of everyone who works at dod. the people with whom i've worked a regard to government the president's policy. in some ways i see this as a difficult problem working. to our checks and balances. the state department has its own perspective. the state department negotiate a diplomatic agreement with foreign governments and then because of that perspective they are incentivized work quickly and aggressively to try to finalize transfers. the department of defense doesn't have the same diplomatic pressure. they have statutory pressure. there's a statute that places the requirement to record on the secretary of defense and says he may not use funds, funding provision. you may not use funds appropriated by congress to transfer a detainee and until he concludes that they can be safely transferred.

rightly in my view, they take their time and their very careful to make sure every detainee present to them for transfer meets the statutory requirement. so that sort of high level things where things are. wells started talk about the overall plan for closing gitmo. i think it's so much of the things which is been talking up, transfer people you can transfer, whittle down the list the people who present a difficult case. as the administration has said ththat government has no look at facilities in the united states. the idea being to transfer those remaining detainees who can't be safely transferred into government's view to transfer to the united states while the continue to explore for them whether there any other options available. madmaybe it's an article iii prosecution. maybe there's another country they can go to under stricter conditions. >> speaking of article iii,

wells made reference to the military commissions going backwards instead of for worse. something i think has a lot of validity in terms of the erosion of charges that can be brought and the inability to get to the pretrial hearings let alone to actually mount a trial. in looking at years it seems like even for the 9/11 defendants, seems to be the most important event in the country to try in the case of 9/11. do you think that's a widely held view in washington that military commissions are going backwards? was wells right when he said there seems to be a belief in a military commissions just to say we had general martins here last you to talk about the military commissions. when you read what he said in his public statement, what you see is very much if you think that going to work someday someone. i'm curious what you think the

general sense, not just in washington but in the administration is about the viability going forward of the military commissions? >> i want to defer what the general said because he's in charge about securing a portion of this process. i think the military commissions are tough. it's an untested legal regime. the court is constantly faced with novel legal questions. that slows things down. my own using, i don't know a lot about the military commission but i just wonder if some of the delays are created by the detainees themselves and their lawyers who were filing all sorts the challenges. i love wells you but it's a tricky was that like it to my military commission i wonder if it can happen without success of

challenges. >> i think everyone is going to want to address that so we're going to come back to that. so before wells answers that let's go to tom who can give the first entity that but i think that's going to be much of what we talk about afterwards is, we haven't heard the term gitmo bar in the wild. it raises the term is the gitmo bar somewhat responsible? tom, you've been involved in both the theoretical legal part of this throughout the entire legal regime of this, but you also the sense of what's going on to go into work know what you might want to talk about with the detainees themselves. do you think it's going to close? >> i'm going to be like a politician i'm going to answer the question i'm going to answer. >> that's why we love you. >> first let me answer something

dan said. you've go got to remember, and t me get some facts. we have 91 people left at guantánamo, which is down significantly. of those, only 10 are in the military commission. only 10 of these people are into. we're talking about minority. three of those have been convicted or have pled. the others have been waiting because a doubt in my mind the lawyers are trying to come up with the works and that's when the reasons why the military commission, all the lawyers wanted military commissions rather than civilian dress because they knew they could mess it up forever. that's what you do is as a framework to let me talk about other things which are more important. let me say first of all, and, congratulations on the work you do. i think one of the great problems with the obama administration is the white house could not take charge until recently.

you've been there fo for a yeard in a year you did a lot of good things. you got a lot of people out. i think the white house before that sort of put it off to the state department or someone else. they didn't take charge centrally. i'm worried now that you but because you are clearly pushing this through. let me talk more about, the great problem of wonton with me has been now those people were charged with crimes for the people we hold without charge or trial. you can do that during hostilities to old people out of military conflict from returning to the conflict but all of these people have just been there for years. as i said, of the people there, of the 91, 10 are in military commissions. 34 have been cleared. most of them for years. but they haven't been let out. one of the reasons is a lot of them are yemenis and it's hard

to find them all. now defined in homes and that's great. i more concerned about this other category that we call indefinite detention or when the obama administration did its review. they put into term called too dangerous to release but not capable of prosecution. it's a false fact which has really dominated discussions, political discussions. that afghanization or characterization gives the impressions that these guys, that the government knows they are terribly dangerous killers but some legal technicality is preventing them from being released. it isn't true. it was a terrible characterization of thin. for the most part of these people are held almost because there are allegations against them by other detainees while they were in detention. there are all sorts of reasons people do that. in a lot of the cases these are people who got reward for doing

it or who made allegations under pressure. at most if you read the allegations, and jennifer is a who pointed this out to me years ago, a are on wikileaks. if you compare them against each other you see a lot of these allegations are absolutely, legal term which are used would be bullshit. they really are. the proof of the pudding on the and yet congress debates these things, since these people are dangerous killers. if we look at the facts they are not so. as dan was pointing out they have what they called the prb process to review them. the. the process when it reviews them in the overwhelming majority of the cases finding that these guys are not dangerous, that they can be released. there was a tremendous problem as wells said that the administration has not put the resources into do the prb process properly enough. how many are scheduled?

