>> yes. >> we are the people that cause the thing to be put in the database. by a thigh understand it, even access to what you put in the database but not the entire database. >> yes. >> that is my point. it said -- >> if someone is in the database, please send a message to the law-enforcement community is saying, should we issue this be said or not? >> i was told that the state department was interested in making this change. instead of saying we will study it, which means nothing. are you or are you not? >> we are seriously interested in fighting in a means to improve our national security.

. any means -- >> are you interested in this proposal? do you think it's a good idea off the top of your head? >> i think it's a good idea to find out -- >> would be tighter than the present process? >> is has its pluses and minuses. we are very seriously reviewing it. >> okay, my second question, i don't have much time so it was submitted in writing. >> i'd be happy to come visit with you in person if you'd like. like. >> i will remainder of the preceding period in with some allowance for working around a potential vote that may go off, my intention would be to follow through until all the conclusions -- all the questions are answered without interruption. we may have to do a little bit of a fire joe unseats in order

to accomplish that. but since i intend to stay until the end, i would now yield to senator klobuchar for her questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think senator franken was here before me for the deadline. so you can go first. >> like to thank senator klobuchar in the chair. here's a question that has been on my mind. i would like to direct this to the director. and i think i know some of the answers. this abdulmutallab was on a bigger list, 550,000 list. why -- and he wasn't on the no-fly list, but he was on this list. he gets to the airport. it's easy to access -- is just

as these to access a list of 550,000 as it is to access a list of 18,000. nobody at a counter goes through 18,000 names. it's done through a computer. so he name checks just as fast if it's on a 550,000 person last as it does if it is on an 18,000 person list. why -- why don't we have access -- why don't the people who book these people in have access to that list? and simply say, okay, that means you're going to get another patdown or that means you're going to go through the full body scan? and i just came through dubai and you go through security ones and then asked the gate you go

through security again. but at the gate, you could simply as to not slow down everybody at the first security, at the gate if you come up, you could pat somebody down. you could give them extra attention or take them over to the one body scanner that might be at the minneapolis st. paul airport we don't have one now, but if we did have one you could take them over there. >> let me start and then if i can pass it to my friend at dhs in terms of the screening procedures and what is accessed at the borders whether p. at the airport or otherwise. in the way the system is setup, there is a very large terrorist screening database which is populated via various agencies information. and from that, there is a select d. list were the person there is a show and it has to be made with regard to the person's association with terrorism in

order to get on that list. >> but this guy was on the bigger list. >> he was on a much bigger list i do not know how myself of that particular list is treated as a mini comes to the airport be not evidently not treated here it is the right? >> for the creation of the terrorist watch list, the ts db was intended specifically so they did not go out to create their own determination of who is a terrorist. the list that you refer to called tides is the larger list that contributes to the terrorist watch list. somebody has to be nominated from that list and has to be determined by the nctc process to make the cut as it were for somebody to be no adverse affect a terrorist. there's another review that goes to determine if that goes on to

a select the or no-fly. none of those determination for made or consequently when the passenger comes to board, he is allowed to board because there is no list that he is on. >> no, he is on the list. he is on the tide list. that's not what i'm asking. i am asking why -- why the guy on the tide list can't come up, which he was on. and why that wouldn't merit an extra look. >> well, it's merits an extra look today. i think originally but it was created was because not everyone on the tide list merited becoming a known or suspected terrorists. >> what is the harm? >> today believe that people agree there is a need to include the p3b from national security concerns before people board aircraft. and we are doing that. >> so now, as of december 26,

people on the tide list are going to have a second look? >> no. >> no? i don't understand then. >> the tide list is maintained by the nctc so i'm a little out of my lane. >> that may be part of the problem. if they are out of the air lane and you're out of your lane, shouldn't you will be in your own? >> were trying to determine whether people should ward or no board. >> i'm not saying it's a board or no board. i am saying it's taking another look. it's a patdown, it is a scam. that's all i'm saying. i'm saying that this guys name was in a database of 550,000 people. that name, given today's

