potential al qaeda plot against new york city and washington d.c. during this 9/11 weekend. and he detail on a report on the department of homeless security. "washington internal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: 10 years ago, this was the scene at the pentagon. here we now have a party that has been did it -- dedicated to the people lost their lives on september 11. we want to know your thoughts about america 10 years later. that is our question this morning. 10 years later, america is, and you fill in the blank. talk about where america is,

what she is doing, and how you feel about our country 10 years after the 9/11 attacks. the numbers, 202-624-1111 for democrats. 202-624-1115 for republicans. 202-624-0760 for independence. if you want to follow the conversation you can e-mail us. you can also follow us on twitter and facebook. this is the story on the front page of this morning's "washington post." under the headline, national unity becomes a distant memory. the author writes in this seems almost impossible to imagine

that in today's cover he did in a garment that there was a brief time in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks when congressional leaders and the two parties regarded one another not only as trustworthy allies but also indispensable partners. that goes on to say this.

we are talking about america, 10 years later. you fill in the blank. 10 years later, america is what? long island, new york. caller: thanks for this opportunity. i think we have gone backwards. i do not think the war on terror has been a legitimate force for freedom throughout the world. i do not think that at this stage in the game, we are going for. we are going backwards.

unlike the producers or yourself to pull up an article that was on may 7, 2004. it involved the air traffic controllers involved during 9/11. the article was written by a map here. he says the effort -- air traffic controllers recorded what they felt about the incidence of 9/11 end of the handling of the incident. they destroyed the tapes. it was recordings of their deposition as to what occurred. they would not be able to come back to work the next morning, because of union rules. they destroyed it. i think that article needs to be looked at, as well as a flight 190. i think a lot of it. -- points to problems that we have with the legitimacy of the war on terror. host: greg on airline for

republicans calling from california. 10 years later, america is what, in your mind? caller: hopefully it is a little bit safer, but not quite as safe as we would want. i worked at ground zero, a block away when i saw a plane hit the south tower. i do not think they have the capacity to accomplish something like that again. we still live under a certain amount of terror. i hope the american people and have learned. i'd like to comment on the fact that those of us that were there that morning on the ground, there is no commemoration or celebration that is worthy of what we went through that day. i was there before the firemen and ambulance is that there. i have tremendous respect for them. aside from that, i really tried

to avoid anything relative to commemorations or celebrations of tomorrow. i wish all of the family is the best. god bless america. host: what were you doing down there that morning and have you been back to the site since? caller: absolutely not. i was bedridden and in the hospital for 7.5 years afterwards. when i returned to california, i almost bled to death from internal bleeding, holding in all of the pressure from being there at the site from that day. it was ironic that i would survive that morning, and yet to be home a little less than a week later finally being able to drive across country to get back to california only to almost died from internal bleeding. the irony being that if i was in the hospital waiting to be

treated, it took them six hours, because of the doctors were in new york trading the people that were there. i was there in new york on business heading to the bankers trust building, which was devastated by the attack. host: moving on to brooksville, fla., democrats line. caller: i just thought it was important on this time of remembrance, of the people that died that day, the actions and the policies that the federal government is the reason why that happened. that is why would it will probably continue to happen. is there a degree of safety? yes. as long as the metal in the affairs of others, we will suffer those kinds of consequences. host: do you see any sort of change in the way the government

operate domestically or overseas in the 10 years since the 9/11 attack? caller: if you ask them, they will tell you what they want you to hear. big fancy speeches and asking for god to bless america. host: florida, independent line. caller: i agree with the past caller somewhat. i do not think we are any better off. i think we will see the same thing. we are meddling in other countries businesses. they say their countries are being used by the big corporations and the big money people in this country. i want to ask them, just hurt the ones that are hurting you, the republicans.

leave the democrats alone. host: more from the "question imposed" article this morning. -- washington post" article this morning. back to the phones on our line for democrats, washington, d.c., bill. caller: i worked for united on september 11. they were my friends. on both of those flights.

[crying] host: from your perspective, what has changed over the last 10 years? caller: in my honesty, not much has changed. i lost a lot of friends that they. tomorrow is going to be a really tough day. a really tough day. i just tell people to remember -- remember what they went through. i remember george bush in a speech he made -- the flight crews, remember the flight crews.

george bush never mentioned the flight crews. he was invited to the boston memorial for both of those planes, and he refused to go. we will leave it there. an. caller: so many unanswered questions. let's talk about the other three buildings to fall from fires. [unintelligible] there has never been a decent investigation. the report is full of holes. we have a government that murdered citizens to start a

long-term terror war to intel the banking industry would permit power over people. host: bill on the line for democrats from st. charles, missouri. caller: america is still in the nile. the criminals the poll of 9/11 are still on the streets. everything about 9/11 is a lie. many have not looked at anything about this disgrace. it is shameful. i cannot even watch tv. the questions have been asked about all of the holes in the story that we were fed on 9/11. 10 years later, we are still in denial, republicans are walking free, and we of murdered 2 million people based on that flight.

host: -- based on that lie. host: when you see the cover story in the may 16 edition of "newsweek" that says mission accomplished, but are we safer, talking about the killing of osama bin laden, that does not make you think there has been some sort of a change in the way we do business? caller: know, because if you look at the fact that we killed bin laden, and all of the holes in that story, why would you blow him away and throw him in the ocean? why wouldn't you take kempe to this country and make him stand trial -- why wouldn't you bring him to this country and make him stand trial? the whole thing is a lie. host: next caller. caller: i would like to say to my fellow americans, god bless america. can we not come together.

host: what changes have you seen in our country over the last 10 years? caller: a lot of people with hatred in their hearts. they are always looking for someone to blame, instead of taking it upon themselves to make this a better country. another thing is [unintelligible] when metal get compromise, the wait will cause the integrity to collapse. the idea that it has to reach a melting temperature before it deteriorates and starts to collapse is ludicrous. host: so it is possible for a plane to crash into a world trade center like it did and the heat would cause the disintegration enough of the metal so that the top falls down and crushes the rest of the building?

