words," former cia and nsa director michael hayden provides an inside look at national security. he is interviewed by james woolsey, former cia director in the clinton administration. >> general hayden, mike, first of all, very fine book. >> thanks. >> enjoyed it's lot. start right off with a couple of interesting chapters in the middle. one about pittsburgh, and your history of growing up there and the same neighborhood for many years, and in the other about your family, and what it's like to have a family in the midst of espionage, and i thought you might want to say just a word about those before we jump into things like metadata and the rest. >> well, first of all, thank you. i didn't have a chapter on me in the book. i kind of had the manuscript fairly mature, penguin, the

publisher, says what about you? so i went ahead and put one together, and as you suggest it put it near the end. it all began on a dark and stormy night or anything. it's tied to a speech i gave at duquesne university in 2007, after i was director of the cia. to the graduating class of duquesne, my alma mater. i used that to pivot off of my pittsburgh experience and how i brought that with me to cia. character liberal arts education. i mention in the book i was in america's air force before i was fa a classroom that didn't have crucifix in it. wonderful broad culturally based, historically based education, which stood me in great stead. values based from parochial school to catholic high school and duquesne university and my parents and then in pittsburgh, which you know as well as eye,

blue collar town, got a white collar economy now, still has a blue collar style of life and a blue collar culture. i quote an article byier anypile, the famous correspondent before he was something. he was traveling through the united states, visited pittsburgh, wrote an article which is pinned to a bulletin board at the incline just across from downtown pittsburgh and characterizes the city masterfully, 1939, 1940. this place just goes to work, and that's what brought me up. that is what brought me -- that's what i brought to the job at cia. >> strong books that built america. i want to leap to a subject that you deal with more than once and which has dominated many aspects of our debate on intelligence in recent years here in the u.s., and that's metadata.

it used to be the case back when people just wrote letters and long hand and put stamps on them, that there was something called the mail watch, which would let the government tell the post office, if you see anything coming to woolsey or coming from woolsey, we want to keep track of the address and the return address and the post script and the date, and that's it. and they can do that. then if -- presumably if they saw woolsey getting a lot of mail from a well-known mafia figure they would take further steps. it strikes me that both on stella wind, which you deal with early in the book, something you dealt with right at the beginning of your time at nsa and with respect to snowden, there have been a lot of

misunderstandings of people thinking that when you were keeping track of -- or the government was keepening track of the outside of the envelope, whether it's a letter or e-mail, that they're also reading the message, and people got very scared and worried about that. could you help clear up what is going on. >> guest: yeah. there's so much to be said about that. and, jim, you're right. the public got stampeded into what i call the darkest corner of the room after that story came out. a lot of that on howell, some of the press to be fair covered it. frankly, we should embrace a little bit of that responsibility ourselves in ic. we could have been more forthcoming free snowden and should have been far more agile post snowden, telling or story and explaining what we were doing. but to look at the essential elements as you describe, metadata is literally the outside of the envelope of electronic communication, and as you said, american law

enforcement traditionally has been able to look at the outside of the envelope. the supreme court decided that the fact of your phone call, who you called, when, for how long, also was essentially the outside of the envelope, and very fundamental case in 1979, smith versus maryland, the court held 5-3 that just like the outside of the envelope, telephonic metadata had no expectation of privacy, and therefore was not constitutionally protected. so, when we gathered all of that data in after 9/11, under the stella win program to be fair, jim, congress then limited access to metadata in the fisa act, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, but it was not constitutionally limited. it was limited by statute. and after 9/11, the president, using his article 2 commander in

chief authority, decided that to the degree the fisa statute stopped the commander in chief from doing that, the fisa statute had to be unconstitutional because it was limiting his inherit i errant article 2 authority. by the way, that has stood up in court, on two occasions. fisa appellate court said we take at a given the president hat the constitutional authority. so, we gathered the data. now, we could -- i think constitutionally, have done a lot with it, but out of respect for a american privacy, we didn't. we gathered the data. we put it into for want of a better term a lock box where it was just lying there fallow, and we didn't try to create relationships. we didn't run algorithms against it or anything. which frankly is common practice in business. all we did, jim, was when we got knowledge of what we called a dirty number, we were -- some can in a safe house in yemen, never seen this phone before,