technology and come up in an instant. and then, all it needed to do was warrant either a patdown or a body scan anti-would've been discovered. and i think you just agreed about a minute ago that that seems logical and that's what everyone agrees on i think is what you said. and then you said you don't know because you're not in the right lane to know whether that's the part is now. so that's what i'm trying to figure out. >> sure, let me just clarify. the state department record, which is classified as they p3b for national security concerns as a sub element of this tide list. very number of other elements and not tide list that have to do with identification of individuals, information of people who may or may not be -- you may have immigration issues

that have nothing to do with necessarily the security of civil aviation, per se. and that is why there was a process to nominate someone to become on the terrorist watch list and subsequently to become a no-fly or a selectee which would give the secondary lock. the subset of information that the p3b's is now being considered because of the national security consideration. >> so the p3b is a sub list, subset of the tide. and that is its own separate list. and those that come up airports now? >> now they use that for determining whether someone should get a second look, correct. >> so that's the answer to my question. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> district chairman.

>> can i confirm before senator klobuchar starts if the vote has been done or not. >> i think it has, mr. chairman. >> in that case, i will go and vote and returned during senator klobuchar's questioning. >> thank you very much to all of you hear it i was listening to the questions today and i think anyone that looks at the facts, i think about this person getting on the plane with 300 people with as close as it think about the misspelled name, the one-way ticket, that no baggage, the father coming in to express some very serious concerns and it just leads you to think, how could this happen? but i will say is a former prosecutor and i know director mueller knows what i'm talking about when you look at any primary problem, you always are hunted by what could've been and what could've changed, whether it's the police not following up

on the lead or it's a prosecutor who made a deal ten years ago or as a judge that made the decision that led to someone being out. and so, the key for me is not as much this blame game, if they truly believe you're all devoted to fixing this. what we do fixes going forward. for the first thing that is appealing to me when i look at this as some of the scanners and technological fixes. the easy thing to think about is that the right skinner was there and correct me if i'm wrong, maybe it's mr. heyman, could've been caught. because what are they to backscatter or milliliter waves, millimeterwave to if they were employed -- deployed, this would have happened, is that correct? >> senator, i wouldn't want to speculate on that. i think we have to be careful not to say there is a silver bullet to detect anything. >> but if it was attached to his

leg, would it have been found with one of those things? were having a congress hearing this afternoon and i will ask secretary napolitano this this afternoon. >> i'm happy to discuss this in a closed session after the capabilities of technology and how it's used to deploy, but it would rather do that in the session. it is important to note that technology is part of the solution. it is not the only solution. >> i'm not saying it is. i mean, the president has clearly sent a message to 450 more of the scanners out. i was doing the math. with 2100 planes at the airport and now there is, i don't know, just dozens of them out there right now. so the plan would be to triage these and put them of certain locations? >> that's correct. the technology has the advantage of being able to put nonmetallic substances such as liquids or powders, much like with you on

the 25th. and as such, provides enhanced capabilities of the standard walk-through metal detect yours. >> all right. and so, do you know what the timetable is for this? >> for deploying? i can get back to on this. in the beginning of this year we are on the process of looking at that. >> i cannot secretary napolitano about this, that i figure there's 2500 international flights coming in a day that some of the discussion will be about this technology as well? >> absolutely, yes. >> okay. director mueller, thank you for your good work on this house was the work you've been doing in minnesota that i have discussed. and i was thinking senator franken was saying that if we had the names that could pop up with modern-day technology. but i think you and i talked about this before and it's a computer system that don't always work a way that it showed that can't search automatically and repeatedly for possible

links, even simple keyword searches as were reported in "the new york times" january 19th are a challenge according to a 2000 require re- four the house on science and technology. is this a fair assessment? do there need to be some computer assessment? >> there was asked to be some computer changes as a result of a number of fact yours. the growth of technology, the growth of different databases. ..

