ability of the government to actually work in a way that people trust. and has the ability to carry out the basic responsibilities that the government has to carry out. when i was there, there was a brazilian general as part of the un effort, he was responsible for keeping law and order there. the government at some point has got to be able to protect its people, to make sure the basic services that are necessary for a functioning democracy exist. so far, whatever formula we have engaged in has not worked well. guest: you talked a lot about the regulation overhaul. are there other issues you are looking to work with democrats on in a bipartisan basis? guest: you know, we are pretty

overwhelmed right now with financial regulation. i serve on the foreign relations committee. we are constantly doing things in a bipartisan way there. there are all kinds of efforts there. foreign relations is basically an area that is more forcefully bipartisan. typically the partisanship stops at our shore, and that is a good thing. on energy, there are opportunities there to do things. the whole notion of dealing with climate change this year is going to be put to the side, which means maybe we will have opportunity to do things on energy security together. but yes. this is the one that is before us. it is a substance issue. hopefully, it is one that is reasonable -- sensibility will

prevail and we will work together to get something done. as long as the financial institutions in this country do not know what the guidelines are, what the ground rules are, i think it restricts credit. i know it restricts credit. people do not know what the lay of the land will be in future. from the standpoint of causing our economy to be able to come back, let's get this settled in a good way, not in a punitive way. a lot of populist people are saying let's get a pound of flesh. let's step back and do something that works. hopefully, it will be the beginning of other things happening in a bipartisan way. host: harold ford may run for the senate in new york. what do you think? guest: i'm fortunate. i have financial regulation and other issues to deal with. i will let the great citizens of the state of new york decide what they think.

it will be interesting to watch, if it happens. i get that question every day. while i am really tired today, especially with all that has happened, i will not take the bait. i will let the citizens of new york prevail. host: senator bob corker, republican of tennessee. thank you for joining us here on c-span. guest: thank you. . >> tomorrow on "washington journal" douglas brinkley compares the current administration to past presidents and their administrations. james alan fox, criminology block and public pressure at northeastern university exam is the reason declines in crimes and violent crime rates nationwide, especially in cities. that's "washington journal" at 7:00 on c-span.

>> date -- david miliband spoke about u.s. intelligence on the alleged torture of a british citizen. they publish details about treatment of binyam mohamed was captioned -- is captured in 2002 in -- and had all charges against him dropped in february 3rd this is about 45 minutes.

>> the seven paragraphs contained summaries of american intelligence relating to mr. muhammed's case, held in u.k. files. i accept the board's ruling, which concludes a very complex and in some ways, a very unique case and have made the relevant paragraphs available on the foreign office web site. the judgment is significant not to and respect the seven paragraphs, but also principles that were hard on national security and our democracy. çóan ethiopian national, formaly arrested in the u.k., was detained in pakistan in 2002. in 2004, he was transferred to guantanamo bay. in august 2007, we wrote to the u.s. secretary of state to seek his release from guantanamo bay and his return to the united kingdom along with four other

residents. he was released a year and a half later in february of last year. in may after the snake, he brought proceedings against the british government to ensure disclosure of his council of any material held by the british government that might assist in the defense of this case in a military commission. we supported this disclosure. it would instead, whether the intelligence provided on a confidential basis by one state to another in absolute trust it can be kept secure should be disclosed into the public or a mate -- public domain in interest of justice or whether instead of breach of trust would be so great as to endanger the intelligence sharing relationship and in danger security. as i have said on a number of occasions, in this case, it was u.s. intelligence and an english court, but it could just as easily be british intelligence in a foreign court.

as i have said often, at issue in this case is not the content of the seven paragraphs, but the principle of that exposure by an english court against the u.s. wishes. i am grateful for the consideration the court of appeals gave to be controlled principles. and the ball -- the control principle. the states that intelligence belonging to a country should not be released without agreement. it underpins the flow of intelligence between u.s. and u.k.. this unique relationship is vital to national security in both our countries. crucially, mr. speaker, the court has upheld the control principle to that. the judgment describes that principle as integral to intelligence sharing. it specifically vindicates the careful assessment that releasing the seven paragraphs without the consent of the united states would have damaged the public interest. it specifically makes clear that this litigation has endorsed the application of public interest in unity and the maintenance of confidentiality over secret information. this is important to the future

of intelligence sharing with u.s. and others. however, on the 17th of december, last year, we received notice of a u.s. court ruling and the case of another guantanamo bay detainee which may finding of fact in respect to the allegations of mistreatment on the part of binyam mohamed. it includes references to the treatment of binyam mohamed covered in the seven paragraphs. we brought this to the attention of the court of appeals. the court of appeals ordered the publication of the seven paragraphs because their contents were placed into the public domain by the united states district court. without that disclosure, it's clear the court of appeal would have up help our people and overturned the fifth judgment of the court. court of appeal is also clear that the judiciary should only overturn the view of the executive on matters of national security under certain circles

is important that intelligence provided from one country to another maintains [unintelligible] and it will never be disclosed by the country without providing the immigration. is understanding is rigidly applied to the united states and the u.k. in line i spoke to secretary clinton about this case and it has been followed at the highest level in a u.s. system with a great deal of concern. equally, the termination of the u.s. authorities to protect the confidentiality of their intelligence has been have slid throughout this case. we will work carefully with the u.s. in the weeks ahead to discuss the judgment and its implications in the light of our shared goal and commitment. mr. speaker, mystery and of prisoners, not as a torture, violates the most basic principles of this country, not remind our national and