this phone is really worrisome, i wonder if that phone has ever called the united states, i'm being a little cartoonish here. we get to go to the transesome and say, hey, anybody here talk to this phone in yemen? and we're in new york. raises its hand and say, well, once a week. the wi then get to say, who did you talk to? and jim i have now completed my explanation of the metadata program under stellar wind. that's all we did. there's kind of a nervousness out there among maybe far right, far left and the political spectrum. i don't care whether you pujols it or not. hayden ex-just don't want the government having the ability to abuse it. >> host: well no good deed goetz unpunished and had you pushed your authorities to their ultimate legal possibility, might have gotten less of an angry reaction.

>> guest: maybe. >> host: i don't know. >> guest: to give you an an neck dote. i'm on a panel in in aspen. keith alexander is with me, and eric smidt from google is there. he says you have to understand how powerful metadata is, and keith and i go, that's true, eric, but we don't do that. all we get to do is say, did now of those numbers call that one? >> host: nobody believed me when i said that google and amazon particularly together, along with the -- other companies like this that manage data know a lot more about you and what you buy and what sites you sift and so forth than the u.s. government does. >> guest: jim, then the public discussion got even worse. a lot of folks who should know better, who would say, consistently, even after someone may have tried to explain this to them. would say consistently, and

then, and then, if they really get interested in who called that number they can click on the number and get the contents of the call, and my explanation is that's not only a violation of the laws of the united states, that's a violation of the laws of physics. you can't do that. it's not physically possible. >> host: let me turn you to another simple easy going subject, waterboarding. i have been in many discussions about this, and i'm curious as to your views and you make them largely clear but not precisely clear in the book. are navy seals and our special forces, many of them, perhaps most, waterboardded as part of their training? >> guest: they are. as are a whole bunch of american airmen. when i dime cia, my deputy was a former navally seal and had been water boarded. >> host: there's that and also the case that some journalists and authors back during the peak

into in this a couple yearsing, had themselves waterboardded so they could write better articles for magazines some so forth. now, the test for torture is not simple and clear. but i don't know any other things called torture by anybody such as, say, putting bamboo chutes under one's finger nails dumb by judgists so see what it's like or done as part of our navy seal training. there's got to be something a bit different about water boarding which might put it in the same category as for some purposes that you put, i think, sleep deprivation into, which is in some difficult circumstances, if the potential payoff in saving lives could be substantial, you could limit someone's ability to sleep if they were a terrorist suspect,

prisoner, whatever. you think of the waterboarding in the same way or not? i do in a sent let me caveat that before i get into the specifics. you're right, i treat this in some depth in the book. not because i want to self-justify, frankly, all the waterboarding was done years before i got to the agency, but to try too create an historical record. die that to the best of my ability in the book, and you're right. i do make the distinction that there some things that everybody agrees are always wrong. and you can't do under any circumstances. then you got some things over here that no one has any guess about, and then you have this body of steps in the middle that -- and to be perfectly candid, waterboarding is way eve here. it's on the edge. and so what i say -- and i repeat in the book -- is that to judge whether or not waterboarding is ethical, moral,

legal, appropriate, you need to understand the totality of circumstances in which you find yourself. and each once you digested the totality of circumstances honest men can differ. so i didn't use waterboarding. i was part of the administration when we took waterboarding off the table. but that's because i had different circumstances than georgetown ten e tenet had. i had more penetrations with al qaeda and better knowledge of their threat profile and had more legal restrictses. congress had actually taken some steps, and so i removed it become but that was no judgment on what had gone on before. and when people ask me, would you have done it? my answer is, in this is from the heart, my answer is, i thank god i never had to make that decision, and for those who are quick to criticize, they may want to thank god, too, that someone else stepped up and made that tough call.