often it is by pittston starts at the federal procurement schedule, in order to get this done, keeps as a step behind where we want to be. in the wake of what happened on christmas day, we are all looking at particular short-term and long-term fixes, individually with their agencies also across the community. it is not as if we have not been doing it since 9/11, we certainly have. this may be additional momentum which will define later fix this and have them funded so we can't get them into place as soon as we possibly can. been a lot of discussion with my colleagues about the watch list. i actually have been concerned about this for a while. we had a little kid going to disneyland, couldn't go on the trip so this just come of this

issue where you have people on it that shouldn't be on it and people that are done it that obviously should and i may explore the that the and five times that there's a piece of this and want to talk about that no one has raised a northwest airlines flight, now owned by delta and northwest airlines based in minnesota and i have had long talks with the head of tilts the about this whole thing. it was his employees in addition to that great passenger that stop this from happening. they were on the frontline. they did the right thing. they were the last resort for the system failures, and some of the concerns that really haven't been talked about here is just the relation with the secure flight being implemented, the airlines are supposed to be pulling back more from being the one that is watching for this but yet, in the rest of the world, they don't have the equivalent of transportation security administration and many airline carriers here and abroad remain the primary security prescreener at foreign airports.

my question is what steps were taken immediately following the december 25th event to inform the carriers and others within the commercial aviation industry of the breach of security and as he look at this court nation going forward have there have been efforts to include the aviation industry because remember a broad, they are the ones that are going to be on the frontline many times making these calls. >> i can answer that question for you senator. this says the bin obviously important part of the carriers are very much on the front lines and have a central role to play as partners in the security of the aviation system. immediately following the incident, the transportation security administration notified about 128 inbound flights of the issue of providing them with as much detail as they could so that they could take appropriate measures. in their path on the way back into the united states. but we have since the incident

we have had numerous conversations with the ceo's of carriers, the secretary will be meeting with the head of-- in geneva on this trip she is going to today after the hearing with you, and we will be having a discussion with airline carriers as to how we can all work together to improve the security of the system. >> carriers have indicated that information regarding passengers visas dad this is not available in real time when a passenger checks in at the airport. we will actually be taking addresses and other similar problems. >> so, the visa revocations and these are refusals or did nylz are checked prior to boarding an

individual. bair check this part of the preflight screening process that is ongoing and has been ongoing for some time. >> okay, so do you think there is an issue with them not having this visa information in real time? >> the state department uploads all of these issuances that it makes to databases that are coming that we share with the law enforcement intelligence community. my understanding is that, when the airline files its manifest passenger list for this claim, there is a process called afis, automated passenger information system, that then checks all of that material and by tsa and then give sago, no go to the carrier on that's though though the airline may not know that

you have baby one visa or a jade visa are any of the various types, they know when they get the report back from tsa that they are good to go with that, with that individual because he or she has a visa or is an american citizen and obviously does not needed but that information we make available to dhs is then checked and then fed back to the carriers, senator. >> can i suggest as we go forward and i understand the party put on the coordination between government agencies but i think ward meeting with some of the airlines would also be a good idea just from what i am hearing especially given that they were on the frontline here. back to the security of the watch list in things like that, director mueller-- mueller if you could just talk about generally, i know people have got the understandably in the weeds about this list but do you

think getting more people to this watch list would be a smart idea and how do you think we could focus on improving criteria so we don't have the kid going to disneyland on the list? >> i do think there are standards we ought to look like or like gatt, excuse me, in terms of developing or improving the criteria. for instance, the select the list requires generally the person be part of a terrorist organization and associated with terrorist activity. >> that is the one where there are about 14,000 people on? >> generally and the issue there is what is the nexus of terrorism and you have a number of loan will set up their who were actors the house approving that somebody is a member can be an inhibitor to putting a person

on the list so there certain areas that we are looking at which would change the criteria that probably would expand the number of persons and appropriately so who are on a particular in this. >> this means they may be subject to extra screening at the airport? >> appropriately so. on the other hand we have always put a tremendous emphasis on having other ratifiers. you have any number of names and durations of names and often it is very difficult on the name itself to identify a particular person's of the same time we are taking criteria to at persons were concerned about at the same time we have to continue to develop identifiers weathered the fingerprints. >> i was going to actually ask you about this with the misspelling that took place and some people have different names anyway so the whole biometrics, we have been talking about this for years on flights and how you get on, what is the status of that because to me that would help immensely in this?

