journal," michael saw your discusses the alleged terrorist attack on flight 253 and what the obama administration should do to protect the u.s. from homegrown and foreign terrorists. . .

>> joining us on this sunday "newsmakers" program is tim starks, intelligence reporter with cts.com and pamela hess and we want to talk about the fox news and the closure of the u.s. embassy in yemen and why for this shut down? >> there is an incredible threat and the u.s. embagsy was attacked twice, with one american died and 17 yemenians died, outside of the perimeter. and with the attacks in december the u.s. apparently participated in and the stepped-up counter terror aid

that is provided to yemen and the special forces, it's creating a situation that is not the safest for a diplomat. >> on fox and cnn and abc, what news came out of this? >> i thought there was a few different items and not an official saying on the record that they were still interested in sending guantanamo detainees on yemen. and there were officials under fire, the u.s. secretary and i thought he had a little trouble explaining why the weapon, abdulmutallab was going to be treated as a ñ>)criminal suspec than enemy combat an. he didn't explain why. a few items like that. >> first by the state

department to close the embassy in yemen, this morning on fox news. >> there are indications that al-qaeda is targeting our embassy and personnel, and we are not going to take chances, and we made a decision last night and again this morning to make sure we are doing everything possible to protect the diplomats there. >> you said targeting the embassy, you mean you had indications that they might explode a bomb? >> al-qaeda has tried many attacks. we know in november, 2008 they carried out such an attack. we continue to distract that and we know there are

opportunists to carry out the attacks and we rare preventing that. >> are others in danger? >> activities are notified and we are making sure that all u.s. citizens are protected from al-qaeda. >> but are u.s. citizens in that country at risk?hw >> until the yemen government gets on top of al-qaeda, there is a risk. that's why we are working closely with the yemenian government. >> tim and pamela, the general was in the area and they will hold a conference to look at what is happening in detroit. >> right, the general is from the u.s. command and people know him from leading the war

in iraq and now in charge of forces in the middle east. they are talking about yemen as the new front where they believe that some al-qaeda leaders are going. there is territory in the northern desert area and it's complicated that the attempts by the yemenian government, it's complicated on that border. yemen has a couple of different problems it's dealing with. the united states military is providing counter terror operations to go after al-qaeda figures there. and the u.s. is constantly focusing yemen to work on this problem. >> did you agree with that? >> yes. [laughter] >> we are hearing in the papers about this country being

poorest and lawlessness of the country and lack of control. and 35% of unemployment rate s7 and a significant drop in oil revenues. >> yeah, it's a country -- it's interesting if you look at testimony from top officials early in year before congress, when discussions about what would be the domestic threat here and in addition to early briefings to congress about the overall intelligence picture, there was a lot of discussion about how countries like yemen and samoia that are ungovernable and may be, be the new front, and now it's shifting that way and happening. >> another fox news program from john brennan this morning. >> when we open this second

front this, -- this is a continuation that we have underway. petraeus has been to yemen and wit government. we have had close contact with the british, so this is a determined and concerted effort. we are not going to let al-qaeda make gains in yemen, because we need to take whatever steps necessary to protect our citizens there and abroad. >> what is the difference between yemen and afghanistan? >> the geography and they have passages in the mountains that the u.s. doesn't know.

it's a tough terrain to fight and we have many pressuring that area. and there is no indication that the u.s. will deploy troops there. but you have this desert area governed like pakistan and afghanistan by tribes and don't provide government there and give safe harbor. it's a different fight geographically and a different fight because there is less fire power. in some ways it's easier and in other ways it's harder. >> from your reporting, how do we gain intelligence in the country and how do we know who to trust? >> one advantage that the u.s. may have in yemen, we're not

installing a government. their government perceived by u.s. officials is friendly. the problem is they don't have the resources they need to have as strong intelligence to attack al-qaeda. that's according to the officials who have spoken on this. and there is talk about increasing aid to yemen, talking about doubling that aid, the $70 million is what we have been giving them and there is talk of doubling that. and i think there would be more coordination and to give them sources for the intelligence we need and to give them more security issues. and if we release more guantanamo suspects there, they is a way to keep those people from going back on the battlefield. >> back to your report of the news on the sunday morning program, and he was the only

official on the program, and last week we heard from the secretary, napatano, anything on that? >> yes, there was something about janet coming underfire and it makes sense to not provide that. and he makes sense to be on the sunday programs especially because one of the major criticisms coming out of this is that we don't have a unified effort. there is not information sharing the way it should be. if you have one public face, it makes to have that person to send the message that we are working to coordinate this. >> pam, can you explain an enemy combatant and an suspect? >> yes, an enemy conbattant is