>> host: which is kind of what some aspects of intelligence are about, making decisions that nobody else well make. >> guest: in an infinite gray area as you know. >> host: absolutely. let me ask you about khalid khad shake sheikh mohammad. there was a dispute ongoing, i speaks, whether or not he being the only person who was waterboardded a substantial number of times, once or twice, whether or not the waterboard offering him produced information from him that did in fact help lead us to osama bin n laden's courier or to a phone. what's your view on that. >> guest: really nice to have this golden thread and say, ding, ding, ding, that's so obvious. but you have been in the same office i worked in, jim. never works that way. there are threads but they're hundreds, if not thousands of threads and some are good, in a fabric that get you to where you

want to be. so, to just hit a couple of data points, it wasn't waterboarding that made him talk. i was sleep deprivation. we did use waterboarding but at the end of the day it was one of the other techniques. now, having said that, there is a difference in how sheikh mohammad before and after the enhanced interrogation techniques. this was totally defiant. this was a zone of more cooperation. didn't turn into a boy scout or a patriotic democrat but he was more cooperative over here, and in fact gave us large volumes of information, including information that helped us on the courier. can i do this begood at that? doesn't work that way. but let me give you the way i explain it in the book and from the bottom of my heart. i cannot imagine any operation like what happened at abada bad

taking place that did not rely on that shopper's through the warehouse of information we got from those 100 plus detainees. it was like the encyclopedia al qaeda, and now with the ease of once you find them, which you point out is very hard, but once you find the terrorists, to be able to kill them with, say, a hellfire missile or from drone, along the afghan-pakistani border, that is something that is still do-able technology include for us now in -- technologically for us now that it hasn't been ever before, and as a result we have killed a lot of people that if we captured them, we might get a good deal of information from them but we

can't get information from them if we can't sometimes use enhanceed interrogation methods or something that is not over the border but on the tough side of the spectrum that you describe. i've characterized this in the past as treating terrorists like trout in certain streams, catch and release. you catch them and localed for a while, don't do anything, can't get any information, and release them. it seems an odd use of time. >> guest: but we haven't done quite the catch and release, but i will offer you this. we have made it so legally difficult and politically dangerous to capture and hold someone that we seem like we just default too the kill option. now, john -- jim, if we lad our successor, john in here, he would deny -- no, no, no, we're

still in the capturing business. i we have chance and so on. and john's probably speaking his heart, too. but if you just look at the numbers, since january of 2009, i've probably got more fingers up here than we have people that we have captured and held for american interrogation. >> host: do you think that's in part because we're pretending the rules of criminal law and criminal justice apply to what we're supposed to do with respect to terrorists or ignoring the fact that we're at war with terrorist movements? >> guest: it's one of the themes i really tried to emphasize because in the public debate, you've got this default option, that if you're not treating them as you would in the criminal justice system, then you're acting in a lawless way, and what i try to point out, no, no stop, stop, stop. we have multiple legal structures under which we can operate gigi a good point.

>> guest: the criminal justice system its useful and don't give that up but you have the laws of armed conflict and you have had two presidents and the congress say we're at war with these people, and therefore if we choose, if that gives us more potency, we can operate in any particular operation under the laws of armed conflict, not under the laws of criminal justice. >> host: one more easily characterized and simple term, weapons of mass destruction. i'm particularly curious about why we got into the habit of talking about wmd, or weapons of mass destruction, instead of talking about each weapon independently, because one produces biological weapons in a very different way. you turn them into powder, you can have huge volumes that will, once they're liquid, in

bodiered -- powdered form in the back seat of a volkswagen. chemical wins made differently than nuclear weapons and people get confused in talking about wmd, but they have -- the government has never tried to make it clear. why? >> guest: you know, one of the underlying themes i really try to address is despite your explanation and mine, please leave us alone, we're the secret security service, we're working out for your welfare. that doesn't work and doesn't work in today's society where that's such a high demand for transparency. so if our successors continue to do what we did, it's the cost of doing business is more transparency. your question, jim, that's just not tending too the change in political culture. there may actually be real benefit to that because you're actually telling the american people precisely why you're concerned about, and you're exactly right.