international obligations. there's a final obligation the part of myself comers' model for the security in and -- security and intelligenceñi services and the heads and staff of the agencies to up told -- to uphold high standards of constant -- up hold the highest standards of conduct. a wide range of allegations have been made during the course of this case. today, some of the facts can be publicized for the first i've been. burrs, the paragraph please day described every nation least by agencies concerning the condition of his detention in pakistan of april 2002. they noted specifically was subject to sleep deprivation, threats, and newsmen, and held shackled and the treatment, connect -- or its content -- where it conducted by the united kingdom would be contrary to -- if it was not conducted by the

u.k. it will be evident paragraphs not contain information on his most serious kinds of mistreatment, notably on his claim of alleged genital mutilation. we in the editing and have no defamation to corroborate those allegations. these matters have been raised quite properly in his claim for damages that will be addressed there. during the course of these proceedings, allegations of possible criminal wrongdoing were made. home secretary for these allegations to the attorney general for consideration and they're now the subject of a police investigation. mr. speaker, the most basic values of this country are issued in the debate all the court's decision today. our decision is clear. you firmly opposes torture, and cruel treatment. this is not about legal obligation treated about our values as a nation and about what we do, not just what we say.

we have taken a leading role to iraqi torture international, both through organizations like the united nations and assisting other countries. where possible wrongdoing is found, it is fully investigated. mr. speaker, i want to place on record we are lucky to have the best intelligence agencies in the world. their staff are second to none in the commitment and their public service. they are respected across the world and the work they do to keep britain safe deserves all of our admiration and gratitude. but there is a third and fundamental myth that is to be addressed -- the security services operate without independent oversight. ministers and agency heads have the first responsibility to the conduct of their organizations. the intelligence figure -- intelligence and security committee provides grenade to activities. independent judicial oversight is provided by commissioners who, by law, given access to whatever documents and information they need. both report annually to the

prime minister and parliament. then there are the courts, this role is to protect the rights of individuals and provide recourse to justice when they think they have been infringed. this, they have done and continue to do in this case. this judgment today is not evidence that the system is broken. rather, it is evidence the system is working and the full force of law is available when citizens believe they have just cause. the judgments in this case and the close adjustment -- closed judgment is show a series of purpose that bottle to our system of accountability. we have fought this case that brought the appeal to bring a principle we think is the middle to our national security. the intelligence shared with us will be protected by us. no one likes to lose a case, but the force of this judgment is that it firmly recognizes the principle and in doing so, the court is the filling its vital constitutional role, protecting

this country and upholding the law. >> on this side of the house, we have always held the intelligence cooperation between the united states and united kingdom is unique in the world, of events value to both countries, and its destruction would have serious consequences for a national security. i echo the tribute paid to the security services by the foreign secretary in his statement. at the same time, we have consistently argued for full investigations all credible allegations of u.k. complicity in torture and for the government to find a way in this particular case to balance the needs of national security with the need for justice and accountability in our democratic society. we, therefore, welcome the judgment which doubles the principle of control. the alleged treatment of binyam mohamed described in seven paragraphs now released by the

foreign office is utterly unacceptable and the alleged trigger described in the u.s. court judgment in december and so dramatically unacceptable that these six, if true, are not only morally you wrong, but harm our efforts to combat terrorists, play into the hands of their propaganda, and we ended rather than strengthen our national security. -- we can read and strengthen our national security. we believe the principle of control could be upheld while seeking an exception in this case from the united states. the foreign secretary will recall that i put it to him a year ago this week that the government could have positively asked the united states for permission to publish these paragraphs. if they had done so and if the united states had agreed, we would have arrived at the same outcome as today's court judgment without a further year of legal proceedings. war quickly and smoothly and in a way that what the government but less open to the attacks it was withholding from the public

evidence of composite activity in torture. doesn't the fact that the relevant information has been published in a way in the united states street than our case that this would have been the right course of action at year- ago? in other respects, we disagree to the statement made by the foreign secretary, particularly on maintaining the principle of control on intelligence with the ruling reaffirms and which we fully support. the foreign secretary has long argued the intelligence sharing relationship would be damaged by the release of progress. is it still his view that relationship will be damaged now that the information has been published? can he say whether there are any other cases pending involving allegations of torture in which he expects the principle to be challenged? in the light of the failed of detroit bomb attack and the serious threat at the moment to both our countries from terrorism, can he assure the house sharing of intelligence has not been affected in any

way? at any other countries with which we share intelligence board will reconsider that sharing were the basis of which they share information in light of today's development? my final set of questions, the overriding need to draw a line under this at the senate and restore it uk's moral authority. as the court ruling states, their rejection of torture has a constitutional resonance for the british people which cannot be overestimated. many of us have criticized the use of the extraordinary rendition and a possibility it can sometimes lead to torture in a third country. the court ruling in the united states which was decisive in making the court of appeal here change its view on publication states unequivocally that as a matter of fact, binyam mohamed was tortured over two years. is this a statement government now accepts?