>> to the extent that we can go to an era of biometrics, not just the date of birth, but biometrics we are, we will be much better able to identify the particular person who is carrying that name and trying to get on an airline. there is a substantial interagency effort underway to expand our biometrics whether it be use of fingerprints, scans and the like in my hope is that in the future with better ability to identify persons and an appropriate extent expansion of the criteria so that we get the troublesome person on the list, that it will be more effective. >> senator, if i might add-- the state department, when it receives a visa application already uses biometrics. we take the fingerprints of

stavridis the applicant and transmit them to homeland security and the fbi and if that applicant does not clear that database novey says issued. we also have the probably the finest facial recognition capacity so that if somebody comes in and applies as jane doe in one place and then tries to apply as sarah smith and another, those applicants-- >> let's take that implication and put it on the frontline at the airport. >> we share our material with our colleagues, and so we are doing that as part of the application process and then we share the information. >> i am going to have to go back and vote now but one thing that want to put in your mindedly can talk about that later mr. chairman but it is this idea if we could potentially save some resources in the long term with the scanners, i am someone who gets stopped every time because of my hip replacement

and me and a number of 80 wrote are standing they are getting our knees and hips changed-- check. is there an idea we could go faster to this process a few use the whole body scanner? >> each technology is different, and the goal is to try to get as fast as possible. >> i am not going to get you to comment on the details. it is just a thought because it takes a long time. my constituents love seeing it happen so i will miss that. >> i understand senator sessions will be returning. we will have i think another very brief round, but before he gets here i want to ask him-- ask a number of questions myself. i will wait until he gets circelli has a chance to respond. director mueller, in your testimony you described the sipping from a fire hose phenomenon of trying to pick data out of the enormous stream

of data that our intelligence and law enforcement services have available to them. in his testimony michael lighter described the difficulty of having pieces of information rise above the background noise, and sort out how all that is happening. i just want to summarize what appear to be the major pieces of derogatory information about mr. abdulmutallab. one is that his father had come in and warned of his radicalization. secondee is obvious one, he was of going if light for the united states, puts him into a higher risk profile than if he is just off someplace. three, he exhibitive traveling you know mullahs passenger characteristics. it appears from public reports, cache ticket, no luggage, no

coat for landing in the winter and detroit. fourth, there was a general threat information out of that part of the world, the arab peninsula and then there was reference to with nigerian in the traffic somewhere and he was indeed nigerian and boarded his initial flight in lagos. it strikes me that the general threat information is helpful in identifying abdulmutallab. the nigerian queue applies to every nigerian. the fact that he was boarding a flight for the u.s-- i don't know how significant the single piece of data, the father have been warned of radicalization is an those passenger characteristics would really have turned up until check-in, and i don't know that our nctc

system is designed to play in that quick a timeline or even to search for passenger characteristics that would seem to be inconsistent with the nature of the flight. so, when i look at the whole array if i knew all of those things i would be very anxious about having this individual sitting next to me on a plane but i don't see any single one that sets up a very bright fuller of concern. it strikes me that it is the assembly of them that is the key, and it strikes me that the assembly of them is in large place, to a large degree a computer search, data analysis, al gore with some type problem, because i doubt we have the staffing to take any one of these pieces of information into a human search of that if we had

to do one for every single piece of derogatory information of that level of risk. so, that is-- i would like first to hear from each of you if i could briefly in what way you would describe the order of magnitude of information that we are sifting through every day out of which these elements that would have to be plucked. what is the order magnitude? people say thousands. you describe the fire hose. how else would you describe it? >> certainly for the fbi both here and overseas the alsands upon thousands of them pieces of information come in daily in a number of ways through sources, through pieces of information provided to us by the intelligence community. >> tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? >> certainly tens of thousands. i will tell you as, the way we

try to address it is no counter-terrorism week goes on address. we have had discussions in the past as to whether not we need to maintain the personnel in our joint terrorism task forces to address the threat to which my answer is yes because it is tracking down each lead to its end that enables us to discover other leads that may elevate the concern to the point where abdulmutallab is put on this watch lists and consequently y/$ it takes new and innovative ways to utilize technology. you are drinking from a fire hose. that does not mean we cannot do a better job in sorting out the streams coming from that fire hose, prioritizing, and make sure we follow up.