eight are scheduled? they will not finish before the end of issue. they will not finished under the current schedule for four or five years or 10 years. that's not enough. we should put more resources in and clear those. in the larger picture and until we do we will be holding a lot of innocent men. a lot of intelligence reports are just crazy. they are not credible and yet they are given a presumption of reliability and validity both by the court and the government. accountability. let me talk i in the overall picture and then i will shut up. guantánamo is terribly important to this country and i'm worried about the people i don't want them treated well and i want them home. but more than that i'm worried about what it means for the country. guantánamo was established to avoid the law. the whole purpose of guantánamo,

the bush administration considered the law an impediment that it had to avoid. it said if we put foreigners in a place that is technically outside our sovereign territory, we can avoid review by the course if you can deprive them rights. and, unfortunately, although we won the case, the right to habeas corpus and sing have a constitutional right, the d.c. circuit has said that they still don't have the right to due process. if the government can put them over their ill be on the reach of the constitution and on the way. that's a horrible thing or this country. a horrible loophole. i find it reprehensible. i'm not on what the people home. i want to lock corrected so that i can stand by its principles and be proud of them and try to avoid them. >> can ask you one question which is the categories were talking about, the indefinite detention, et cetera, they used

to be more categories. the use of a category of not the people that have been charged but the people they thought were going to be tried by military commissions. where did that category go? >> is that what happened, they got moved? >> i think it's how you slice it up and how you want to look at it. you want to look at the proximity of the detainee to release, which we are talking a close in guantánamo so seems like that's what we're trying to figure out, proximity to release. seems to me it's the best three buckets to talk about are ones that are in queue to be released. the detainees who are not yet in queue to be released but might someday get there. to me there's two buckets. you can think of other ways when a group of interagency government folks got together in 2009 and 2010 and figured out each taking and said, they also

considered other things. people we might be able to prosecute, for example, spent the are so people at guantánamo in may that indefinite detention category now or not yet released category who might be tried in some kind of course? >> as i understand, no. >> i think there are probably detainees who remain at guantánamo who back in 2009 have been identified for potential prosecution, and they are still there. i don't know whether they are in the now eligible for released category. may be dependent on big issued over because of the prb. ..

comes on the scene and somehow we thought it would be a good idea to write

about guantánamo. writing about terrorism prosecutions in the united states.states. and so she called a number of people to talk about it. so interesting, piecing this together by herself and being surprised by things that the rest of us have been talking about for years. my question to you, you went to guantánamo. if a you have the situation. what were were the things that surprised you? we are really just, you know -- >> first of all, one of our colleagues, freelances for us. the personus. the person who urged me to go to guantánamo three or four years ago. trying to get ahead of the say yes to this idea for years.

and they finally did the idea was how is the place still open. this terrible remnant of september 11. and what surprised me about it was how september 11 still exists. a place where is the september 11 mindset never dies. and i'm trying to think. it'sthink. it's kind of like a fake war zone. he sleep in tents. you sort of drive down, this dusty help answer this place that looks like a forwarda forward operating base for anyone who is ever covered award. guantánamo suburbia.

these are bases you know really everywhere. kind of built as little america. america. that is normal. that is some really is a military installations work. they all have fast food restaurants, you know, movie theaters. so that which is always portrayed in stories as so bizarre is actually not that bizarre. there are two pockets of the base that are very separate from one another. one is called camp justice or the military commissions happen in the other designated as the detention center zone. in my article. thanks for all. but you have these pockets.

in those places are -- and when i was covering iraq in 0405. it was like the war. he drive in their. high security. you live in these tents.tents. it is dusty. everyone is in camo. the entire mindset, should go back and say the military and the officials are part of the operation there, they live in the secure bunker like settings. verysettings. very secure. you don't venture out in the red zone. and gitmo your in high-security settings. badges that must wear when you're inside.