the foreign secretary has confirmed police are investigating possible criminal misconduct in the case of binyam mohamed. will he confirm whether there are other cases or parallel cases and how many cases the attorney general is revealing? this case has come to epitomize the challenge of international terrorism in the way we deal with it. however difficult this challenges, we must be clear that winning the battle against perpetrators of terrorism and their ideas requires moral as well as military strength. the government must people to ensure that world the line has been drawn and we are far more confident that allegations of complicity and torture cannot be made against the united kingdom in the future and all the necessary lessons of this episode have now been learned. >> mr. speaker, i concur with the gentleman that this case has come to symbolize or applies

some of the most difficult issues raised by the terrorist campaign over the last nine years. and it has also come to symbolize some of the key judgments that need to be made about how to assure our values and security are brought together. it is absolutely the case back a shared commitment across the house against torture and in favor of meeting all our commitments with respect to cruel or in human treatment are a vital part of making this nation saved. they go to the heart of it. -- making this nation safe. he queried visit -- query decision to not launch a campaign for the release of the documents in the united states trade and he is right. we did not want a campaign for the u.s. to release documents, although we were absolutely

clear they must beat release to the council of mr. binyam mohamed, to the extent they were. he thought the same outcome would have been achieved if we had not launched a campaign. the convince the court has made today about the control principle would not have been made in those circumstances and the commitments and comments the court has made are valuable and important in that respect. i said last year and stick by today that the united states and the administration under president obama have shown their commitment with respect to anything done with torture and human treatment. they are reviewing the cases and have decided so far not to release the documents. a paragraph release today are summaries. we hold not the actual documents. it would have suggested a degree of uncertainty as we have launched a campaign about to

commit the u.s. administration has made. he asked a very important question about any chilling it or constraining affects this case might have had on the intelligence sharing or have had in the future. that is something of great concern to me, the government, and the whole country. i said we would be working with the u.s. administration, not just in the state department all aspects of the government to understand this judgment, draw attention to the commitment the court makes in respect to the control principal and to discuss with the less how we continue to defend a principle in the future. i'm absolutely clear it is an important job for me and my colleagues to minimize any potential effect on the intelligence sharing relationship, not least given the recent events showing how important it is. it is too early to come to this house and say there will be no such effect and we need to work

to ensure that the case. the fact the court of appeals have said clearly said it was the disclosures in a u.s. court that led them to make their decision today, that the seven paragraphs should be published, is a material aspect of the discussion about whether or not the control principle has been reached. he also asked about the judgment of fact that the district court made in the united states. we await the government's view over whether their judgment of matters of fact. they have not yet committed to that. we obviously recognize as far as have been established as a matter of fact and if the forest to query the judgment of the u.s. in that respect. let me it -- let me conclude that one key aspect of the lessons that will be drawn or conclusions that will arise or consequences that will rise from this case concerns the three allegations that have no truth in all -- first, there is no

oversight of the security services in this country and that's wrong. the second allegation is our policy is not to torture or commit acts of human treatment herself, but to be composite. that is not true. it is also not true to alleged or possible wrongdoing occurs, it is covered up. this case shows very clearly that this country is committed to uphold its convince and does so for good reason. >> i would like to echo his support for the security services and the importance of the close relationship with our american allies. when one of the most senior judges in the land openly criticizes him for accusing other judges of being responsible and dismisses the, the foreign secretary should be more contrite way comes to the house to make statements today. can i say we undies binges respective controlled principles for away intelligence is

handled. but unlike him, and like the member from richmond, we believe it was a duty of her majesty's government to ask america story that i as level if they would release this information, given the gravity of the accusations and informational been published, one would have thought that was exactly the right thing to do. can i bring the foreign secretary's the content of the seven paragraphs he has been forced to publish today. is it not clear the british authorities knew the united states were using for techniques against binyam mohamed? will foreign secretary tell the house what steps were taken at the time to deploy the use of torture? will they tell the house what steps were taken to ensure britain was not implicit that torture at the time? will the process -- will be guaranteed today that at knows date was britain at risk of international obligations of torture. anyone who has followed this case closely, including evidence given by the security service to

the court will recognize knowledge of the american use of torture did not remain within the secret service but was almost certainly pass on to the highest levels of government. will he tell the house if he does whether ministers were told the u.s. were toaster -- u.s. was torturing binyam mohamed and wet? mr. speaker, i accept the lead of foreign secretary brought this case for four -- for hon. industries and trade but will he take an honorable step of a given this and other allegations of complicity in torture and set up a wide-ranging judicial inquiry. >> while i am glad the hon. john says he welcomes the work done by the security forces and intelligence services and the lives there were, i believe he does himself no justice by first asking questions which he knows,

for reasons of legal circumstance, i cannot answer. nor, for repeating questions of allegations which he knows the let me go through them. he asked about the case that involves witness be. he knows i cannot talk about that case because it is currently in friend-of-the- court. i think it is not right to seek answers to questions that would prejudice or could prejudice and ongoing police investigation. equally, he asked whether the police had been given access to all relevant papers and he knows all relevant papers have been handed over to the police. that's the basis on which the attorney general made her decision to ask for a police investigation. he also asked what will be the effects, i think that is the

word used, and how will it be seen through? on that, mr. speaker, it depends on how the debate is carried forward. but he will note from the success of reports from the intelligence committees that significant changes have been made in the nature of the guidance issued to our security intelligence service personnel, significant changes have been made in the way that policy is promulgated. individual cases, as well as the generic issue, have been examined and set out by the intelligence committee and the recommendations have been followed and the government has said clearly what has done. there is one outstanding issue concerning the publication of the current guidance. the reform of guidance in the light of this case currently sitting with the intelligence and security committee as it was promised it would be for product -- before publication.

>> are you aware many people listening to this debate this afternoon be surprised to see the foreign secretary described as core ruling as a vindication, where he has been forced to reveal information that he struggled for a very long time not to do even when information was available in the united states? if the foreign secretary -- is the foreign secretary aware that to describe the information released today as clearing the government of any involvement past or present, and this complexity and torture, that copyright. he must be aware that whatever is happening now under the new american administration, there are still questions to answer about past british involvement and extraordinary renditions and

torture. >> the vindication is of the control principle. that was made clear by the court. the court makes clear in the absence of the american judgment of december 2009, it would have found in favor of the government. that's very important. third, in respect of extraordinary rendition and -- i don't recognize her description in u.k. complicity in extraordinary renditions -- questions have been asked about extraordinary rendition in relation to diego garcia. my hon. friend knows that two cases have emerged or emerged from studies on their file immediately studied to this house in the proper way. there have been subsequent questions but also subsequent answers to each and every one of those questions in respect of diego garcia.

it is very important we do not allow the impression to go abroad. there are outstanding issues in that respect when there are not. >> can i think the foreign secretary for making this statement today? at its very good he is doing that. just before he stood up earlier, the "guardian" published on its web site a copy of a letter from a lawyer raising the matter the government is seeking a reduction from the judge's rulings. it is a very long letter. .