let me parse out how we looked at wmd with regard to terrorism. we always said, chem, bio, nuclear disbursal, nuclear destination, i've given them to you in the order of prompt. we just kind of, wmd. we parsed it much more tightly inside the business, and the american people pretty smart. they could get that explanation. >> host: one thing you put in the book that -- first time i've seen it and it's work like this, is very important, which is that if one is enriching uranium up to a level of 20%, which is what you need for some medical uses, you have done about 90% of the work necessary to get it to weapons grade. >> guest: right it's a geometric

-- >> host: it's not a straight curve. there's a lot of misunderstanding about that. people being relatively relaxed about iran having, let's say, some 20% enriched one time or another during the debate about all this going back over years. but that's another subject that has never really been clearly explained effectively to the public and journalists, or if it has been, people don't pick it up. >> guest: i tried to bear my soul about the iranian question. i'm uncomfortable with the joint comprehensive plan of action that the nuclear deal, but i end the chapter saying something along the lines of, i don't think we would have bought this deal. -- it's not like we had a better idea, either. so this has been a problem that's been bedeviling us. >> host: better idea might be to keep the sanctions -- >> guest: as i understand but i'm trying to suggest that this

is a very, very difficult -- >> host: it is. >> guest: -- for us to deal with. >> host: one last -- >> on their aright mat tick progression thing -- arithematickic progression thing, one reason i'm uncomfortable with the iranian nuclear deal, if it works, if it does everything we want it to do and no one cheats, will they cincinnati of course they cheat. but will they cheat in a way that matters? maybe not. because, jim, if they just wait ten years, they will be an industrial strength nuclear power, never more than a few weeks away from enough fissile material for a weapon. >> host: tee point. let me ask a set of questions that people always ask me, and i imagine they ask you, which are your favorite spy novels, spy movies-whether or not any of the

movies really have anything to do with reality, and if there is anything that has to do with create i'll offer an example. it's often hard to find but there's a film several years ago, german film called the lives of others. about germany in 1980s before the war -- >> guest: electronic surveillance, see that movie. >> host: as far as i'm concerned it's as good as movies get about really what happens in intelligence, this thing from battle scenes and so forth. >> guest: one of the reasons i wrote was to actually kind of pull the veil back, and let people see into the nature of their own security services. i mention there something about -- been around the world can talking to cia officers,

never met jack bower. er in even met jack ryan. okay? >> host: even ryan. >> guest: yes. so, although there's truth in fiction, as you know, and we have talked about this, forms of art, but i wanted to show a little reality in terms of here. now, taking that and now moving into the realm of fiction, two or three examples come to mind. the best written piece on cia i think is actually the first article, "agents of innocence." it was actually reviewed on the cia web site, which is very unusual, and i still remember one of the lines. agents of innocence is a novel but it's not fiction. >> host: right. it was really -- >> guest: based on robert ames. >> guest: and no relationship to the other. >> host: but bob ames was a

remarkable officer and station chief, and david, i think, knew him slightly but knew people whoa knew him. when he was killed when the embassy was blown up, this is not exactly a biology grieve but it's close and it really does -- i complete aagree with you -- it really does give you a feel for what it's like to be an officer. >> guest: i teach at george mayson and i want to talk about covert action. i sign the book and we just talk about what is in the book. that's prose. in a more visual medium i'll bring up two, one is "homeland." and it is my short summary -- everything in the fresh foreground is wrong. but the background, the background is right. obsession, focus, mission,. >> host: do distinction. >> guest: it rings true. and then then "zero dark thirty" the raid.