give a special badge. not supposed to where the money go to lunch. go to the gym where you can work out and then take a sauna. literally you can go and take a shower in this beautiful facility. but nicer. but younicer. that you as a reporter for human rights monitor my lawyer must stay in a tent where you have showers in the tent, the bathrooms. it is like this bizarre disconnect of modern american life set up for this infrastructure of 4000 4,000 or so naval officers, naval personnel and contractors. 2,000 or so military guys

who are just attached to these two -- the gitmo that we think of who live in this different world, and the reporter sue dylan cover this must live in that world. the 2nd thing that is surprising is that they found the people who cover, who are posted in terms of the detention and enable operation, national guard troops. i don't want to offend them. very ignorant, and this was a purposeful thing. there is no institutional memory. and the reason for that is because the people who have been posted there are on nine-month appointments.

some of them have deployed, number of them have, but in limited capacity. many of them have not. is the only time they will serve in any kind of active context from the real-life jobs which range from being prison guards to a taxi driver to being completely unemployed comeau one lovely public affairs officer, a great high school teacher. english teacher. to them this is there one shot at serving their country. they know absolutely nothing about the history of guantánamo at all. most of them are very young. one kid i was spending time with was taking me on a tour of the detention area

including camp x-ray which is the infamous place where the detainees were originally taken and they weren't there for very long. that is where they had the dog cages. and it's now really overgrown. he was taking me on a tour. you know, it's like the jungle. takingjungle. taking me toward these little interrogation sheds and i remember, covered other things, this was sort of like abu grave. in the history of guantánamo, to set the whole place of than when and took the set up an mindset and everything to abu grave. other us operations. you know, i made a joke to him. he looked to. he looked to me like he had no idea what i was talking

about. i said, do you know anything about this? he was like, well, our security training they told us to never take pictures. so he didn't really know what it was. a new kind of. he knew he knew he was not supposed to take pictures in any of prisoners,prisoners, don't torture them and don't take pictures. he did not know that the reason it was such an aberration, those practices started i guantánamo. very well documented. the torture report came out and you have all kinds of reports of abuses. years and years which everyone else on the panel is next line on. you know, but that ignorance, ha about that.

and after a day or two some of these kids that we were spending our time with basically were trying to learn from us. we were teaching them about their own american history which is something that, i'm really happy that i'm on this tour with you. ii get to learn the things that you're learning. you need to read the story. so the.of it is that this is an intentional thing. in my view you have troops on short deployments who have no idea of who they are guarding, they don't want to know, they don't -- there terrified ofthere terrified of the people they are guarding. they think their dangerous criminals. the.of guantánamo and the thing that is so un-american about it is they have never

been charged with anything for the most part. ten of them are actually in the military commission process. the rest of them have not been charged with a crime and certainly have not been convicted of a crime. what is terrific as a reporter is that this is a prison. you are reporting on a prison that the military is proud of and will tell you endlessly how awesome the facilities are and how this is modeled after such and such high facility security and the.is these people have never been charged.

their work there doesn't have a clue about this. does not ask a question about it. and seemingly does not think very deeply about it.it. super highly, highly disturbing. i think the last thing i would say is that all of that set up, and i have written a long article. trying to sum up this article, but it was a much longer article originally. but every aspect of one's visit is designed for somebody who is a newcomer. i just know the facts as i've covered the stuff for a long time and i'm an adult. but the placesplace is set

up for people who know nothing. they can promote the narrative that this is a transparent, safe, humane operation, that they are treating everybody well, not some horrible place. no one is being tortured, and you will you that over and over again. just doing a really professional good job. and so everything about it is set up for this message. when you do a tour of the detention facility your rush through it that leaves you barely any time task penetrating questions.

this is about however many prisoners there are. now 93. >> 9191. when i was there to where 107. i don't care to were hundred and seven. i don't care if there are 20. i still think personally and journalistically that it is worth reporting. i think that is an important story. it is un-american to continue to do that without some sense. so their entire purpose is to not show you those prisoners. and the most disturbing aspect is that tremendous suffering happened in this place. you get this by being there

that makes you uncomfortable and you don't quite know why. this banality about the way that everyone is naïvely unable to answer your question. setup is very banal clean antiseptic kind of environment. and yet there are people there who have been there for a long time to have no idea what it is they will ever go home, winner of milk put onthey will be put on trial. most of them will not be. and that is its own sort of purgatory. and that is its own sort of torture i actually think. the torture being cleared for release in 2,005 or 2,008 or nine and then not being released.

when you bring these points up there is no one in the military who will answer this question comeau will engage with you and you cannot see anyone who was detained except for maybe five or ten minutes, and it is part of the tour and you see them in this communal area. detainees who are compliant. they're the ones who are not causing trouble, not the high-value people, not chaos and cannot anyone who has been charged it was considered a high-value prisoners. and the experience of it is you look at them through this one-way glass.glass. it's like you're looking at animals in the zoo. i mean,, people would ask, even our own fact checkers.

