when one annual review process or some collaborative effort that would work on an annual basis to make sure the debate -- the detainee as a pathway for word. >> the exact parameters with which we would work with congress is to be determined. due process has to be a part of this component. >> i cannot agree with you more. it has to be robust and transparent. it would be a collaborative effort. i think you are on the right track now. i know -- have you been to afghanistan? >> is not yet. >> i would encourage you to go. there is a group that is -- are forming fighters that will never go into the afghan legal system for many reasons. some of them have been there for several years. we need to evaluate that

population and see if we can bring them back to this new system, what ever it is. i would urge you to do that and to get some of your people to look at the population. i think some of them will have to be brought back here in our system and we are likely to capture more during the upcoming time. i appreciate your willingness to appeal the second circuit decision. the president has said he will do what is necessary to prevent these photos from seeing the light of day. we are trying to see if we have a legislative office to prevent things from being released. we want to achieve that goal. can you tell me the game plan of the a ministration if necessary, the time limits of an effective order. if the court rules against it, i

think one order would stand. when with the executive order do with the issue? >> we hope it will be successful in the course. if not we will consider the actions we have. we think the league of those voters would have a negative impact of our soldiers in the battlefield. we want to withhold the believes of them. if we were not successful, we will have to consider our other options. >> can i ask one follow-up question? my concern is the time limits of these orders. we are a nation of laws. if the supreme court denies the

decision then the second circuit order to release stands. what would you do in that case? if you lose in court or the supreme court refuses to hear the case, would not the order to release the photos be imminent, go forward, and how will the executive order stop it then? >> i would have to look at the second circuit ordered to see what flexibility there is there and what options we would have. the concern that the president expressed and i agree with remain. we do not think the release of these photos would be a good thing for our troops. we would want to work with congress to consider our own options to ensure these photos are not released. >> thank you. >> i would like to clear up

something between you and senator coburn on the email surveillance concerns that are written up on the front page of "the new york times". i would like to speak to the chairman of the intelligence committee. we saw the article. the intelligence committee held a hearing. we ask questions. we were assured it was not correct. i have spent time with general alexander. i do not believe that any content is reviewed in this program. we will hold another hearing and will go into it again. i am surprised by this article because there are good journalists who have written it. everything i know indicates the

thrust of the story that there are flagrant actions to collect contents of this collection is not true to the best of my knowledge. we will look more deeply into it. i will be very pleased to let you know what we find. >> once you have, if you could let us know about that issue. >> we would be happy to do this. we are well aware of the concerns about it. we will continue with this. i think you are a refreshing breath of fresh air in the apartment. welcome. i ask the attorney general to release the two dozen one opinion.

that opinion concluded that the fourth amendment did not apply to the military operations on u.s. soil. the opinion was released together with a memo which instructed attorneys that caution should be exercised before relying on the opinion. what i was like to note is as this opinion ever been withdrawn in its entirety. fa>> i will have to check on that and give back to you on that. i do not have in my memory what the impact of the president's redraw -- withdraw. >> this is a big opinion on the fourth amendment with respect to american citizens in american

military. i think it is important to clarify. can you bring us up-to-date on what you are doing to review the alcee opinions -- olc opinions and what actions have been taken? >> we released the opinions some weeks ago. the review that led to that release continues. we made the determination that things can be released in a system of our national security concerns. we will make further releases. one of the things that has been helpful is it will be great to have one person confirmed as the head of the olc. that is a critical part of getting that review under way.

the people there now are doing the best they can. we will continue to process the release of those other opinions. >> recently and had a meeting in the san diego area. it was a meeting of the top officials of all of the departments. i learned something quite surprising. i like to say what it is. i would ask you to take a good look. virtually all of the narcotics trafficking in this country, the people who control those trucks, the kits that are ordered are essentially controlled by certain things in federal prisons and some state prisons today. they gave me the names of the prisons. i spoke with one person and told them about this. i want to bring it to your attention publicly. it is not a acceptable that

narcotics trafficking directions have been given out of federal or state prisons. i'd like to ask you to make a thorough investigation. i will be happy to give you the information i have. i will not discuss it here. i am asking you for a commitment to take a big, strong, and that look at this. >> i will certainly do that. there are measures in place that monitor the telephone calls, the people who visit with the people who are detained in the federal system for which i am responsible. i will be looking at the information you have and see if there are things we need to do better on the federal side. >> thank you very much. i am happy to fill you in.