>> i think the very important that the -- that we also remember that in open court today the council for mr. mohamed apologized unrereservedly for releasing this private document, which is

a normal part of the legal matters that should take place. i think it is very important that there is no suggestion anywhere to impugn the integrity of the judiciary in making their other judgment. what the judiciary say in a draft judgment is their business, and their independence is at the heart of their final words. the words that appear today in public are the words of the justices in the case. a decision was made on that basis. >> if my friend is a i wear, i in no way question his integrity. for some of us, half of the issue is simply this. did british security officials know that torture was being aplayed against mohamed by the u.s.? and if in fact no action was taken by us and no information given to ministers, i consider

that to be a stain on the reputation of our country. it should never happen again. it is not simply good enough, mr. speaker, to say that britain is a party to torture if we know that torture is being carried out by other closest alley, we have a responsibility to act. i am afraid in the case of this mohamed, we didn't do so. >> mr. speaker, my friend is absolutely right, that we to not just have responsibilities with respect for our own officials, but we have responsibility if we come to know that torture or cruel or inhuman treatment is being undertaken by others, and we have the responsibility to act when we have that information, and we should do so. there is a criminal case being studded -- stud whied at the moment -- studied at the moment. that is the way in which the system should work and is

working. i should also say that for all of the lessons, there have been significant changes since 2002 in the way in which guidance is offed to all officers. in respect to what happened at the time, it is in front of our police at the moment, and if they proceed to charges, go in front of the court, find out what happened in this individual case. >> dr. julian willis? >> mr. speaker, according to the great theorist, sir robert thompson over 40 years ago, prisoner abuse is not only morally wrong, the lethal to any counterinsurgence campaign. i appreciate he does not want to comment on the case before the court. can he address the question of

what representations the government made to our american alleys more -- allies when it became known more generally that they were waterboarding. >> as detailed in the security committee report, did follow up both in terms of our own system, the way in which the practices were taken forward. also in ways set out in a letter, and i would be very happy to do that, what happened. it is also documented what didn't happen and what should have happened. not in respect for an individual case, but affection, training and guidance for officials. that means we are in a much stronger position today than we were in 2002. we also keep it under review and i think the publication of the current guidance will be an

important occasion for not just the whole house, but the whole country to see how that is taken forward.

>> can he tell the house when the government firgs learned of those facts? at what level in government were they in fact known? what steps were taken to make urgent representations to the united states government that this must stop? and was not the concealment of this document very damaging to mr. mohamed's claim for civil damages? >> order. i recognize the retorical technique he was ememploying, but i counted six questions, for which one will suffice. >> pardonñlme. >> mr. speaker, i think the best way to answer the question is to detail for him what has been reported through the i.s.c. about what the government knew and what action it took. i do want to say one thing, that it was the actions of the government as recorded in the

divisional accord that got the documents to mr. mohamed's legal counsel. that is why the constant confusion between the suppression of evidence and the publication of the evidence is so damaging. it was at the heart of the government's case. we had a responsibility to ensure that mr. mohamed was able to defend himself. that is why we may representations to the u.s. authorities and why the divisional court effectively congratulating the government on achieving that. that is not the same as publishing the document in the public do main. one concerns a public interest in open debate. i will give him a detailed explanation of the other questions he ask. >> mr. speaker, in speaking to my right honorable friend, making it clear that torture and complicity with torture is totally unacceptable. i thank you for the statement

he made about the work of the security and intelligence committee on which i sit. i think it scrutinizes agencies forcefully and purposesfully. i need to ask him the question because it is crucial for all of us. is there going to be a watching brief on the ways intelligence sharing between the u.s. and great britain is going to continue? i ask that because it is important. that relationship is crucial to great britain's future security. >> mr. speaker, my honorable friend is right. there will be a taking stock as i set out in my statement.

>> so the issue is no longer in doubt. given all that, will the foreign secretary now finally discuss with the prime minister the need for a judge-led inquiry, which is supported by lord carlisle, the government's own anti-terrorism watchdog, supported by the leader of the opposition, the liberal party as well as many others? >> mr. speaker, i am interested to hear that the leader of the option is recommitting himself to a judicial inquiry, and i will pursue inquiries to see if that is the case. mr. speaker, inside government we have discussed whether a

judicial inquiry would be right, and we have concluded it would not be right. the judicial system in it country is performing an effective function in the court. which is where it belongs. there is a dangerous confusion emerging between rendition and torture. those are not the same things, but both are reprehensible. both are represent henlsible and quite contrary to the laws and spirit of this country. it is important that we not confuse the two. mr. mohamed was subject to both. they are both wrong and need to be addressed fully. i do not i think that the conclusions we have drawn from mie9ñ the judiciary is performing their function vigilantly. >> can i take it back to the am mohamed and

what happened to him in 2002. what protests have been made? are they satisfied that the continuation of this practice either in pakistan or other places where the u.s. takes prisoners ultimately to some other destination? and does he not think that guantanamo bay guantanamo bay should have been closed many years ago and should we have done something more to close it? >> he is seeking to imitate. secretary will suffice. >> the government has stood begins guantanamo bay for a long time. but it is also a fact that the current administration and the united states are committed to closing guantanamo bay and seeking to close it as fast as possible, quite rightly. i didn't hear what he said, but in answer -- i can answer affirmatively to both ofñi thos questions posed by my right honorable friend.