caller: with the acceleration factor with the jet fuel and the sustained burning, yes, i think it is possible. host: lee in a nashville, tennessee. more from the article in "the new york times", a study by a political scientist. some concluded there is less ideological overlap between the two party is in congress than at any other time since the late 1890's. .

host: what's changed in ten years? ten years later america is what? caller: ten years later america is in deep trouble. but i would like to say that 20 years ago we invaded iraq and slaughtered tens of thousands of iraqi soldiers in the desert. and this is a long-time coming. and it's going to be a long-time gone. host: in massachusetts, john on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: i'll tell you what changed in ten years. we had a surplus. it's gone. we got the supreme court that voted for corporations. you have a homeland security where now you're being everything that you have is being checked, e-mails, phone calls, everything. you have no freedom. now, the crooks that got away with ripping us off in our

retirement, that's another thing. you think that they don't know that the middle class is broke? when you check in the records and everybody's accounts, what do you think this technology is for? it's to monitor everybody. as far as i'm concerned what we lost is our freedom. and now, the middle class when we speak up, we're going to be the treertses. we're going to be the ones speaking for democracy but they're going to say we're un-american. you've got to check the facts. there's the biggest transfer of wealth. all the leaders of all the nations basically looking at our finances and everything else. now you see the tv stations and the media. your business, they're in everybody's business. so why do you think we're having the problems that we're having now? >> john, in massachusetts. the president in his weekend

radio address remembered september 11th. this is what he had to say. >> a decade after 9/11 it's clear for all the world to see the terrorists that attacked us that september morning are no match for the character of our people, the resilience of our nation, or the endurance of our value. they want to terrorize us but as americans we refuse to live in fear. make no mistake they will continue to try to hit us again. but we're doing everything in our power to protect our people. and no matter what comes our way, we will carry on. >> we're talking about america ten years later. america is what? let us know what you think. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.

we find this tweet from dweller. back to the phones. north carolina. bill on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: the thing that strikes me is the press after 9/11 seemed to just anileyate everything that president bush did. and then when we had obama running for president, the press just seemed to take a pass and not ask him any questions and most people in america today are just fed up. and my gut feeling is the tea party is probably 60 to 70% of america. and it's just a really sad thing to me. i'm in my 70's and i'm saying

to myself, what the hell happened to america? there is no question that washington is broken. how we can get it fixed, the only way is to get rid of obama. >> in ohio our next call comes from wade on our line for democrats. ten years after the attacks, america is what? caller: good morning. america is the best country in the whole world. but the problem here is the policy remains the same. we have a mistake by the palestinian situation in the u.n. this is something years ago. they declared their indance. i would love the palestinian to do the same. let us stop and don't adopt the palestinian resolution in the u.s. thank you. host: on the cover story of

newsweek this week, 9/11, ten years of fear, grief, and resilience. and then if you go on the inside of the magazine, they have a section called how 9/11 changed our culture. one of the examples, how we speak. september 11th split the world into before and after. before, we went to work against countries. after, we went to war against terror. before, we scar fed french fries. after, we aid freedom fries with a side of patriotism. before, we protected the country after, we guarded the homeland. washington never the most literary city, set the voke blarey of the day. and we'll check some of those other items on how newsweek says our culture changed after 9/11. back to the phones. fairfield, connecticut. back to our line for

republicans. caller: good morning. well, one thing i never really quite understood is nobody at the airports who allowed the terrorists to get on the planes on 9/11 werer held accountable. they were airport security that got on the planes in boston and washington, d.c. how did they get on the planes with their weapons and why was no one ever held accountable? and the problem is nobody has ever been held accountable for anything. george w. bush took us into a wear against a country that had no -- we had no problems with before. and no one has basically at this point we've been occupying iraq for eight years. no one says why did we go there if they didn't have weaments. host: getting back to the accountability. you don't see the step up at airports as the way of the government showing

accountability? caller: it's a little late. where was the airport security before the planes took off? and why wasn't inn ever held accountable and why wasn't anyone held accountable? or from the air force. they were unable to get the fighter jets into the air. and what about the pentagon? isn't that supposed to be a no fly zone? >> james, on the "washington journal." caller: i believe our country is less safe because our borders are so porous and we have a homeland security director that believes that she's won. she's not won anything. our country is open. we have millions of people here. we don't know who they are or what their agenda is. how are we going to protect our country if we don't close our borders? >> thanks for your call.

nebraska, jerry on our line for republicans. caller: believe we're safer. we're not totally safe but i believe we're safer and it's all due to the actions of george bush and dick cheney. if they hadn't taken the steps they had, i believe we would have had a lot more attacks. and i think with president obama relaxing on homeland security and stuff, i believe attacks will happen again now. host: we want to remind our viewers and listeners that we will have live coverage of the shanksville memorial dedication, the flight 93 event will pay tribute to the lives of those who were taken from us and reaffirm that their legacy is safer, stronger and resilient. the dedication of the new memorial guests include former president george w. bush. that will be on c-span and

c-span radio starting at approximately 2:30 p.m. and going to 2:30 in the afternoon. >> back to the phones. north carolina on our line for republicans. america ten years later is what? caller: well, no matter how you decided to branch off the tree of politics since 2000, i believe that no matter what, -- no matter whether you're happy or not with whether we're more secure or not or whether you feel that our liberties haven't been washed away, the point is that either way whether you think that the government is trying to smotsdzer us, you know, or take away the dreams of the people, the point is that people i guess, there's the only one way to find out if our government is for us or not we'll give it one more try. not in the name of the

government or name of america. just do it for yourself. you have to have some common sense. host: do you feel like there's been a significant change in security here in the united states in the last ten years? caller: i feel that there's been a definite trying to smotsdzer the people in fear. i don't know -- i mean, i know that we're the most secure nation in the world. i know we run the world. i would just want to know why did we need to be put through the meat grinder of fear when we're the strongest nation? i mean, what was the point of all this? and why all the -- i mean, even the feeling of uncertainty in this nation is fake. but it's just strong enough of a feeling that the people, to the point that contaminating the atmosphere even though everybody knows that all those bankers are solid, there's the