it is kind of my laugh because it's such a ridiculous question. journalists cannot interview anyone. even though welcome he would love me to interview his clients. the clients themselves would be thrilled. a lot of them. but you can't. you know, the entire kind of experience of the place is forgetting. forget that we found the place that is an extralegal no man's land forforget that this place is necessarily legal. forget that most of them were rounded up not on the

battlefield, handed over many cases by fellow tribesmen, people who had a beef with their families, by lots of other forces. forget that, and forget that they have not been charged with anything and they exist in this kind of endless limbo. and on the idea that president obama wants to close guantánamo and we will carry on his policy whenever that happens and until then we will treat the detainees is fairly and humanely as possible. that is outrageous. so we have standing between us is carol who refuses to let us forget, which i don't know if that is a curse or blessing.

somebody has to be there to do it. but one of the things i'm glad you brought up on of the things that has been dealt with is the detainees themselves. astonished by the conversations that will mention the detainees but not really talk about who these people are. and then every now and then somebody will have a film about the and they will be introduced. and then returning to canada what he says overwhelming emotionally. i always disturbed by the fact that there is no human element. i know you have tons to say. but i just want to talk about, there was always

something new. change so much. that guidebook, so many additions. guantánamo has changed. but in addition. >> first of all, i just want to say what janetto what janet said no self-respecting reporter really wants to be a problem. and that really is the contract you make because they let you there. they can say is transparent. right from the start of the last personal out in the detention center. the tremendous problem. tremendous problem with the no longer allow reporters inside the detention center. it's not a comfortable thing

to feel like your at the zoo looking through one-way glass. in theglass. in the absence of being able to actually have reporters going in we really don't know what's going on. very big questions detainees but where in detention center that at this moment if you do the most dramatic crunch of what it costs it works out to 4.4 million. i don't necessarily agree but i understand. then we can talk about how they do that. i did myi did my own study and were not necessarily agree with everything.

supports nearly 2,000 staff if you take all the costs associated with that and you divided as of yesterday. somebody should double check my math. but that is the contract you make, and it is not comfortable. people have to push the meaningful answers to our questions and get to see meaningful things. and sometimes i like to talk about the story of karen going down there. i love the story. i tell the story. i was shocked. i was shocked. being led around on tour and

she said take me to my room and pick me up when it's time to give the plane. i can do that. i have to go and try every time. so that was one point i wanted to make. people. it appeals to the geek in me. who are the people that should be tried in what happened to them? this task force using intelligence that we now know to be terribly flawed categorized people in the different buckets, people who were referred for prosecution. left yesterday a detainee having gone through the parole board and is starting his new life in bosnia. it became clear as they work

their way until the parole board hearing that there was nothing that they could sustain the prosecuting four. they get have an entire panel on war crimes are war crimes or war crimes that were once thought to be war crimes and are no longer acceptable. to which i want to say i have been hearing since the 1st commission that defense attorneys are the reason why there is no way in the defense attorneys file motions that seemed to derail the process. what i know is that the defense attorneys motions that seem to derail the process went to the supreme court and concluded that the process at that moment was illegitimate, defense attorneys who have filed motions to challenge the

integrity of military commission have been reshaping military commission throughout. crimescrimes that were once considered crimes are no longer considered crimes. the reason is 36 people were chosen cannot be prosecuted considered possibly legitimate by the courts when i thought theyi thought they might take them are no longer available. what you have parole board working their way through people who were once thought to be possibly candidates for war crimes, no longer eligible visitas it does not fit into the paranormal what military commissions are. the detention buckets. very distinct from people who are forever prisoners.

it is not the forever prisoners. we don't feel good about letting you go. they are two very distinct categories. we know if you studied the discovery of those probably six people left among those original 36 couple of them went back to kuwait. released in different fashions and no, lots of them have not gone before the parole board, and the idea that it will be finished by the time obama leaves office, is true but frankly the parole board so everyone gets one in the 1st year and they get every six months review.