>> ambassador kennedy. >> almost 8 million individuals apply for a visa every year. we first have a personal interview of the individual by a trained consul officer who knows the language, should that be required, who knows the culture of the country, who knows interviewing techniques, who knows the economic situation in the country which might be a motivating factor, and then we take that information and put that on one side of the consular officers brain and send the data checks out to our colleagues in the intelligence and law- enforcement communities. we sent the fingerprints out, run the individuals'' facial characteristics against our biometrics and that we put all those pieces together and we say," yes," for," no."

g train professionals but we do it because we are the first lines of national defense and that is our task but it is a daunting one. >> mr. heyman from dhs's the what is the lord mayor of magnitude of the information you have to sit through? >> the departments crain's approximately 1.8 million individuals entering the united states per day. >> per day? >> hundreds of thousands of those are flying in by air. those individuals are all screened for admissibility into the united states and for concern about possible known or suspected terrorists. >> given that scaled-back effort that each of you have described, how significant is the role of computer search capability in knowing through that vast amount

of data and collecting or connecting the dots? >> let me just, so each of those passengers are screened one at a time. it is not all done it once said ofa flight comes in your screening them 300 passengers at a time. and, that is often done through an automatic-- automated system to see it there is a match on the no-fly list of etc. >> is the question of cash payment, no luggage and is that accurate? >> i am glad you asked. i and which is going to address that. passengers, there's something called the passenger name record which is transmitted from travel agencies or carriers to the department to get advance notice

of who might be on a plane coming to the united states. the information that is collected or that is transmitted is usually the name, gender and flight path, so you would have whether it is one way or two ways are something to that effect but the other information you mentioned whether it is cash transaction, the type of transaction, luggage, those kinds of things not unnecessarily included. the passenger name was not included for this individual. >> do they feel any interest and looking at that not as representative of the government, justice carriers were potentially putting fellow passengers at risk? is there a mechanism by which private carriers or non-private carriers, state carriers do this and then report to you? >> there is a formal requirement

that carriers transmits passenger name records up to 72 hours prior to a flight to departing for the united states. >> but some senior gate attendant who has seen a lot of folks and it comes to the flight check-in, they are headed for detroit, it is the middle of the winter they have no code. they pay in cash. is there any program? what if he were suspicious and you were that the attendant? what would you know to do at that point? >> there's a difference between the information transpire did for the determining whether someone is on the no-fly list. what you are describing is something we refer to as behavioral detection observation or anomalies that a key individual might determine in the united states. we have-- in airports throughout the united states, not necessarily it the case of broad. >> would it be useful to develop

a more robust way with the major airlines that fly in and out so that this can begin to be evaluated? as far as i can tell from what you are saying the question of the cash purchase, nil luggage and no coach never entered anybody's calculation never until somebody looked back. >> that data was unavailable. ends just, i would say that a cash purchase from nigeria is not unusual. >> the nigerian is not unusual but when you factor them all together and you have the al qaeda intercept mentoring and you have the cash purchase in the luggage and you have a boarding the flight for the u.s. and the father, it is the failure to assemble the data that is more significant than overlooking some bright red flag it seems to me and that is my question because that could be an important shipping piece of data and if we are not in a