natural resources we've got all the resources in the world. but the fact that their fear is still being stimulated by our government leads me to wonder why is the government keeping us at such a timid stance? host: the front page of the new york daily news this morning has the headline, lockdown, terror threat checkpoints paralile lies manhattan. plus a complete guide to 9/11 events. we'll tell you more about the coverage that we're providing on all of our platforms. you can find a list of what we're covering when and where on our website c-span.org. ohio on our line for democrats. on the "washington journal." caller: i'm so happy to be on here this morning to remind everybody that when president reagan was in, he took out a sky jackers, airplane jackers

that was running around high jaking planes. and then there was enough that says we don't need them any more. and i think people caught on to that one, our enemies. and then when the mayor of new york host: july ni. caller: i'm sorry. anyway, i never heard of a mayor or anyone sending firemen into a burning building that high up. i know our firemen are heroes. but that's just kind of gets at me why they were sent up there when they knew that it was going to crumble or there wasn't any, enough investigation. another reason for -- host: they went up those steps

because they were trying to save lives. caller: yes but they should have had advice that nothing, it was going to come down. anyway, another one -- host: we're going to leave it there and move on to kay in charleston, south carolina. ten years after the 9/11 attacks, america is what? caller: america is not very safe. and right now the government is not even trying to protect or take care of the military. eventually we're going to have to draft young men simply because the government is not paying attention to them at all. taking away from them. they keep screaming they're going to cut the pay. take the pay. keep the pay. and it's also about the first responders. they're not even allowed to go to the ceremony? get real. the government is going to be there. they should move their seats

and let the first responders come. these government people make 300,000 a year when our military make 38,000 a year. you go figure them out. host: we're going to leave it there. in the "new york times" this morning on the anniversary of attack, many new yorkers will try not to dwell on it.

host: we're going to take a break from our program and we'll come back and talk about the civil liberties and how they have changed. and since the attacks on 9/11. but first we want to let you know that american history tc on c-span history is featuring 9/11 remembrances. >> the first lady arrives at the capital. were you there to greet her? >> i was. she came into the back office and the senator introduced her to his staff people who are sitting there waiting. she looked lovely. she was very composed. she and the senator went into

his office to begin to talk about the upcoming testimony and the upcoming hearing. the secret service was in the office next door waiting for her. and watching the television on my desk, the second tower was hit. so i wrote a note. i walked into the senator's office. i gave it to him. he read it and told mrs. bush. and after that, things -- it just seemed as though there was never going to be a hearing. that the event that she was there for were just not going to take place. and her secret service detail obviously was getting all kinds of information. my recollection is that the senator left his office and she spoke with her husband. and then there was sort of a lull because there were other planes in the air but no one knew what was going to happen. it was reported that the

capital might be one of the targetses. but there was no certainty about that whatsoever. and then a plane hit the pentagon. and no one knew really what to do. the -- but the order came from the secretary of the senate's office to clear the office buildings. at this point in time, senator judd greg who was the ranking republican member of the health committee had come down and he and mrs. bush and senator kennedy were in his office, you know, really just trying to figure out what was next. what was going to happen with her next. and my recollection is, and i hope it's correct, that she also talked to her daughters. and then we all went down to

senator greg's office. there was a mad rush in the senate with people leaving. there was a protocol where if the building is cleared each office goes to a certain space outside of the, in the parks around the capitol. and we were there for quite a while. and then it became clear that there was no way that we were going back into the office. the what i really remember most about washington that day was the beauty of the day and the impossibility of getting anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the next hour we're going to do a roundtable discussion talking about civil liberties and national security in the post-9/11 era. joining us at the table is cliff may, president of the foundation for defense of democracies. and laura murphy, the washington legislative director for the american civil

liberties union. what's the role of government in protecting citizens while maintaining their rights? and what kind of balance needs to be struck? >> well, first of all, protecting the citizens from violence is the role of law enforcement and when it's overseas it's the role of military and it's also the role of a concerned citizenry. so the government has enormous powers but they must use those powers to protect us consistent with the corns tuition and bill of rights. and that's one area where we think the post 9/11 world has done some harm to our civil liberties, our right to practice the religion of our choice, the right to be free from government surveillance, the right to equal protection of the law. so the role of government is very clear but it also has to be done with checks and balances so that the government does not overreach while they're defending our safety.

host: your thoughts object role of government? >> basically, i agree with laura. i think we want to strike a balance. we want to keep people safe. but we surely don't want to violate people's basic rights, we don't want to violate the bill of rights. we have to be careful and balanced. after 9/11 there was a real threat that basic rights would be balanced. if you look back over the past ten years, we've done a pretty good job of not violating human rights, not violating constitutional rights while keeping people safe. it's walking a high wire to manage to do it but i think a lot of things that were predicted, the passage of the spate are the act is something i disagreed with on, it did get past. there was a chance that it could mean that every time they want into the library, somebody

was going to report to the f.b.i. i think most people at this point would say it's been important in keeping us safer and has not deprived us of any basic rights. guest: you're right we do disagree. there is some very damaging provisions and there have been five inspector general reports talking about how the f.b.i. in particular has abused the power they were given under the patriot act. host: let's look at a couple of items under the patriot act and get you to respond. the first one, united and strengthening of america by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct the terrorism act. and it was also signed into law by george w. bush on october 26, 2001. basically a month and a half after the 9/11 attack. laura, your thoughts on the first part, the uniting and strengthening of america by providing appropriate tools