with respect to using thosexd practices are continuing, it is executive o2çim that president obama has issued among other things that those practices have been completely banned by the u.s. be, and that puts them in line with our position. >> the government judges orñi interest in the closure of guantanamo bay was soxd strong that british residents and citizens be given the chance to come back to the u.k. we did that in the case of nine british citizens and five residents. one british residents continues

to reside in guantanamo bay, and we continue to press the case for his release. the basis on which we took the position was the closure of guantanamo bay was right. we had a part to play in it, but it was also right that mr. mohamed was a resident of the u.k. at the time of his extraordinary rendation. not renkigs from this country, but rendition from within south asia. >> paul flynn. >> this dreadful conduct is alien to our history and principles and will certainly increase the risk of terrorism to this country. in his stock-taking, will he look at the possibility of returning to a fully independent british foreign policy that served us so well in the vietnam war? >> well, mr. speaker, i'm happy to agree with my right honorable friend that theñi british foreign policy iyi full independent, but we pursue our

foreign policy with our allies and with others who aren't our allies. we are committed to doing what is right for the united kingdom. that involves a close relationship with the united states, but that does not mean we always agree with the united states. i am pleased to say we agree with the current administration more than other administrations, but not on everything, and that is the right way on which to proceed. >> will this case speed up the release and the return of the person detained? is there any intelligence material about the torture of him in our possession, and could this be a reason behind the reluctant of the u.s. to agree to his return to our country? >> i don't think this has any bearing on that case. we continue to press the case for the release of him and will continue to do so.

>> this past thursday alabama senator jeff fashions took to the senate floor to talk about terrorist trials and military tribunals. here's a portion of what he had to say. b a military -- a person apprehended on the battlefield, a prisoner of war who is a lawful combatant, wearing a uniform, fighting against the the united states in a lawful manner according to the laws of war cannot be excessively interrogated, cannot be tried for any crime, but can be held until a war is over, whether it's one year or ten years. that's the law of the world and the law of the united states. but if they are unlawful combatants, as these al qaeda malicious, devious, murdering thugs are, they don't wear a

they don't wear a uniform. they don't comply with the laws of war. they attack innocent civilians deliberately to spread terror. those are in violation of the rules of war. i thank the chair and would ask unanimous consent for three additional minutes. >> without objection. >> so, what would have happened to him if he were handled by the military? he would have been interrogated by peopleçó in short order who were intimately familiar with the situation developing in yemen. they would have been able to ask him questions without a lawyer being present. he doesn't have to have a lawyer. they could use the legal interrogation techniques that coming has passed into law and directed the military to use in these kind of interrogations

and no more, or they would be in spry lation of the law. he wouldn't be abused. and then eventually he could be a tried or not tried as the military and national security would dictate. but if you arrest him and put him in civilian situations, he immediately has to be advised of his rights, immediately given a lawyer. he is entitled to a speedy trial act. he is entitled to demand discovery and information from the government about how they caught him and who provided the information. he can demand to go to trial and to be able to speak out and use it as a forum to promote their agenda. there's a huge difference between the two. and for mr. brennan to act like there is no difference and for my colleagues to continue to say president bush tried these people before we got the system up and running in a healthy way

is disingenuous. it is not correct in a rational discussion of how this would be. this is what president barack obama said in an important "60 minutes" interview. now do these folks deserve miranda rights? do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? of course not. amen, mr. president. of course they are not entitled to miranda rights. of course they are not entitled to be treated like a shoplifter down the block. but when they decided to try abdul in civilian court, that is exactly what happened, like he was charged with a shoplifting offense. we raised this issue last fall

back in accept with the director of the f.b.i. about miranda. i asked him, if you're going to try these terrorist suspects in federal court, they should be mirandized, right, mr. director? if you want a particular statement at a particular time admissible in court, generallyly that has to be mirandized. and in fact, you can't even ask them questions lawfully until you provide them the miranda rights. if they say anything that is of value to the prosecution, the dismissible. what about the dramatic event in the judiciary committee? senator lindsey graham, very experienced and still remains a jag officer in the air force after many years. he still goes off to his duty two weeks a year.

he asked this question to the attorney general. "if we captured osama bin laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to miranda eighth warnings at the moment of captures"? the attorney general, again, i'm not, that all democrats. i mean. he never gave a full answer. madam president, i thank the chair and believe we have got to get our head straight on this matter and cease to be providing the kind of due process rights that american citizens get and provide the kind of legitimate due process rights that a military commission provides. they are great, but they are not the same, and we understand that we are at war, and it creates a dynamic and allocation of process. i thank the chair. >> new york senator, chum schumer, and maryland congress

man chris val hollins said they are looking at something in light of a recent supreme court ruling. this was a topic at the "washington journal." the new york post" this morning is "power- play." "with 15,000 troops moving into southern afghanistan." more details coming up this morning. for the front page of "the new york times is another photograph of southern afghanistan and marines moving into the province. below that, the black caucus has raised $55,000 over the past couple of years. inside of "the new york times" is a piece by david fitzpatrick, democrats trying to change the bill on campaign barriers. the bill was co-sponsored by crist and holland. here is part of what the new

york senator said in the last week. >> in the weeks since the decision came down, chris and i, together with our colleagues in the white house, have finalized a legislative approach that we think represents the best remedy to this act of political overreach by the court. our bill takes five steps. banning foreign corporations from influencing collections. foreign leaders like hugo chavez and the chinese should have no backdoor ability to undercut our democracy. second, we stop bailout recipients or government contractors from spending unlimited amounts. taxpayer money should not be used to promote a company's political interest. third, we are imposing new disclosure requirements. fourth, we are proposing new

disclaimers on television advertisements, hoping to drill down deep so that the real person that puts forward the money is disclosed. finally, we are requiring candidates to provide reasonable access to their time if corporations will make them the target. host: joining us on the phone from "politico" is david mark. thank you for being with us. caller: good morning. my pleasure. host: where does this go from here? what does this action means in terms of the 2010 election? caller: they have said that it allowed to expedite this, moving it as quickly as possible so that it can have an effect of the midterm elections, which are coming up quickly in november.