position to collectives, that appears to me as something that perhaps could be improved. >> i think you are absolutely right. the discussions were having with their international departments, governance as well as air carriers-- we need to look at the questions of is there additional information. are there any additional information we should share or standards and this is the kind of thing we address in the process which is the international body for standards of aviation travel. >> okay, let me deal to the ranking member for a second round of questions but now that he is back and wanted to make the point that i was going to make earlier. i agreed with senator sessions about the importance of there being a rigorous and formal method for making the determination as to whether a case should proceed in civilian

courts or in military tribunals. and i share his concern, if there is not a process by which that decision gets made at a fairly rigorous and early time when whatever advantages in either forum are still available and, i am concerned if there is kind of an ad hoc decision that is being made as to which direction we intend to proceed. where i differ from him is that i am not confident that military tribunal is by definition the better way to go. i am keenly aware of the history of the success of criminal

trials in tear matters and the repeated failures in the military tribunal context. i believe that it is incorrect to suggest that fbi interrogation is a second-best if we can get them to those military tribunal tracks that we would have a really good interrogation. the hearings that i have done on the subject have shown the fbi information has actually been better than what i would consider to be less professional but certainly more aggressive methods. and, it strikes me that the agents who arrested mr. abdulmutallab probably pursuant to fpi protocol tweeted that casey little bit differently from a national security and interrogation point of view than they would have had he been a bank robber or somebody who had been pursued in

a long fraud investigation in this was the date when the agents were going to good the out and put the cuffs on him. do not react differently to cases that have the terrorism overtone then to your regular book of criminal business in terms of making early decisions as to what type of interrogation is appropriate? >> certainly we do and that is what the agents did in this particular case. there were no miranda warnings given. they went into interview him to determine whether, to gain intelligence about whether there was another bomb or another co-conspirator, where did he get the bomb, all of that information without the benefit of or without the miranda warnings. it had to be done very quickly because of the fact that he had been injured, was then in the hospital in the window of opportunity had to be undertaken very quickly but the fact remains as well later that evening he was mirandized, and

went into the judicial system. i am not going to apply in one way or the other because i don't think it is my role to necessarily adopt the policy as to where the person goes. it is the other persons in the department of justice and elsewhere. >> truber implementer of that policy with respect to organization it is important role was to get a sense of what stage the policy, to what stage that policy has been developed and at what stage it first gets engaged. because if you are way down the road one way before the policy has a chance to kick in and as a result the liz opportunities one way or the other, that is a problem i think that merit solution. >> i think everyone wants an opportunity to weigh in on those decisions earlier rather than later. yes, and to the extent that the decisions were made elsewhere i implement them. i will tell you that

intelligence is absolutely essential to preventing a terrorist attack into the extent we can obtain the intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks we will prevent terrorist attacks but by the same token i would also say you cannot forget the end game. you cannot completely forget the and game as the search for intelligence and-- >> either and the criminal court-- >> principally the fbi is operating in the united states and generally it is a united states citizen although in this case it did not, but i can tell you i share many of your concerns, but you should be assured that since september 11th hour interest is principally to gain intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks and to assure we do that so that there is a backup plan to the extent that we can. >> one final point on miranda. my review of this suggests to me

that very successful investigations have been conducted, very successful interrogations have been conducted in very significant intelligence information has been obtained from suspects who have been mirandized and that in some cases mirandaizing ase subject is actually a part of an interrogation plan for that particular subject and for that reason, i am not convinced of the assertion, unless you correct me now, that's by its very nature of mirandaizing somebody is a sort of per se in addition on their ability to collect intelligence from that individual. in fact i can think of pacific cases in which mirandaizing somebody was a specific plan that-- >> i would agree with that, having seen it happen many times on the other hand there were occasions when the person was talking and mirandaizing them

turns off the spigot, so i think you could argue it both ways. >> my point is four to the case-by-case and for there to be executive judgement and discretion deployed seems to be the best of both aller nothing alternatives. senator sessions. >> well, the fbi agents are some of the best agents in the world and there's just no doubt about it and they operate under the constraints and rules that they have been trained to operate under and one of them is when the defendant is in custody, and he is going to be tried in a civilian trial he is given miranda before he is ask questions. unless there may be some danger like does he have a bomb or a gun or something, but that is the fundamental way law enforcement is done.