and my line there is there are many things in there that are artistic include correct but are not factually correct. and i actually touch upon this in the book. i say, look, they say, for example, that there's a straight line in the movie between enhanced interrogation and getting to abada bad. in the movie it's like this in real life they were connected. but it wasn't like this. it's like this. the first 20 minutes of the movie are alleged cia interrogations. infinitely over the top. that said, jim, we weren't very nice to a couple dozen people, and so artistically correct, not factually accurate. then you have the heroine. it -- was a team effort. i will tell you that the team that got bin laden was a band of

sisters. they were comprised of women who had been working on to that problem before chasing bin laden was cool for the rest of the agency,. >> host: and on the interrogations, at least in terms of literature, my favorites are smiley's and la kcarre. as we know and a lot of people know, too, the cia grew out of a military organization, the oss, and as a result of that heritage it is the full-time employees of the cia who operate particularly overseas, of calls officers, not agents. >> guest: officers. >> host: cia officers recruit agents inside al qaeda. fbi agents recruit informants inside al qaeda. >> guest: that is -- >> host: why can't hollywood, some people get this right?

>> guest: it's actually insider code that i use personally. when someone -- if that it get it wrong, all right, you don't know what you're talking about. it's a great tip-off. >> host: i lad a guy come to me and claim to be a cia officer and he did that wrong, and i didn't give him too much time. and what about the issue of whether what we do in the intelligence business can be characterized by something very different than what one might say officers in the military and particularly special forces, they're trained to kill but they don't lose track of their reality and go killing their comrades and colleagues. it virtually never happens.

whereas in the intelligence business, in way, officers, overseas officers, clandestine service officers, are taught to lie, cheat and steal for their country. lie about who they are, cheat and steal in offer to collect information, recruit spies inside organizations and so forth. i've had difficulty getting people depart from political correctness and to admit that as what we really do oar what officers in the intelligence service really do. the clandestine service is lie, cheat and steal for their country and that's one reason why when those things get distorted from time to time, because almost number up in -- f us have ever killed anybody having been taught to be special forces but some of us know what it might be like to fib once in

a while. so if we know that, that's why spy novels are so intriguing because they're often about the misapplication of those skills to doing something you're not supposed to do as distinct from doing -- using them in espionage. >> guest: right in the middle of the book, i actually take this issue on, head on. and i begin it with a quote from a dylan song from the '60s. side three of his double album "blonde on blonde" and the line is: when your operating outside the law you have to be honest. and i say cia dunce operate outside the law, at least american law, and then guy on. so, jim, i mean this from the heart. ...

>> >> again i stress we're

always operating on the edge we don't have any of those burdens. but we can stand dishonesty if an officer is not candid and police officers is a demanding profession. >> let me turn to iran. usage 8% at one point. >> college focuses on iran? and i said 80 percent mr. president-elect. >> host: there is that isn't the formulation of the

three things that you focus on with counterterrorism. >> people used to ask me what is your priorities? i respond with washington alphabet soup. counterterrorism. counter preparation. rest of the world. this is not a happy description. there is a lot of stuff in the rest of the world that become distant third to use terrorism and proliferation. but the third global war. >> host: iran has distinguished itself as the number one terrorist sponsoring group in the world. and as i understand it from

their point of view, i think it is important for people to understand quite happened with the issue with iran was or was not in the process of reacting to iraq gore was that trying to build up the selfie in such a way to dominate that part of the world? couldn't clearly worried as a part of the iran-iraq war in one report suggests that the interrogation as an fbi agent indicated that he in

fact, no longer had a part of time and did everything he could to convince the world he did have them to deter the iranians in that had reverberations. >> there is so much to look at. iran was the second most discussed topic. terrorism and other stuff but technically to be number three. and president bush would ask me. , jubilate thought and how much is enriched? the other question is how

many make decisions? to because this is an incredibly opaque society. and i tell the story that president bush was a little impatient. i had a good relationship with him for i think he had some regard for me and i had some affection for him the showed anger a couple of times and said look. i get it. north korea is the closest but for god's sakes we have tens of thousands of americans flying back and forth between the there every summer. how come we don't know more? is a tough nut to crack with its security i don't think very many understand because of the different power centers. >> host: turning to the new york police department.