required to intercept and obstruct terrorism. guest: well, that was an acronym created in the aftermath of 9/11 to put pressure on them by the bush administration and john ash croft to either make them feel that they were patriotic if they voted for it and unpatriotic if they voted against it. so that acronym was created to create pressure to move more urgently. attorney general ashcroft wanted the patriot act passed within days after the attack and it was people like russ feingold and john conyers and pateric lay hi and groups like the aclu who said slow down, have a hearing of and we were only able to get hearings in the house. so most of the people did not have a chance to read it and many of the provisions that were sought in the patriot act have been sought after the oklahoma city bombing and rejected on civil liberties

grounds on a bipartisan basis by people like bob bar and ross cobartlett. and so we know that the patriot act was passed under tremendous pressure and the government and the members of congress did not have time to read it. host: cliff, was the patriot act passed in a rushed manner? guest: it cuzz passed with some urgency considering what happened to us and the perception that we had basic gaps in our law enforcement, in particularly the wall that had been built up between intelligence gatherers and law enforcement. and there was some urgency to get that fixed. i think the patriot act fixed that. and maybe it passed hastely but there was a reason to move quickly. and it has continued to pass under republican administrations but it was passed in a democratic

administration as well, it passed with strong democratic support among those in favorite of passage were john poddesta, chief of staff to president clinton. so the patriot act was put into effect, is still in effect. and i think that's a very important -- it's one of the reasons, i don't mean the only reason, why we have managed to avoid another catastrophic attack on american soil. i don't think you would have another strong sentiment to repeal the patriot act. i know that's not the case, it has passed fairly frequently. the idea that it has caused civil liberties to diminish, i think you would have to make that case hard in order to persuade me and other people that this is something that we don't need and is -- >> host: we want to get our viewers and listeners involved. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.

let's take a call from west virginia. lori on our line for democrats. caller: i think the patriot act has been abused in that law enforcement, if they stop someone now, there's been more searches of cars. they just use the patriot act if the person maybe like my sister's case, which was fine, there was nothing there. but she had put a cigarette out and they thought she was reaching for something. but i also would like to mention that a lot of people called in on the other line about not trusting our government. but the reason they don't trust it is the thing that is have happened. the pat tillman story. we still do not know. that family has not gotten

their true -- the truth behind that. we know rumsfeld and all them knew and they -- even our president knew. and until our government gives us the truth, people are not going to trust them. and we do not trust them on the patriot act. we do not trust them. >> we're going to leave it there. >> well, i do think a lot of the patriot act is implemented in secret. and again i go back to the department of justice inspector general reports that show that the patriot act powers have been abused repeatedly. five reports showing that the powers have been misused and abused. and things like national security letters, things that allow the f.b.i. to seize bank records, internet records, library records. these things are done in secret. and when the patriot act was up for reauthorization, there was

bipartisan opposition. not in the majority but people like rand paul, a tea party senator from kentucky, and mark you'dal and ron widen, two democratic senators said it would shock the conscience of america if people knew how the patriot act was being used. but because it's done in a classified and secret manner they were not able to disclose how the act was being used and abused. host: our next call regarding civil liberties comes from roger in winston salem. caller: thank you. i support the patriot act under the bush administration. i know it needs to be realigned and strengthened some but i think it's helped this nation and this country, and we need all the help we can get. i don't understand how some people think it's done in

secrecy and i know all that exists but you can't tell the world and our enemy and those trying to debris stroy our nation every mover we're going to make and put it up for a vote to see if all these terrorist people would vote for it or be in favor of it. but i think the bush administration has done a terrific job. host: we'll leave it there. cliff. caller: the only thing i would add to that is we heard the previous caller say because of the patriot act her sister got stopped in the car and was asked for papers. you would probably no better laura but i think that has nothing to do with the patriot act. the officer probably did not invoke the patriot act. a lot of people don't know what the patriot act means. it could have been a headlight, they say it must be the patriot act. the most important thing the patriot act does, heavy handed in ways that are not.

the most important thing is it does allow the dots to be shared between law enforcement -- law makers or rather law enforcers and intelligence gatherers. if those two can't talk because there was a wall between them, which was the case before 9/11, evidence does not get examined -- i understand some people think it's not a good idea. they do different jobs but they do need to be in communication. the patriot act provides that. there are thing that is it does it does not need to do. by all means, debate it. it was passed on a bipartisan basis, democratic and republican administration. host: we just showed for those who are listening talking about one of the items in the patriot act easing restrictions on law enforcement agencies by allowing for surveillance and intelligence gathering including searches of telephone, internet and

financial records in what has been described by folks on both sides of the aisle as a state of war. what's wrong with some of these actions being taken by law enforcement and intelligence people here in the united states? guest: the problem is not when you seek the information against people who are engaged in criminal activity. the problem is the sweep of records and those sweeps not being checked by a court. the patriot act did great harm to the checks and balances in our society and gave the f.b.i. sole authority to seek information without meaningful judicial review. so the checks and balances that we have are undermined by the patriot act. and so lots of innocent people's information is being stored and sometimes it's based on suspicious activity report and we don't know how the government is using it, how long it's storing it for, who it is being shared with, whether it ends up denying you

a federal job, whether it goes in some sort of data base that is too widely shared. and so there are enormous problems when the government has a blank check to demand information from banks, internet service providers, gps tracking devices. there's a danger there when that power is used and not checked by an appropriate court. host: we're talking about civil liberties and national security post 9/11. lee, in pittsburgh. caller: thank you for c-span. as i'm finishing the new book about nazi berl as hitler rises to power, it occurs to me that i think that the strength of our society that we're able to have these conversations and i don't always agree with the aclu but in terms of the patriot act i still haven't made my mind up ten years later

and i think both sides just made very true points. there needed to be communication between law enforcement and the courts as well as our liberties need to be protected. so i think that's, the bigger thing is that we can have the sense in our society without the society crumbling. guest: i agree with that. this conversation is about the loss of rights under the bill of rights, under the constitution. a separate conversation constitution would be about the loss of privacy. i would argue that we are losing privacy but not particularly because of this. we're losing privacy because you can take a look at my cell phone and you can tell exactly where i was this morning because there are cameras all over this city and all over other cities because there's all sorts of ways that all kinds of data about us can be captured and saved. so privacy we do not have as a right. of course privacy is not part