they have not in any way accomplished the meaning of the parole board. okay. and then the subject, is guantánamo going to close? when president obama ran, when he campaigned and said he wanted to close guantánamo it was fairly clear what he was saying was we are going to try people or let them go. read he believed that what bush and set up a somehow illegitimate. people are entitled to trials or release. what happened in the 1st year of the processes they realize that there was another category of prisoner

that did not meet those definitions. and those are the forever prisoners. people they don't want to try, can't try, no they can try but are afraid to let go. once you have that category and recall in the forever prisoners because they're prisoners of a war that does not have a mechanism to end, if you do not have someone to surrender on the other side and do endless war on terror how to use and don't prisoners of that war that you think a legitimate prisoners of the war? so when this administration says they want to close guantánamo what there really telling you is that they want to move guantánamo. they are not saying there will be no guantánamo. therethey are saying we're going to do guantánamo style detention in the united states. we call it guantánamo north. forever prisoners, the

detention centers, cop with his little expressions to try to explain complicated processes. guantánamo north means you can shut down that detention center zone, sent home on the national guard, and the present arrangement that is there that there will be people that they want to bring to the united states and now guantánamo style detention. i want to continue to have commissions. we know what the plan is. we have not seen all the bids, but they want to continue to have commission, continue to have forever prisoners. they want to continue. the only way that this can happen and barack obama is

if he persuades congress to let them do it for he decides that he has the authority to defy congress will pick them up and move them. those are the two choices. we heard on the panel some people believe he has that authority. they have not heard whether he believes he has that specific authority. he does believe that sat on and he believes the executive has the prerogative to do that. we have seen that in his statements, but that is how guantánamo, the detention center in cuba causes. there is some grand political deal that comes out of the plan that suddenly all of those members of congress and the

senate who love to demagogue the issue changes in mind. comes up with a way to move them without permission of congress when he goes to move is likely going to end up in the court. whether they trumped the congressional authority. >> it depends on how you define closed.

the detainees did come in a number of defense attorneys and civil libertarians made the bargain because they think there's a way in the legal system, can you talk about that? >> sure. i think with respect to whether detainees would be better off here in the united states versus remaining all i can say about that is they represent men who were detained. a detainee, certainly some who are of the view that being brought into the united states gives no better shop because they would have full constitutional right including due process rights in particular.

there are others who are not sure that would have any practical benefit and for some there's a more practical concern which is condition of consignment. there's a lot of talk to me here about the plan and bringing detainees to the united states for continued detention without charge or trial comeau with that a lot of talk about putting these men and super max prison. these are people who are not convicted of pride. members of the administration and congress. one of the concerns come on of the things that came up was not elected a couple

years ago was a plan put forward by senator graham which included as part of authority to bring detainees here a limitation on the rights particularly an attempt to roll back some of their habeas corpus rights. challenges to convictions of the fund. in order to sell transfers the administration will have to agree to put them in the solitary confinement something equivalent to that which would be completely unlawful and we would challenge that, but there would be an added peace to that. i'm confident we would prevail. checking about to a three-year legal process. totally unacceptable as far

as that concern. there are concern. there are some detainees who are absolutely willing to take that shot. i know tom has views on this, but. >> tom describes guantánamo is created be outside the law which very few of them i say it does of loans. do you think of bringing to the united states would in essence enable lawyers to find a way to bring this inside the law? >> i do, but i wanted to that correctly. let me go back. i think i will come to this, i don't think -- there is an assumption people make that

forever detainees are people whom we no should be held it is not that. the evidence on these people , the reason they can't be prosecuted is because there is no evidence that was stand up in a court of law. most are allegations against people which raise suspicions was they may have been associated with al qaeda. precisely the sort of non- evidence, everyone could have the suspicion on them. you can't hold people based on suspicion. is not that they know they are. i use the bs category. the allegations are so flimsy. >> the support that argument is in the numbers.

systematically peel the label. currently 25 november 2 of them died. processes that concluded that the category was no longer appropriate. they reevaluate them. posted by the fact that there are people put in that category. >> but the real contravention is holding people based on suspicion which is really innocuous to our entire system. i have long felt early on the obama administration there was a push to move all of guantánamo to a prison in

illinois and it was opposed by a lot of people. supported it because one of the guys involved in on top of the whole reason is to avoid the law. to create his own outside the law. >> the reason that they don't have constitutional rights is because they are outside sovereign territory. they have those rights. once a plan that continues to assert. congress doesn't have the right to violate the

constitution. based on suspicion, consistent. the reason we have not had that, it makes is totally dependent on the largess the important thing command i would like to reestablish, the fact that the dc circuit has said the people of guantánamo don't have due process rights is appalling and i would like to reverse it. >> i think the real issue is a security panel.

they might not like it, but they feel that we need a place outside the law comeau we need torture. i ask you, my feeling is always been that we don't and ultimately it hurts us. much better off and stronger by sticking to our principles. from a security standpoint those people in the country think we need a little torture. i like this place we can put muslims were there is no law. we got to address that issue i think it is the wrong issue. >> sorry.sorry. don't you think torture is kind of underlying everything? that was my conclusion. torture is why the prosecution is not able to really go forward.