if the house and the senate are going to move on this, it will have to be in a matter of weeks. host: one of the people behind campaign finance laws, john mccain, says that the supreme court has spoken on this decision. does this tell you that he will not move forward on this legislation? caller: he has had an interesting position. basically he is a primary challenge from the right for his own tendencies. he has got to be careful to make sure that he is not moving towards the center. in a sense, he is right, the supreme court decision was pretty sweeping. they were pretty clear about what is allowable and what is not.

the concern for many people is that whenever restrictions are passed, they will just get struck out and it will have no effect whatsoever. host: one of the issues with this decision is that corporations have the right to spend without restriction. the question came up in the oral arguments is how do you define the corporation? caller: he is specifically talking about foreign ownership. he is suggesting that if a stock is owned by 20% board ownership or more, if there are other kinds of majority ownership from foreign entities, it would not be allowed. a good question. there are all kinds of legal

loopholes so that people do not have to declare. it can be tough to pin down. this has always been the issue with campaign finance restrictions. with one limitation in place, another loophole pops up. host: based on what the democrats are putting forth, if you are a corporation in you want to have a role in the political process and you want to spend money on advertising, what are they calling for? caller: companies would have to approval from shareholders. officers from the corporation would have to do what candidates for congress do, saying that they approve the message. they would have to go in appear on camera for a certain amount of time and say that they're

backing his political message. the thinking is that it might dissuade some corporate officers, ceos, from wanting to get involved in politics. but we do know until it starts to play out. host: is there democratic support for this from the white house? caller: not on these specific proposals. the president directly criticized the justices in his state of the union. it is not clear that there is majority supportçó in either chamber to push this through, particularly in the senate, where there needs to be 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. with senator mccain on the

fence, it is not clear how this moves forward. host: if you could stay with us for a couple of minutes, we want to get your reaction out there to this democratic proposal to make some changes. jesse, joining us from lebanon, tenn.. caller: i was waiting for you guys to say something about congress stepping in, which is what i feel needs to be done. all of these people take money from corporations. it shouldn't all be reined in. senator mccain, as you know, was featured in "usa today" with bob beckel and cal thomas, who is a

liberal against conservatives. again, is senator mccain going back on his word? just like he did with gays in the military? not going to vote -- going back to the right, not being the maverick that he said he was? we know that he got screwed over by president bush in south carolina. host: charles, independent line, chicago. good morning. caller: the morning. this is sending the united states straight into an all agree. -- oligarchy cal. as we speak, grassroots organizations are forming to fight against this, leading

directly into a form of socialism that i do not think anyone wants to think about, which was what marxists organized to start communism. this is absolutely the worst decision ever brought upon us in the united states. thank you. host: joseph, indiana. republican line, your reaction? college coach chuck schumer is throwing camouflage on to the problem. it is a problem of congress. they have to reform the entire campaign finance system. if you legislate against corporations, there are loopholes. what we really need is a total reform to where you publicly financed campaigns. all of this is just political

subterfuge by obama and schumer to take people's attention of the real economic problems. host: when you talk about public financing of campaigns, you are talking about paying for congressional candidates or matching funds? caller: the federal government should allow communities to get on the ballot. they have to get on the ballot so many signatures to entitle themselves for public funding. host: david, ohio. you are next. caller: the ruling is terrible, there is already way too much special interest influence on government. i have heard a lot of people talking about government being the problem, but they are not the problem, corrupt government is the problem.

government does that work is be -- government does not work because corporate special interests do not wanted to work. when it comes to passing legislation, legislation that could help the working poor, like health care or that nature, we don't have anything. host: steve, pa., what do you think? caller: typical move from chuck schumer. it was interesting and that man from "politico," which i loved, he wanted the shareholders to have a say. i wonder if he feels the same way for the unions? people with their money in the form of union dues to use for political purposes they may or

may not agree with. this idea, i truly believeñi tht whether they are democrats, for public and both independents, or anxdñi alien life form, all th'e interested in this themselves. host: david, what are we hearing? caller: even a lot of critics of the decision are green with senator mccain. we do not like this, but the supreme court has spoken in a fairly decorative way and we should try to work with the rules to our advantage. one of the callers mentioned labor unions. and the role that their member of at in overstaying the kind of political activity need to be involved with. you hear a lot of democratic activists saying that corporations can get into the action, so can labor unions.

let's use this to our advantage, building up the union's and having them run advertisements. not just corporations, but other outside groups can run political advertising. i would say that there are unintended consequences. we may not know how this will play out until a couple election cycles from now. host: david clarke is our guest tonight. what role did he play in that decision? caller: david bossy was the protagonist. he and his group created a movement about hillary clinton, a rather unflattering film, going back to her years as first lady. the question for the court was whether this was kind of been in

kind contribution against terror as a part of the campaign cycle, essentially a campaign contribution, whether he had the right to do so. the supreme court decided that he and his firm and his team had every right to make this contribution. they can also seek out within 60 days before an election, which was prohibited under the old rules, he wasñr a longtime republican activist. he investigated the first lady when she was in office. he is seen by a lot of people as a hero in this community. a lot of people on the other side of the political aisle said the this opened up the court ñigates and allowed them to get their voices out. bid is a diverse backing of people. it -- it is a diverse backing of people. host: here is a piece from tonight's broadcast.