of the bill of rights. there is a healthy debate over whether privacy a basic right. we are losing our privacy and i don't think there's much that we can do about the fact that we are losing the privacy that we used to have. guest: i do think the fourth amendment provides for us to be safe in our possessions and in our homes and it says that the government should have a war ent before it invades our home and inseize's our personal property. and i think the pate are the act made swiss cheese out of the promise of privacy embedded in the fourth amendment in particular. and so i do think we have a constitutional right to privacy that the courts have interpreted in many cases and our privacy has diminished in this post 9/11 world. host: mckenzie wrote about a

press poll talking about body scans and e-mail and surveys and writes so my question to you, how would you explain the fact that a smaller number of people say they are ok with having being surveyed, having folks listen in on their phone calls and checking in on their e-mails but they're more in favor of body searches and cameras surveyic their movement

around town? >> my guess is that an an airport they're more scogzant that they're about to board a plane and they don't want anyone on that plane who has weapons. so they're willing to give up some privacy before they get up on plane. where as at home they would rather nobody be listening to their phone calls and monitoring their e-mail. that gets into a whole nother discussion about when it is proper and under what circumstances for the government to monitor phone calls and e-mails. i think if you're calling your aunt in detroit every three days that shouldn't set off any alarms whatsoever. if you're calling your aunt up in waziristan every three days, we, maybe there is some cause that requires some monitoring that makes sure that's just a relative up there. >> laura, your concerns about the number of times i call my aunt, whether she's in detroit

or waziristan? >> i think what most people don't know is that when they send an international e-mail or make a an international phone call the government has asserted the right to listen into all of those phone calls without any proof that any crime is going to occur. and that lack of judicial review, meaningful judicial review of government listening in on our international and phone calls and internet is very problematic. and on your issue about airport scanning devices, they got rid of them in england because they didn't adequately show what's in body cavities. so they're not only costly they're ineffective. and you could not tell by the number of calls expressing outrage from pilots from elderly people, with people with small children, cancer

survivors who don't want to be exposed to radiation. these people are upset. the complaints that have come to the aclu about airport screening, about no fly lists that there's no way to get off of. it's just astounding. and so we're just overwhelmed about complaints about airport screening even as people want to make sure and use every legitimate way to make sure that we're safe. there are some ways that are not legitimate. >> talking about civil liberties and national security post nine 11 with laura murphy, american civil liberties union and cliff may. illinois is where we go for our next call from norm on our line for democrats. go ahead, norm. caller: yes. ms. murphy, you are absolutely spot on about the fourth amendment being filled with swiss cheese.

i maintain that it has been completely destroyed. for years i was a library trustee, i was very, very aware of what the patriot act, the national security letters, roving wirptes did to the fourth amendment. what really astonishing me is that if anything is ever said about the second meant. gun rights. the nra and right wing will scream bloody murder but they let the fourth amendment be completely destroyed without a wimper. host: did you say that you worked in the library? caller: no. i was on the board of directors for many years here and our local library system board i was president of that for years. host: do you know of any examples of any federal authorities coming to collinsville and wanting to check out who has been reading what? caller: no. not here. but even if they did, if f.b.i.

were to go to the clerk, ask for records, that clerk could not tell that library director or one of the trustees that that happened. and if they did, they will be immediately arrested and imprisoned without a trial. host: norm in illinois. cliff, address norm's concerns about his thoughts on the fourth amendment. host: guest: well, what he said he was talking about people being arrested and put in jail without a trial. i don't think there's any way that is going to happen. guest: that does happen. and whenever the aclu has challenged those gag orders, the government has relented. but we don't know how many people out there who are told to turn over library records, health records, and are so terrified of the consequences who don't come.

so there is -- >> and the patriot act. host: have they gone to jail? guest: we don't know because it's operated in secrecy. host: so people are in secret being taken off and not able to be in touch? caller: we just don't know. guest: i think it's dangerous to say that these things could happen and then confuse it with the things that have happened. we don't know that. guest: we say they're threatened with jail. host: i would like to bring up this tweet that we've got. are tsa agents writing their own search warrants? guest: no. they're given statutory authority to engage in certain

searches. but the idea of federal officials writing their own search warrants without judicial review is absolutely true. host: let's go back to the phones in hawaii. dave on our line for republicans. dave is gone. sorry about that. let's move on to our line for democrats. blaresville, georgia. caller: good morning. i'm with ms. murphy. please keep up with good fight. if nemb is interested the judicial system has run amuck. when you have no rights, you have no protection even against the judicial system, the county , law enforcement. host: you said you have no rights. what exactly are you talking about? caller: my daughter has been disabled from a car wreck in

02. all she did is go over to a friend's house to borrow money to come home. she wasn't there five minutes. she was caught up in a mess. smgs that should have been wrong time, wrong place. now she is a convicted felon. and -- host: whe when you say she was caught up in something, you've got to be more specific than that. guest: the judicial system has run amuck. the prosecutors can do whatever they want to in court and they get away with it. host: we're going to leave it there and move on to silva, north carolina on our jim on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think the patriot act should be abolished and i think the sensible approach to security for this is implemented. i think we've become a nation that appears like a quaking coward. i don't think the founding fathers would recognize the

nation today. i certainly don't. i grew up in the 50s and it's frightening to see what's happened in people's sense of personal liberties in this country. and where's the outrage? thank you. host: any chance that the patriot act is going to be abolished? and if not how do we move forward? guest: we have a history in this country of overreacting in times of crisis. and then we learn to write the ship. and one of the things that gives me hope is that the patriot act has not been made permanent. and it has to be reauthorized. it has to come back. so it's been reauthorized for four years and so we will revisit it in 2015. but we have the foreign intelligence surveillance act coming up. so i think just as we learned that swrapnizz internment was wrong and the country made eaments, the country got rid of

the alien act. the country got rid of the huh ack committee and mccartsdz yesyism. the country was relieved when hoover was resigned. we will see over the passage of time that many of these laws that we passed in haste after the events of 9/11 overreached and violated some of our fundamental civil liberties and i'm confident that the american people will take back their liberties over the course of time. it needs to happen sooner than later. . .