as you said, the laws of war provide for the detention of a combatant for the length of the conflict. once a military commission declares somebody an enemy combatants and a decision is made that they remained in net -- and national security risk, there is an assessment to provide a due process review of that individual periodically. has that due process review been dust -- decided upon? if so, how often would those reviews take place? >> we have not decided that. we are discussing that internally. it is something we want to work with members of this committee and congress with in coming up how that will occur and should be responsible for the determination and the review and how frequently it should occur.

we want to interact with members of this committee to get your ideas as well so that the process is put in place and has your support. >> please do. we are very interested and have a point of view that we would like the opportunity. let us go back to the southwest border for a minute. more than 10 dozen people have been killed in mexico by drug violence -- more than 10,000 people have been killed in mexico by drug violence. an estimated $10 billion of drug proceeds crosses the border in the form of bulk cash. we talked to the attorney general of the state of arizona who confirmed a lot of this. my question is how much of that

cash has been intercepted at the border in 2009? what role today does the dna play in stemming this low? >> i would have to get -- does the dea play in stemming this? >> i will have to give you some numbers. we have been looking into this. the dea has use significant resources at the border. the fbi has put together a new intelligence capability along the southwest border. we are trying to stop the floor -- flow of materials and drugs into our country. this is a priority for us.

>> thank you. >> welcome and thank you for your service. at her confirmation hearing we talked about civil rights crimes. you made a commitment to me that you would do whatever you could in your power to make sure that was funded. my first question is, have you been successful? the group that motivated the response for that bill would like to have a meeting with the justice department and has been turned away. can you answer would you have done to get the funding for the bill? would you agree to meet with the principles of the organization so we can get these crimes

resolved? >> i will have to look and see where we stand with regard to the budget for next year. i cannot remember how much money was dedicated to the product you talk about. i will check it and get back to you. i would be glad to meet with the people you are talking about. >> i will communicate that to them. it is interesting. we pass a bill and, and then we do not get the money to do it. time is of a major factor. if we do not under this in an appropriate time, we will not solve this and we will not bring to justice the people who need to be brought to justice. >> i will do what i can to give light to the concerns you have.

>> i will be happy to help shovel that money around. i put out a report last year. i am concerned about what happened in arkansas and kansas in the different response. do you view the murder of one of our soldiers in arkansas as a hate crime? >> it is potentially a crime. i do not have all of the? there. the response that we use with regard to the killing of dr. tiller was one where the justice department has historic plea used its resources to protect -- historically use its resources to protect certain things. with regards to killing the recruitment officer, we have offered our assistance in that.

>> i am not talking about the protection efforts. i am talking about the prosecution of that. >> that would be the responsibility of the justice department in conjunction with other departments. >> do current hate crime laws cover that act in arkansas? >> if there was a determination made it the killing was made on the race of the victim, yes it is arguable. the motivation was because of his military status, i do nothing that would fallen to the crime status. >> regardless of what his motivations with a pin. >> we have to consider the motivation of the person.

>> what happened there was horrible. it is not something that should be tolerated. we want to look at what is the nature and the extent of the hate crime that we are trying to legislate. the categories we have now show there are substantial crimes that have happened. we think we should expand the categories. with regard to military personnel, i would want to look and see what the facts show. >> thank you. we will get into that again. one of the other things that you and i discussed during the hearing, and we have a different

position on this. i respect your position. you said you would rigorously reviewe laws restricting the second amendment. have you done that? did you do that before you issued your recommendation on assault weapons? >> i am not sure that i have done anything with regard to weapons. i am cognizant of the heller determination and decision. i do not think the department has issued any rules, regulations with regards to weapons. >> in terms of recommendations, you are on record of wanting us to be proposed assault weaponry. the comment you made during your confirmation hearing was that you would do a rigorous review before any recommendations were

made. the question is, did you do that and what were the results that caused you to propose a new assault weapons ban? >> have not said we need a new assault weapons ban. what i said is that we need to look at the situation we have and the violence that we had that is unrelated and come up with measures that will deal with that issue. >> on february 25 at a news conference, you said you endorsed reince starting -- reinstating the ban. you said you would do a rigorous analysis of heller before you make any recommendation. did you do that. was it an impromptu at this press conference? >> there is a firearms review that is ongoing. i will take into account the heller decision.