and, i think it would be indisputable that you get less information if you give a miranda warning then if you don't.@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mr. blair said he was not aware that this high-value targe was not mirandaized and he would be given a lawyer. he did not know about that. if it is a high value detainee interrogation -- mr. mueller, was that group utilized in this case? >> no, it was not. >> who made the decision not to

do that and who made the decision that miranda and the right to have an attorney and the right not to speak, and all, would be given to this unlawful combatant? to this unlawful combatant? >> first, with regard to the high value interrogation group, that is an entity that is in its form nation stages which brings together expertise from the fbi but also from other agencies. and other words expertise in terms of the apparent particular terrorists to be interrogated, expertise with regard to the country from whence the person comes, language and the like as well as expertise interrogations, and we have the allies that as the administrative architecture is being billed as an opportunity to bring together those

components for interrogation prego in this particular case it happened very quickly. there was no time to get a follow-up group in there. if one had the opportunity we you may well of that is specialized group to the interrogation. as to the second question, as to the determination that was done my understanding is that terminations were done in consultation with the department justice and others in the administration prior to the agents going back in later that evening to interview him. >> was as the assistant united states attorney in detroit? >> it was above that. i hate to get into that because i'm not fully familiar with who talked to him on that afternoon but i do know it was not made necessarily at the local level. >> but you were not informed? and ask this question? >> i may have been. i just can't recall.

>> yorky said you didn't know. you did not know-- >> at the u.s. whether i had been informed of the decision. and i can't recall whether i had been informed of the-- >> were you asked to give your opinion on the matter? >> no. >> apparently was mr. blair or secretary gates since this i think is a matter of the associated with al qaeda with whom we are at war. westy asked his opinion about how the interrogation should be-- >> very senior people in the fbi had input in the decision. >> and, is there some protocol-- what is this high value detainee's interrogation group? shouldn't they have been activated as part of this and in the future shouldn't they be activated as immediately upon

such an event as this? >> yes, but quite often one of the reasons we are putting it together is to identify potential persons that may come into thoracostomy-- custody. some expertise in this particular area of the world, which as it relates after we learned, after we did the initial interrogation that it was yemen so you have to fit together with the expertise to do their own terry and-- interrogation. >> i would agree with that but that wasn't done. somebody made a decision in this case that they would be tried in civilian court, they would be given a miranda and was in effect after rhonda was given that would have the right to a lawyer, they stopped talking, the individual stop talking. >> he did. >> that is not unusual. that is the normal case, so this was a bad mistake in my view. and so, who in the department justice can you tell us, what

person at least that you know of, was at least involved in this discussion? >> i know you don't want to talk about that but i think i have the right to ask. i am asking you, what knowledge you have about anybody in the lines of department of justice to have input into this decision, not the details. >> i would be happy to discuss the but the but i do believe i have to go to the department of justice to get approval to do that. >> and attorney general holder has already made clear his presumption that these cases would be tried in civilian court, which i think is a big error. it baffles me, and i am concerned about it, so sooner or later we are going to need to

know how this happened because one of the things we do an oversight is to find out what happens in the real world. i mean you have these lists and this list and why didn't they come together? one of the things we have is a high value detainee's interrogation unit who had expertise in language and culture and al qaeda, and apparently we had would never fbi agents we were lucky enough to get responding to this emergency and the decision was made without this expertise being called upon. >> we actually had very qualified members of a joint terrorism task force who were called upon to do it and some of our best agents. >> well, i wonder if they personally, you are not saying that those agents made the decision? you are part of the department

justice, you are saying the united states attorney's office are the u.s. department of justice and attorney general holder's unit are somewhere in that chain of command, which is not improper. i mean normally, a prosecutor makes a decision on a lot of these issues that they have the opportunity to be engaged on it, but it seems to go against the idea of gaining intelligence. >> in this particular case, the consultation could not occur as fast as the decision needed to be made as to whether not you take the opportunity to interview him for intelligence purposes. the individuals at the hospital about to undergo treatment and there was a limited window of opportunity to obtain the intelligence that the agents felt they needed to obtain to determine more aspects of what had happened then spent some time with him. consequently in this particular