in order for us to protect american citizens against terrorists who claim they are waging jihad against us. reauthorize and we bust surveillance. somebody in the united states calling northern pakistan. nancy pelosi was against it. not only did it pass with a bipartisan majority, but it also passed with jay rockefeller, the

chairman and the senate being in favor of it. we do have that kind of surveillance and bank a phone call cannot possibly -- will place on earth can that be? host: we are going to put this conversation on pause for a few seconds. we are going to put that on pause for a few seconds and check-in with the sergeant at arms who talked to us by phone this morning.

chief, thank you for talking with us this morning. >> good morning. good to be here. host: how has security changed on the hill since 9/11? there have been a lot of barriers put up and traffic around capitol hill. it is not as smooth as it used to be. is this accomplishing the mission that folks wanted when these changes were put in place? >> we do need a balance between an appropriate amount of security and freedom. it seems onerous sometimes that it is tougher to move around, but in this day and age, we are confident that -- i think we

have reached a good balance. host: the construction of the visitor center was partly due to the attacks on 9/11. explain to us how that works. >> officer gibson was shot and killed in 1998 of there. it really fondles a people from the side of the building -- it reallyfunnels people from the side of the building. is a gentle slope walk down into the area. there is plenty of room to screen people and get them into the building safely. there is a beautiful museum in their. as you might know, it doubled

the size of the capital and enhanced the experience for the tourists and gave the staff a lot more room. host: tell us about some of the increased security measures that are taking place this weekend as we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 at tax. >> close contact with our federal partners, the fbi, the secret service, and the intelligence community about the various threats that have come in and what the possibilities are. the officers that are very much on alert all the time -- there are more officers doing more sweeps. the hours have been extended for the officers. there are a few more heavy weapons out and about.

we are closely checking parked cars. we have a large canine unit that is out and about. everybody is trying to be more alert and sensitive to the possibility for an attack. it has been interesting to listen to your guest about that. i think the officers on the hill and officers around this country in the d.c. area do a tremendous job of being both advocates of freedom, giving information, and being on guard. host: if anyone is planning to visit this weekend, what should they do to make their experience of getting through security as smooth as possible? >> they should be prepared as you are when you go to an airport to walk through security mechanisms and to put your belongings onto the x-ray machine. that is really all you need to

do. there are some items that you cannot bring into the capital. obviously, weapons of any sort are not permitted in their. unopened liquids would not be permitted. by and large, the public, for good or for bad, has gotten used to some of the constraints that we have. it has certainly changed in the past 15 years. i do not think you will see business any different today. host: sent you very much for being on -- thank you very much for being on the "washington journal" this morning. laura murphy, the washington legislative office director of the aclu, and cliff may, president of the foundation for defense of democracies. laura murphy, the aclu put out a

report. in particular, what liberties are you talking about reclaiming? >guest: we are talking about reclaiming our right to privacy, and equal protection under the law, reclaiming the right to for example not to be racially profiled or religiously profiled. muslims, arabs, south asians, sikhs have been under tremendous scrutiny by law-enforcement. there are 3 million in the united states. 1.3 billion muslims worldwide. 3 million muslims in the united states. i think we need to stop compounding the racial profiling that existed pre-9/11. it was bad when it was against african americans on interstate

95, and every credible study has shown it is ineffective. if you hang everybody, you are going to get the guilty. but that is not the american way. of the american way is you investigate people based on evidence that they are about to engage or are engaging in criminal activity. we are not for torture, for detaining people without giving them a right to trial, we are for making sure people have the freedom to express their beliefs without coming under scrutiny, that they can have the internet and bank records that are seized only when a court authorizes and gives a warrant.

these are the kinds of things we are talking about in our report. host: cliff may, your response regarding racial and religious profiling. guest: i certainly think it is a danger but i think laura is an that itotting to viewers is happening right now. if you think janet napolitano and president obama have ordered racial profiling, i think you are entirely mistaken. host: could racial profiling go on in various aspects of law enforcement without working its way up to the white house? guest: i suppose it is theoretically possible. my guess is most have not seen people the religiously or

ethnically profiled because it has not taken place. i have trouble with muslims in a number of occasions. in one case, might muslim friend who i was speaking with said when they saw my name, i wish they would pat me down a little bit. one of the things that people are complaining about are the interests of searches that they get. why? because tsa agents are looking for weapons. you have to touch a lot of things and look at a lot of places when you are looking for weapons. you can do behavioral or psychological profiling. then you allow some 70-year-old lutheran woman to walk through having walked through many times before without having to be patted down. i think the accusation you are making against janet napolitano and the administration -- i

think it is wrong of you to make that accusation. guest: the fbi is engaged in a racial mapping program. there are centers around the country that are investigating a law-abiding groups. the aclu has documented 36 states and d.c. how local law enforcement and the fbi have infiltrated peaceful groups. there are many people brought in for questioning. may i finish? i did not talk about president obama. i said janet napolitano, certain it. the practices against latino immigrants and arab and muslim immigrants. there was a special program temporarily suspended that called muslim men in for special questioning that singled out

muslims and arabs and people from select countries. there are very specific programs in place that make sure racial profiling goes on, and they are wrong because it is guilt by association. the aclu has documented in this report. host: we are going to leave it there and get back to the phones. if you would like more information regarding the aclu, you can find it on their website. aclu.org. if you want to find out more about the foundation for defense of democracies, you can go to their website. back to the phones. pennsylvania, june is on our line for democrats. go ahead. hello, june? all right, let's move on to forest hills, west virginia.