caller: the liberals have been hyperventilating since this was proposed, they have been actively participating in the process, submitting polling data, going out in the field, doing -- doing polling of the american people. they are very interested in their viewpoint and their viewpoint, in my opinion, is less speech. for your average person, including the aclu and the planned parenthood, we want them to be able to say their peace without the government participating in telling them what they can and cannot say and when they cannot say it.

host: the entire interview airs tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. check it out of line at q-a.org. if the issue is freedom of speech, is what senator schumer proposing freedom of speech with full disclosure? caller: a good question, something that might be decided by the courts if this legislation gets passed. previous court cases from federal courts through the supreme court had used these kinds of restrictions in terms of disclosure. it is not preventing someone from speaking their mind politically, it is simply giving access to the public so that they know who is speaking their mind. this seems like the safest legal ground for chuck schumer and his allies to push forward this legislation. even most of the justices said

they believe that this element of it. clarence thomas was the only one who took issue with the disclosure element. host: david clarke, senior editor at "politico." thank you for -- david mark, senior editor at "politico," thank you for spending this time with us. caller: my pleasure. thank you for having me. host: we are continuing with your phone calls. democrats trying to undo the campaign finance reform from the supreme court. bob is joining us from san jose, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot believe the people that have called in. they should all be outraged. how can you say that we have freedom of speech when corporations have billions

against any other kind of organization? that is not know democracy. that is complete corporate takeover. when you have government and corporation working together, it is fascism. thank you. host: democratic line, good morning. scranton, pennsylvania. gerald, go ahead, please. let's try one more time, if you are with us. let's move on to rabin, st. louis, missouri. caller: how are you? if they wanted to simplify campaign finance, they could do it with common sense. the only people like to donate campaigns would be the people living in the district of where the person was running. people in california are donating to people in missouri, which is crazy. there is no common sense. host: thank you for the call.

twitter.com/c-spanwj, one viewer is saying "amazing, even when it hits them in the face, they do not understand that they are supporting greedy corporations and the wealthy." you can join the conversation by logging onto twitter.com/c- spanwj. chris, los angeles. caller: i know it is 4:30 out here -- host: schuring as early out there. glad to hear from you. caller: i have my television turned down and i wanted to say my piece. i could not believe that the supreme court would allow -- idea know what word to use. all that i know is that when i stop to think that the next presidency and the financing of that campaign will be financed by big corporations, to me it makes no sense. i do not understand why they would do it.

i would more than likely be glad to put in a year, like they ask for on the income tax, in the election process. this is just insane, and that is my opinion. thank you. i will listen for any comments after i hang out. host: $3 to help presidential campaigns for matching funds, but candidates are not using that money any more, they can raise more outside of the limits. host: i did not know that. my taxes have not been done this year. host: the point is in 2000, george w. bush opted out and in 2008 john mccain and barack obama opted out of matching funds. host: the last i heard, it was like you could send $1.

i do not do my taxes. coastal used to be a dollar, now $3. any help, thanks to a call. we told you about the situation in afghanistan, troops moving into the southern part of the country, this is the story inside of "the washington post." "u.s. marines and afghan soldiers encountered the pockets of stiff resistance and extensive minefields in the taliban sanctuary of southern afghanistan. numerous gun fights with insurgents and painstaking efforts to clear the roads slows the advance ofñr many coalition units and stop them from reaching key areas. the operation is further complicated by the challenge of irrigation cants that traverse the area, and explosive devices

." that is the front page of "the washington post." they're calling it a tough slog in the weeks ahead. new jersey, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning to you. decades ago a great u.s. senator from new jersey, bill@@@@@@ not likely. david writes his job approval rating shows signs of slipping as anti-incumbent fervor sweeps the land. old friend on wall street fear

he has gone populist on them. others whine that schumer now cares more about his standing nationally in washington, where some believe he could be the first senate majority leader from new york. grumbling broke out over his handling of the now-dead health care bill, which would have shocked the city and state with $1 billion in cost. read more on line. harry, republican line, virginia. your reaction to senator schumer's efforts to undo the finance ruling by the supreme court? caller: good morning. i may be the first business person to call in this morning. by some of the commentary, i am thinking i might. host: what is your business? caller: i work for a fortune 50

global leader in communications, and i am going to leave it at that. host: ok. caller: there is a lot of hyperventilating here about corporatism and fascism. i am the first to admit that we don't know how this is all going to play out. two points. my public corporation, in a 50-50 nation is not going to alienate half of the country by publicly advertising for one candidate against another candidate. it is just not going to happen. and you're going to see that to be the major trend for all major corporations. i see this as affecting somebody more like the aclu, which is a corporation, or greenpeace, which is a corporation. this is how we organize folks, sometimes for commercial

purposes, for profit, and sometimes for other reasons. but they are organized into corporations. that is what the court was confirming, a corporation being denied based solely on the fact that they were a corporation. another point, to keep this brief, here in virginia corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to cam paints -- campaigns directly. they have to disclose. in the last election for governor, any citizen of the commonwealth who wanted to know knew exactly what corporations were contributing to the candidates, and they could make their decision accordingly. and virginia, i don't think this is a big claim, we have a reputation for clean government. this has not destroyed the commonwealth. host: thank you for the call.