for someone in the war in terror but not official battle. the basic difference between someone you would put in a military commission and someone in the u.s. criminal justice system is not just geography where they are captured. but also evidence, that is not evidence that can be held up in a u.s. court. because you can't be sure it wasn't handled in an appropriate way. and in civil courts evidence is thrown out all the time that is tampered with. so the enemy combatants in the intelligence commission and i am not sure how many so far, i think maybe three and they were pleaded out. you have cases on evidence

based on hearsay, and i believe why they are going with abbull muital ab, because of the crime on u.s. soil and the evidence they have against him is something that would hold up in court. the u.s. government current stance and possibly during the bush administration as well, the prime place you want to get these people is in civilian court, because you can send them to jail and show that the government is doing something against them. and the enemy combatant that was set up is not that successful. trying to create a system to deal with a legally constructed new criminal has just proven to be extremely difficult. so the obama administration wants to put them into civilian courts as much as possible. >> john brennan was asked about

that this morning. >> we have an array of tools and we want to maintain flexibly of how we deal with these individuals. let's get the facts on the table, he was arrested on u.s. soil. on a plane in detroit airport. he was talking to people that detained him. and those arrested in other administrations all were charged and tried in criminal court and sentenced. some cases to life in prisonment. just because someone is put in the criminal legal process does not mean we have other opportunities to get information from them. >> let me ask this specifically, after abdulmutallab got lawyered up, did he stop talking? >> i am not going to address before or after he talked with his lawyer. we got information and we continued to have opportunities to do that. as you talk to the lawyers and

individuals and they recognize what they are facing as far as the charges, there are opportunities to continue to talk about it. f.b.i. has g4bsome of the best briefers in the world. >> one thing, his miranda rights, we doesn't have to speak at all. >> he doesn't have to, and if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways. >> why not treat him, you have the right as an enemy combatant, why not do that. and if he's got more intelligence about future attacks and you say there is a possibility of that, doesn't the president has the responsibility to do that? >> and the president has the responsibility and the intelligence talked about what is the best tools to use. and we looked at his case and

will look at each case individually and proceed accordingly. >> tim, as this perkulates and in the papers, how will john be perceived by republicans? >> they are upset that they are not putting abdulmutallab in the enemy combatant system. he explained why to put him in the civilian courts and not so much why not the enemy combatant case, and what chris wallace was asking him. and there are arguments for labeling him as an enemy combatant that the republicans were making the programs today. i think there will be a lot back and fourth on that, and republicans will say that the enemy combatant is the way to go . >> and you heard this in the

address by cheney last week. >> yes, cheney has continued to be the republican attack dog, of the obama administration allowing republicans to strike a middle ground. and i think that bonds did an interesting turn, and he's usually bipartisan on fox news, and taking that middle ground and would like to see more done and not calling for janet napalitano's head. and cheney is soft on this. >> what is john brennan's background? >> he's a long time c.i. a. analyst and now he's the head of the ncc counterterrorism homeland security council. he's a guy with a lot of government background. and he was briefly in charge of

the analysis corporation that did some work on terrorist watch list, figuring out who goes on that list. that is at the center of controversy why abdulmutallab did not move to the 500 list of names and made it to a smaller list that would have gotten him additional security list. >> and the question that homeland security received last week and the same question by brennan and whether security worked on that day. >> security did not work on that day, because abdulmutallab should not have gotten on that plane with explosives. every other day the system has worked. but clearly the president wants to make sure that we strengthen the system, not that it's broken. but clearly there are ways to

strengthen it and put together the pieces of information to allow us to stop every single terrorist out there. >> let me get to that, this is an issue and a lot of americans remember how the unibomber was brought to justice, his brother turned him in. and when a family member turns them in, and his father goes to the embassy and says he's a radical and somehow that did not shoot to the top the warning. why not? >> every day there are family members mentioning those that are radicalistings. and those that went to pakistan were there and we took strong action and he was put in custody. in the case of abdulmutallab,

his father spoke but the failure in the system is that we did not take that information and connect to the other pieces of information. it was a requirement that we were able to bring to bear all of those disparat pieces that allow us to identify the individuals. we had some cases that did not give us the clarity to know who it was. what we need is to make sure it never happens again. >> that's john brennan on the sunday morning program. and tim, on tuesday the president will hold a meeting that will include mr. brennan, the national security team and homeland security team. what questions do you think he will ask and what questions was john brennan not able to answer today? >> if you look at how the president wants there to work in his own internal reviews.