on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i think we should all remember the purpose of the 9/11 at tax. it was to permanently suspend civil liberties and the constitution and replace it with an emergency dictatorship to give the real perpetrators or the powers that be a public excuse to use the military to police americans and to also go after countries they do not like or resources that they want to create a homeland security and the tsa. host: we will leave it there. guest: -the caller makes an excellent point. -- i think the caller makes an excellent point. i think we have overreached with a lot of our international

security laws, but i am not prepared to call our country a dictatorship or anything like that. in the american people are still engaged. we have to be more engaged and push back against these programs that to empower local police to carry out federal immigration functions, for example. we have a lot of anti- immigration laws that are abusive, and the justice department are challenging those laws in arizona and alabama. we do have a bill pending in the senate that would give the military the authority to arrest american citizens and take that authority away from the fbi. osama bin laden has been killed, saddam hussein has been killed, and we do not need the

military displacing local law enforcement because we do not want a military stayed in this country. host: the next call comes from brooklyn, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling in specifically as a teacher who recently moved into the wall street area. there are three schools in a particular building not far from where the towers came down. my question is what can we as teachers do to protect the students and teachers? i feel we should all be wearing gas masks in case another terrorist act happens, we can be prepared to leave the building and have the proper gear on. i remember when i was a child in the 1960's, we had of fallout shelters that we could all go to. at this point in time, we do not have any thought of protection.

i think it is important that we have this protection. what can the government do for us to supply us with gas masks? host: is it the government's responsibility to protect her and her students? guest: absolutely. is the government's job to protect all of us. gas masks would not be as effective against a dirty bomb or against shrapnel or a shooter with assault weapons, for example. the way the government is going to keep her safer, i think, is it to make sure -- is not mature she has the equipment she needs. but by doing the hard intelligence work to stop attacks before they are carried out. intelligence work is hard and may in some cases violate privacy and may make some

people on comfortable. but it absolutely has to be done. right now as we are talking and we have trucks being searched in manhattan and washington because there has been chatter about a truck bomb. does law enforcement get to go around and say let me see and take a look at trucks that looks suspicious? let me listen in on some phone calls to see if i can find out where the attacks are going to be. if they do not do that, then she does need a gas mask and a bulletproof vest and too many things that we cannot give her. host: described to me a suspicious-looking truck. guest: they may know that -- by the way, surveying phone calls,

we are talking about a panel truck or an 18-wheeler. if they do not know, they have a lot of trucks to do. i have talked to law enforcement and intelligence people about this. anything they can do to limit the universe they have to worry about a search, they will do. they do not want to pull over every truck and ask them a bunch of questions. they want to find a high probability threats, and if that means ignoring the low probability of threats, they will do so because that is the only way law enforcement and intelligence can operate efficiently. guest: i do not have a problem with intelligence gathering, but i think it can be improved if it is targeted. if you investigate too many people, you have informations that overwhelms law enforcement.

de underwear bomber's father came to the american embassy and said please investigate my son. we have expected them to investigate too many people. i think we have to go back to following up on credible reports. i do not have a problem with trucks being stopped in the face of a credible threats to the safety of washington, d.c., or new york, just as i did not have a problem when there was the d.c. sniper and white panel trucks were being stopped because people were trying to end assassinations by the sniper. when there is a legitimate basis for an investigation, we support law enforcement. host: laura murphy, earlier you brought up the term "fusion center." one of our listeners sent us

this tweet that says -- explain to us what that is. guest: a fusion center is a local law enforcement center that is funded by the department of common security more often than not with the goal of increasing information sharing. the problem has been they have been given millions of dollars. for example, the lapd had a 700 person fusion center. they get all of this money and all of this intelligence gathering of authority, and they run out of legitimate targets so they start investigating peace activists as they have done in maryland, anti-abortion, and

pro-choice activists. environmentalist's. we have 36 states where we have had complaints of these centers and in the district of columbia and maryland there was a big lawsuit for police investigating 53 people who had no relationship to criminal activity. these centers are not wrong, but they are not under adequate guidance and control its to safeguard civil liberties. host: cliff may, why do you suppose they are investigating environmental and peace groups in asheville? guest: i do not know for sure. mission creep. if they cannot find what they are looking for, they look for something else to find themselves busy. they need to focus on an assignment and to find better ways to do it. host: back to the phones and our

discussion regarding civil liberties and national security post 9/11. terry is on our line for republicans. caller: how are you doing today? one question i heard is how do you identify a vehicle that is suspicious. usually you find out when its blows up and kills a five or six people. i have done seven tours overseas. you never know. you could have a guy right up on a bicycle with a backpack on him and take you out. to sit there and say you have to be specific, you got to have this and that -- if you are looking -- right now, we have a threat for the 9/11 holiday debt is coming up where we are going to be having a whole lot of people go to ground zero.

you never know who is going to be carrying something. you never know if there is going to be a car bomb or whether it is already been planted. you are not going to know until it happens. my second question is -- mr. murphy, i am in a place where gov. scott has come up with urine testing for people with drawing welfare. the aclu is really pushing to stop this. we have a vote in the local newspaper. 87% of the people agree with gov. scott, only 13% agree with the aclu. i have to be truthful with you. i get to see everything going on in this country, and i seek the aclu in called.

when we go after certain people, muslims are -- you guys are always getting in the way. host: we will leave it there. guest: we have defended the right to march, we have defended police officers who want to wear t-shirts who say they are against affirmative action, we defend your right. not just the rights of certain groups. we defend everyone's free speech rights. you are in florida. the whole issue of drug testing before you receive any type of state benefits like welfare -- this, again, is an overreach by the government and a waste of precious resources and that the state of florida needs. we are defending a man with no criminal history who lost his job who is trying to support his family who has applied for public assistance who pays his taxes and he is subjected to a

drug test because he is applying for welfare benefits. we think that is extreme and a waste of precious resources. people who have a history of drug abuse or criminal activity -- they are a different story. but people who have no other problem other than they have run out the funds and they need the assistance of the state -- i think that is an overreach by the state of florida. host: next up is bob on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am concerned about the way language has been cheapened. you have terms like "weapons of mass destruction" which means everything from mustard gas to an atomic bomb. they use them to scare people, and they do it over and over again. who is going to vote against the

patriots act in the wake of 9/11 just because of its name? the democrats get rolled on this stuff over and over again. the inheritance tax becomes the death tax. they call it the democrat party because it sounds more threatening somehow. host: we are going to leave it there. cliff may, would there be easier adherence to or will people go along with the policies of the patriot act if it was named something else? guest: his id is useful p r and something that congress does all of the time -- it is useful p r and something that congress does all the time. of those things that have a bad image more or less get support. a famous one is guantanamo.