the administration does not take a position with regard to the instituting of the assault weapons ban. >> thank you. at a few additional questions i would like to submit to the record. >> thank you. >> we will keep the record open throughout this week. >> i understand you had exchanges with senator gramm, feinstein, and call about prolonged detention. i urge you and the department to consider the various legal and policy concerns that are involved. i would say even with the kind of due process protection that you discuss, i think this could be a very big mistake especially because of how its system could be perceived around the world

and after the progress the administration is making. i wrote to the president about my continued concern that the administration is not withdrawing certain legal opinions including one that provided legal justifications for the bush and ministrations wired taping program. -- bush administration's wiretapping program. one person says the program was not illegal and later clarified it. you said i would never see the day by allowing certain things. the president said the campaign was illegal. is there any doubt in their mind

that it was illegal? >> do warless wiretapping program that existed at that time was put together without the approval of congress. as a result, it did not have all the protections, strength that it might have had. i think the concerns that i expressed no longer exists because of the ax congress has taken. >> i ask you if you considered it to be illegal. that is the implication of what you said in the court i read. and the explicit statement of the man who is president of the united states. >> i thought the action the administration had taken was inconsistent with the dictates of pfizer.

as a result, i thought the policy was unwise. i think the concerns i expressed then have been remedied by the fact that congress has now -- >> did you think it was a legal? >> i thought it was inconsistent with the statute and unwise as a matter of policy. >> has something happened that has changed your opinion that would make it hard for you to simply stay we did say that what the president said was that it was illegal? >> i do not think so. who >> it sounds a mild compared to a very clear principle here which is not only that this has to do with the scope of the law but the underlying constitutional issue which people believe that if this statute is that explicit that is

unconstitutional for the president and illegal for him to override the expressed will of the congress. >> i am not sure if i used the term illegal. i have used the term inconsistent. >> that may be. i would hope you would use the word illegal now. i sent a letter to the president's and that the administration would withdraw this. and if you have initiated a review of certain memos that authorized torch of -- torture which have been withdrawn. what is the status of your review of the memos concerning the warrantless wiretapping program?

>> i asked the office of legal counsel to review this. we want to make these opinions public consistent with our national security interest and consistent with insuring that robust debate can happen within the executive branch. i hope that process which is ongoing would lead to the release of several opinions in a relatively short time frame. >> i want to reiterate how important it is for the legal justification of this program to be withdrawn. these memos make unsupportive claims will come back to haunt us if they remain in effect. i think the president has indicated in the past that the program was illegal and cannot stand. in his national security speech, the president indicated that he is concerned about the overuse of the state secret privilege.

he said the it ministration is taking a their review of the practice. he says that they will report that theto congress each time te it. these are controversial cases. i want to understand why the administration is asserting the privilege. state secrets legislation is before the committee. i think my request is consistent with this. can you make sure i will receive this briefing? >> i will get the information to you. we are trying to look at the state secrets issue in a way -- we want to see if the doctrine was properly done and used.

and we are looking at what we can do going forward. we may be making public some proposals that we have made. we are trying to determine how we should handle this issue. >> can i get this briefing at this time? >> we will try to get the information to you and make you aware of this. >> thank you. >> thank you and welcome here. there is something that bothers me. after a two-year investigation, 19 people were arrested for trafficking some items. these warrants were executed in a man -- in a manner that i question. they came in full combat gear

like they were going after the worst drug dealers in the world. in the process, i do not believe anybody should be taking indian artifacts. in the process, one of the leading figures in the whole county down there committed suicide. it was an outstanding member of the committee -- of the community. an outstanding man. he was a doctor and delivered many people in the community. i have no problem with going after people who violate the law. but treating them like the worst criminals in the world -- causing eight good individual to go out and commit suicide.

that concerns me. over 100 federal agents were used in this operation. that presence has been perceived by the community as not only unnecessary but brittle. unquestioning the motivation of some of the higher ups and of the interior. a day after these rates were conducted, some people appeared before the immediate say how successful this investigation was. i felt like it was a dog and pony show to me. this has all the classic signs of one. the offenses that these warrants were issued were non-violent. they are usually reserved for resting truly