preliminary findings, and he's got those. no reporting of what his evaluation is. but the next step is what are the recommendations to fix this, what do we need to do to correct the system or hold people accountable in the administration. as far as brennan, i would go back to the one question that was not answered in the way, why not enemy combatant. otherwise he answer every question. i think there will be something about the answers, like the idea that we may still send people to yemen from guantanamo, and that's a different question. >> pam, another issue on the nbc program, that of privacy and civil rights. these full-body scanners that are used in about a dozen

airports around the country and could be standard. >> if you see the image that comes out of these, they are quite detailed. and i am not sure i would want to go through them. one thing that has to happen in the next few months and may come up at the white house. what are thresholds. one, how much of our privacy and our civil liberties are we willing to give up. how much of an annoyance at the airport are we willing to put up with to stop someone like this guy. that's one area of thresholds. and i think that's a zero-sum gain there, i haven't heard anyone suggest a loss in one area and gain in another. and the intelligence standpoint

what are the issues of moving the people from that larger terrorist database to a smaller one. and the issue with abdulmutallab, is cçdthe human failure of linking and that is the result that there is 500,000 people on this list. and there are any number of people that maybe they were linking the dots and didn't do something on that day. and the question is what the threshold to move the people off the larger list to the smaller list. and what problems will you have with that. this was pointed out to me yesterday, the only complaint we have heard about this terrorist watchlist is people saying it's to go big. -- too big and you are stopping me in the airport when i have no problems. and the answer may be that we have to stop more people.

and no one has complained that the terrorist list is too small. there is a debate coming up, and i have no idea which way it will go, and what the american's tolerance is for security at the airports. there is no doubt this guy should be scanned and checked. and we have heard from people that know how he secreted these explosives. and it's even possible it wouldn't have shown up by the body scan and hidden by body parts. >> this is the issue in "meet the press" of liberties. >> i think it's important to provide the security that is needed, we are trying to strike that balance by looking at the technologies available and the practices. but there is a balance to maintain the privacy and the

body scanners. >> do you think that the body scanners? >> we are looking at this carefully, there were full-body scanners available at amsterdam. they weren't used, but those need to be a part of this package. >> would those scanners have detected the level of dtn that abdulmutallab was carrying? >> it's unknown but it would enhance our potential to identify him. >> tim starks, again that issue is something that libertarians will be aiming for. >> yes, there was a vote in congress on the house side to limit the use of those body scanners. that's the way that people were look and now a focus that we may need more. there is a significant amount of money in the pipeline to buy

hundreds more of the body scanners. the question is if you can speed it up and a question of technology, whether the technology there works effectively and quickly enough to use them all the time or just for certain, select people. these are the questions that will have to be addressed. >> and pam hess, will al-qaeda figure out other ways to breach the system? >> that continues to be the question, that the enemy is one step ahead. we are always looking for the last guy, we began to take off of our shoes because of the shoe bomber, and to eliminate liquids, because of bomber. but they will come up with a new way of doing this. and secreting this stuff in his underwear was new. and something else that needs

to be factored into the equation, that puffer machines that take simples of debris on you would have a better chance of catching this guy. because it's a chance not to have explosives on the outside of his clothing and you talk about this scanner and the puffer, and this will slow air travel and cut into the money they make and slow commerce. so there is a lot of issues that have f8ñto be dealt with. >> our guest on "newsmakers," pam hess of the associated press and tim starks, both experts on intelligence and security issues, and getting answers from john brennan from with "meet the press" and fox news sunday, and linking the

bomber to yemen. >> i think in yemen we know there are several hundred members of al-qaeda and as we piece together the story of abdulmutallab, we knew he was in yemen and had reached out to al-qaeda and had received training at a camp that was hit during the month of the september. he was clearly directed to carry out this attack at the direction of al-qaeda, the senior leadership there. this is something that we are concerned about. and we are concerned that they may be getting other operatives to train inside of yemen and come to the west. and that's why we need to maintain this operation in yemen. >> pam hess calling this latest attack the children of bin

laman. >> i think there is an operative of directions of al-qaeda attack and you see the operational control from al-qaeda corporate and to yemen. and you have these cells and they are harder to get at than a terrorist network. and now you are down to individuals volunteering for this. and that's a more difficult problem. and the next step and maybe we have seen this, people that undertake terrorist operations and inspired by al-qaeda, and when you don't have more than one person working together, the chances of finding that person is increasingly

difficult. this say real problem. i talked to someone yesterday and we had a debate whether what happened was good or bad on the plane. and he said on the plus side this is what al-qaeda is resorted to, a kid that has a bomb made and doesn't work. and on the down side you have al-qaeda still grinding u.s. airlines to a halt, freaking everyone out and causing less confidence in the government to protect them. and this is an unsuccessful attack. i am not sure that the bomb did not erupt was failed. this is a really difficult problem for governments to deal with. and i think it's only getting harder. >> and the final point to you tim, but to show the exchange