occasion and i'm using this particular occasion there was not the opportunity to do the type of consultation that you suggest and recommend. >> i don't agree that the hospital has anything to do with him. he was in our custody. he was not in a life or death situation. i believe those agents talk to somebody and i want to know who they talked to and you said we are going to give memoranda, go ahead and give it. if they were initially doing a discussion without it come i don't think they would have changed-- >> security was not given miranda at the outset. they had intelligence interview. >> your agents did not do so, which is contrary to the normal policy. when he is in custody he should be given miranda. i see the lady shaking your head behind the. if you bring them into can-- custody of to give them the miranda except under certain circumstances. they didn't do it. >> they did not marie and i sim, no.

>> at some point somebody said now is the time to do it. you can't give a cinemark formation? >> the department of justice says you are well aware, this may be this of the subject of a suppression hearing down the road and again i do believe information on what decisions were made when should more properly come from the department of justice. >> well, before i leave i will be more generous. there are questions you have been given by the ig report on the exigence letters. is it true that when the inspector general's report, a preliminary report came out on the exigence letter issued come it was released back in march of those seven, you addressed the press openly. unt questions, you came before the congress and answer questions. you accept that responsibility and you announced a number of

reforms, one of which was to stop using exigence letters all together. is that right? >> that is accurate, sir. >> and come is there anything really needed in this final report over the, what was brought up? >> there is more detailed that has not been provided and earlier reports in terms of the actions that were taken are not taken so there was some new but i will tell you that we have tried to keep congress abreast with periodic briefings on the findings as we know from the ig and have addressed the issues that are raised by the ig in this latest report. >> i had an impression but you can correct me if i'm wrong, that when-- this is all part of the patriot act legislation. >> in some parts. >> some of the 9/11 legislation. there was a failure in

washington to immediately to regulations, training. otis kind of hard to stop everything you are doing entrain everybody immediately when something happens and it was not a deliberate attempt to subvert the law or delivered-- a deliberate attempt to deny people rights. it was a lack of maybe discipline and education as part of your agents and when this was brought to your attention, you put them into it and handing-- had been handling it in the correct way ever since. >> certainly nobody intended to subvert the law. i did not put into place the requisite machinery to ensure that. we doggett the i's and cross the t's and assured we handle the properly the issuance of national security letters during that period of time and as you indicate the last exigent letter

was issued in 2006 and as i quoted from the ig report, i believe the ig believes that we have correctly addressed the problem and did so some time ago. >> it was an error that should not have occurred but if anybody who has run a big organization they know how hard it is sometimes to get information and down to the lowest levels but i think the fbi, one of its strength as it is pretty good at the kind of thing although this time they messed up. thank you. >> i thank the distinguished ranking member, the record of this hearing will remain open for a week and i would hope and urge that the witnesses to have promised to provide various materials during the course of this hearing would make it available during that period the record of the hearing is actually open. so if you could do that i would appreciate it and i would close spy at going senator sessions

concern that we be clear on the protocol and the deployment of the protocol for how and when the decision gets made between a military tribunal and a criminal court. i come at it from a different perspective in the sense that i disagree with him that the military tribunal is the right answer any case and disagree that mirandaizing people is the right answer in every case and have further concerns about frankly legislators making that decision rather than the executive branch of the government but however it plays out and should play out from protocol pointed to make those decisions at the right time but the right people with the right information at the time to gather the right intelligence so i thank the ranking member for our coming back to explore that further and the hearing is completed.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] tq>> your calls and today's headlines are next on "washington journal." the house is in session at 10:00 eastern and they will talk about indian water rights. and we will get an update on our quick relief efforts in haiti from the florida representative who just returned from their and the haitian ambassador to the u.s. at 9:00 eastern, representative paul ryan, ranking member of the budg