you had a fascinating and effective relationship with them and for most americans you tend to think of the cia and yes they have offices in the united states were into combat. -- compaq that is not over it is compensated. but it is everything overseas but domestic fbi crime deal with it. how did the cia get together with the new york police department and why? >> guest: this is part of the legal ambiguity that

permeates the book. four o over a century to put stuff in separate boxes. and intelligence over here and law-enforcement over here in the attacks of 9/11 when a write-down the foreign and domestic. so i tell the tale of moral responsibility we have to close at seen. so congress legislates the fbi to be the intelligence service. we think of new york as a special case. this is a truly international city.

one-third was not born in the united states. >> even in the 19th century. >> it is twice as large as the next largest police force in america even larger in chicago that is larger than los angeles. mayor bloomberg ray kelly had a very aggressive intelligence program that we thought it was within our responsibility to try to respond -- support. so we had a tight liaison relationship. , we did some things that were controversial like the mosque crawling and other things and i would recommend what n.y.p.d. did but we

work very hard to have a special relationship with the n.y.p.d.. there were 17 known plots against new york the time he was there. >> host: we owe a lot to people like dave during those times. i want to ask you about a couple of cases of protecting your people. we have run into this but several members of congress and the senate were particularly upset because no one was fired into didn't matter how many times i explained to the people that would have been fired were all retired in you cannot

fire someone who already is and hired. i could not get that message across. you had to deal with issues that arose before he became director linda beginnings that did not manifest to i was intrigued as the woman that identified about what happened and i think it is an interesting situation. >> i thought that was an easy decision but it appears to be controversial because it's just a moral dilemma

the or the moral pressures in the macedonians' picked up some one we did our check ended analysts looked added to the best effort to build up -- ability said it was a summer me to talk to. the agency to realize these are not the drones you're looking for attacks several months in that part of the story bears looking. inspector general to make

that decision will with that accountability board absolutely not. i said director you are responsible for the overall health of the agency. of of our be teaching a realistic and this agency to be any false positive to come back from the analytical judgment and bad

things could happen with the door happen to me. landon conscience out could possibly do that? and the best analysts i have never had. it was easy but there was an urban legend. it permeates the book. so you walk into the concourse and go up the stairs and h. w. bush was one of the predecessors looked left and saw lady liberty. we worked in the very narrow

space that no one else is allowed to. we work to space come in and i was doing everything downtown to talk about global situations this was going on in the world. on the skill of zero and 10 how would you rate the cia? the first thing to keep in mind is rigo due 89 or 10 if you get there they're asking the department of commerce the question. not us. [laughter] and then letting people see what actually happens inside their security services. and real people extraordinary has to do

extraordinary things. >> host: very good. mclellan to ask you who you worked with really stands out as somebody who would go the extra mile. mine is charlie wilson. from the house appropriations committee when never would have gotten that without charlie. he would move money around not breaking laws but not with the appropriations subcommittee and there was a lot of flexibility is the combination of the directors flexibility together was a real flexibility that he had that made it possible. i would sit there in with $500,000 from one account to three others. [laughter] because it wasn't money but

we had to do right. he was terrific. what are some of yours? >> i hadn't thought about it but briefly but like self-serving to the administration but the national security adviser like to have a straightforward conversation. i would call up and say i have a decision to make so i would make the decision but i want you to know that and i don't know if i was even inviting him to adjust a warning may have to pull me out. [laughter] he was forever stable.