the national journal looking at some of the up and coming leaders in the house and senate. five savvy house democrats are featured in the journal, including chris van hollen. the piece in the "new york times" last friday looking at some changes to that 5-4 supreme court decision. we want to get your reaction to that. re that decision. "a glimmer of bipartisanship on the high-profile issue of job creation faded quickly last week after teharry reid rejected something put together by top democrats and republicans in the finance committee. max baucus and charles grassley circulated a draft of their $85 billion package, including tax cuts and spending provisions. senator reid of the against the

plan, saying that it would not pass and that it would not be helpful for democrats in the midterm elections." oklahoma, democratic line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: this is a big sucker's game. i have watched everything in this health care debate. i have no health care. i am 58 and from california, where they will let you down. do not yourself. these politicians are using their boats as a commodity. they have been suckered into believing by these political campaign consultants to the need millions and millions of dollars to run a campaign. truth is, for a congressman, the area is not that big. i think that the supreme court

is rubber-stamp in what they have been doing for years, which is why there is a mess. the only way handle this is that the local level. i do not care if they are to party groups were liberal groups, often those are people that live right in the community district. start with these congressman, pull them in and say, look, if you cannot raise enough money in this district, you are not the right person here. i think that they need to tell them that there needs to be a campaign out there -- anybody can get an absentee ballot. people need to tell them, this is not money in the bank. we are not filling this out to make a decision until the day before the election. host: money, spending, fundraising. we want to draw your attention to this story that we alluded

to. fund-raising powerhouse, let me read you an excerpt from the piece this morning. when the congressional black caucus wanted to pay out the mortgage foundation to the stately 1930's red-brick headquarters, they turned to a familiar roster of friends. wal-mart, at&t, general motors. "soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing what amounted to a mortgage burning party for the $4 million town house. most political groups in washington with been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations, but by taking advantage of local finance laws they had built a fund-raising juggernaut like nothing in town. from 2004 to 2008 the congressional black caucus and its charitable wing took in $55 million in corporate and union contributions according to an analysis of open "the new york

times." an impressive amount, even by the standards of washington awash in cash. only $1 million of that went to the political action committee, the rest went into its unregulated non-profit network. in 2008 the congressional black caucus spent more on catering for its signature legislative dinner and conference, an event that one organizer called hollywood on the potomac. -- potomac." if you want to see the entire list, inside of "the new york times" is an entire list broken down by drug makers, of all and tobacco companies, finance and lending institutions, food and beverage companies, telecommunication companies, general motors, toyota, insurance, state farm, and other donors, like wal-mart.

stephanie is joining us, independent line. caller: i would be all for that bill if he included individuals that lobbied. for the simple fact that the supreme court, years and years ago, said that corporations were individuals, which was widely applauded the government. if they do away with one, they should be doing away with the other. the markets are running the country. if you want to add that to the bill, i would be all for it. host: steve, not stephanie. thank you for the call. one twitter comment saying "as far as i am concerned, politicians should wear patches like nascar drivers so that you can see who contributes to them." more from last week in the story on friday, democrats trying to rebuild campaign spending barriers.

here's more from the new york senator. >> the highest court in the land is at odds with public opinion and the constitution. which labours strenuously. we are not going to let this decision go unchallenged. today, congressman vin pollan and i are announcing the framework of comprehensive legislation that we intend to introduce in our respective chambers the week after the recess. unlike most bills that are introduced in congress, this one has a deadline for action. if we do not act quickly, the court ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections. our goal is to advance the legislation quickly. otherwise the supreme court will predetermine the winners of next november's election. it will not be republicans or democrats, it will be corporate america. host: back to your calls, jeff

is joining us from texas. good morning. caller: in response to what one of the callers was saying, their point that the righties would benefit most from this. look at the books, what obama received from major wall street corporations and what republicans received, it was more for obama. most people are not too concerned with that, but they're cooking the books better, which was obama. number three, what i do not understand is when people think that corporations are these big monsters, people work for corporations. therefore the supreme court had no choice to the constitutionality other than to rule that corporations have rights just like any other person.

how many corporations get the democrats? host: we just got a comment from a viewer, "you can be sure that the democrats will not complain about the congressional black caucus." caller: that is what i am saying. my ideal solution to this would be to cut out all campaign financing from individuals. host: thank you for the call on the republican line. we go to the democrat line. james from kentucky. caller: i think the caller from texas was not quite correct about the persons and corporations. i know it has been through a series of supreme court decisions starting like in the 1880's that gave corporations personhood. from what i understand, the founding fathers were

concerned, and there is lgslation passed that led to the power of corporations. corporations could not last more than 40 years. they were not allowed to invest in other corporations. and i think the last one, if i can remember, kind of nervous here host: no need to be nervous, but i understand your point. caller: at the end of that 40 years, the rule was they would be stoffed. i think one of the big reasons the founders were concerned was they were concerned about the acquisition of excessive wealth. i think to remedy the problem would require probably an amendment to the constitution. i think thomas jefferson wanted the congress and the senate to get together every 20 years on a generational basis to amend the constitution i think maybe to take care of problems like this if they were to ever arise. host: another viewer comment saying let's say democrats vow

to turn down money from companies. this is a side show for a failing administration. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," author and historian, douglas brinkly compared the current administrationçó to pas presidents and theirñr administrations. and james allen fox, pickup policyñr professor at northeastern uokversity examines the violent crime rates nationwide, especially in cities. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> up next, it's "q & a" with dave bossey, after that, gordon brown with the british house of commons. we will follow that with a forum on the global industry outlook for 2010.