i got invited to "meet the press". summer clearance field comes in with the red switch but i have been invited to be on meet the press. he said good. good luck. no political guidance or nothing. he had the confidence in the agency that allowed us to stabilize. i was selected to be director in the process that i laid out here. to establish a talk to you.

so i walked out to my other office and they said find steve. with a bit of an unhappy incident at the agency and they tracked him down in london and i said it is mike. would you ever consider to be a deputy director of the cia? he said that depends on the director. fisa i am not at liberty to discuss that but i am making this call. [laughter] he said i would get back to then two hours later he said okay.

if it is you that i'm happy to come back. we had a wonderful relationship. the 5:00 meeting we're making decisions. i was director but as a friend. that we were in the room after particular energy decision of liberty and ellis left their room and steve was there i am looking at him he looks at me and says he thinks he's to boys and never make these kinds of decisions? [laughter] >> we were at the same offer for a time and we tried cases together and

negotiated settlements occasionally and guess who got to be the good cop? [laughter] he is a wonderful good copper co. >> you had something happen when you first went to the agency. >> when i first went to nsa. >> it was obviously a bracing experience in was looming in your mind what concerns about the future of electronic infrastructure do you think are salient and what do we need to do?

>> coming first chronologically? it is the first chapter of the book because it was such a powerful experience for me. in this instructor of venice say i get a phone call monday night and the system is down. what you mean? lot part? all of it. we were unable to move data we could collect it is so we could not move for processor analyze. we were down more than 72 hours which means america was not collecting one single piece of intelligence and that is a big deal. that is your storage line for evens coming at you. it taught me several things.

we better get in gear to modernize the itc stem. the other that i space inherited a national treasure. first do no harm in there is no course of action i could set out to that would be more dangerous than standing still. so with that technological lesson was psychic. moved out. actually do know how we solve it? we outsourced we gave it to a private contractor in use american industry not constrained by the pattern of america's budget and to refresh and get a summer

close to the 21st century. >> very interesting was concerned of the vulnerability of the electric grid generally to cyberor electromagnetic pulse short ranges and detonated a nuclear weapons. there are a number of things that could take down the operation of our electronics and power grid isn't could hit most dramatically. >> guest: i recommend to be roughly chronological i get done and there is nothing in here with cyber. true story. i have a little snippet here or there but no aggregation

of the cyberdomain. i sat in started to write and it dashed out of me in terms of the importance of what you are describing it how much it has fundamentally changed the american life the way we fight wars, collect or protect intelligence it actually when i was done, i stepped back and centcom this is a pretty detailed history of an evolution from the outside book slow but for those of us in government to get to that tailored access operations and the national prep operation center we built a structure in the u.s. government to conduct operations in about a decade that is the speed of light for government i really

tried to lay that out. when i talk about moral dilemmas inside that. and will think it is quite accurate and we are more public about it so we do get the accusation i fall back that the cyberdomain is a dummy like land and air and space. actually a lot of the navy is essential to keep the common, a common. but it is very controversial i take that on head on the last one of the chapters along millions of here we are.

now we have to live with the consequences. >> take justin and it and expand on your fast -- fascinating characterization of the culture. [laughter] like fighter pilots in the analyst from the faculty in in universities and people who make things that operate with the science and technology people. is. [inaudible] shan family life and bureaucracy. in all different aspects

that if you drive down in the sink cia is singular it is never singular. [laughter] it is collective most days it is plural you of a fundamental director it is post writing the book but our successor is there john brennan is trying to cut through. >> is a subject for another day. [laughter] but with those cultures you have to learn. >> and i love your final'' in one of the chapters and i will close with that with an eye sky as to how you operate with a senior position the you are the only superpower in the room

don't act like it. >> that's right. >> thanks a lot. . .

if you start in the beginning after 9/11, the lawyers pretty much laid out the foundation for a program of interrogation and the first thing that happened is really the poshest from vice president dick cheney to get rid of the geneva conventions which are the rules that uphold the standards for how to treat the presidential.