president obama came into office and the first thing he said was he was going to close gitmo. he has not closed it because he can not close it because there is nothing you can do with those incarcerated there that will not harm our safety. 500 people have been released from gitmo. there is no place to put them, and you cannot just release them. president obama is using drones to kill terrorists and pakistan and afghanistan. he is using rendition and a lot of tools that president bush used. president obama has found there is no way around using those tools. the patrons act, robust surveillance than bank they continue whether or not the p r potential is good.

host: back to the phones. pittsburgh, pa., you are on the "washington journal." caller: it is a privilege. the nsa was given a lot of power to eavesdrop on millions of communications worldwide. against the fourth amendment. they were given approval from the justice department' to get fisa. they are able to go in and conduct surveillance for 72 hours without a warrant. host: what is your point? caller: i think it is a fact

that there are buildings in the united states is being established that know just about everything about us. the power of these computers can find information in every aspect of our lives. host: we are going to leave it there and move on to manassas, virginia daniel, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i am a republican and i go along with the patriot act except one little thing. if you remove money from a bank accounts, which i did -- i went by three different banks and drew out $25,000, and then i returned it the same way. under this patriot act, that is illegal.

even if it is your own money. i had to give them $15,000 and got $10,000 of my own money back. guest: i cannot explain that, but i can say banks have to report transactions over $10,000. the reporting requirements and of being burdensome not only to banks by the individuals who want to make these transactions who have to explain the reason for these transactions. they have to be reported to headquarters in washington. we are concerned that banks are being forced to surveil and report activity that is perfectly lawful. i do not understand the facts of your participation. i am not aware of the law that says you have to give back a portion of the money, but there are much greater restraints on

banking transactions by individual consumers that are problematic. host: we are going to have to leave it there. we have been talking about civil liberties with laura murphy, director of the aclu washington legislative office, and cliff may, president of the foundation for defense of democracies. thank you both for being on the "washington journal." coming up on the program, a discussion on the potential threat to new york and d.c. on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, but first we want to show you another 9/11 remember vince. -- remembrance. >> i realize this is a total hypothetical, but you are fought -- you are flying over washington, d.c., and you have to bring down a plan. did you give any thought as to

how you would have done that if it was over the city? >> for the larger aircraft, again, it would simply be taking off the tail. i would essentially be a kamikaze and run my aircraft into the tale of the aircraft. i give some thought to what they have time to eject, but i would need to make sure -- you only get one chance. you got to be able to stick with it the whole way. when we came back and continue to do the combat air patrol over d.c., and there were plenty of other aircraft airborne that we had to turn away, we would fly in front of them and put out a flare or two. you know what a flare is. we would pump out a flare of the

aircraft and turn those other aircraft away. we would get on a frequency to try to communicate with the aircraft, 121.5, a frequency that all pilots know about. it is universal. if you get in trouble or you need help, if you go over to that frequency, you should be able to talk to anybody. >> so you were prepared to take your own life if necessary? >> course. -- of course. >> there is the website for american history tv if you want to get more information of all of the programming that will be on c-span3 this weekend. joining us on the set is the former cia osama bin laden unit chief, michael scheuer, holding

that position from 1996 until 1999. first, the headline in this morning's wall street journal. what can you tell us about that? guest: i do not know much more what is in the paper. i think they are probably disturb how the people got here without knowing it. i think what it frames is a that in the last four or five years of osama bin laden's life, there has been discussion within al- qaeda. i fink they continue to plan for the. -- i think they continued to plan for that. a number of muslim male citizens

have been recruited into their organization. car bombs, attacks on the pipeline for energy, water, and guess, assassinations, car bombs. i think without been locked in there, i think that is moving ahead. -- i think without osama bin laden there, i think that is moving ahead. if you look at what al-qaeda has done in iraq, it has been a laboratory for that kind of smaller scale attack. host: with is being the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, with the death of osama bin laden over the summer, our intelligence apparatus would be on to these three guys before this week? guest: i think that is what the hollywood portrayal of

intelligence is. the one thing the government has not mentioned so far is how these people got into the united states. it will be terrible if they got through an airport through customs, but it is going to be worse politically if they got through the border from mexico or canada where there are no controls in some areas. yes, the intelligence community has been run ragged as well as the special forces who have tried to stop this thing. but it is a big world, a big country, and in terms of our borders, a great majority of our borders are out of control. host: the headline in the star- ledger on monday made a second emblematic of what was in a lot of papers. "just as has been done." -- "justice has been done." as the former cia osama bin

laden unit chief, what were your thoughts when you heard about this? the did in happened the way you have planned -- did it happen the way you thought it would happen? guest: if it did not happen the way we planned it because we did not have done this operation against osama bin laden. we were directed to either capture him through a kidnapping or to give the u.s. military opportunities to use their air power to kill him. mr. clinton had 10 chances and used none of them. i think mr. barack obama deserves credit because i think he acted on information that was available to mr. clinton. thank goodness that he did. host: you said he had 10 chances, but after the attacks of 9/11, what was the reality

that osama bin laden would have been brought in alive? guest: i think the reality was very little. i argued that we should never bring him in alive because we did not want him in the southern district of new york speaking for three years in a trial. i think that the president and special forces and the cia did the right thing to kill him. host: we are talking about the al-qaeda plot against d.c. and new york with michael scheuer, the former cia osama bin laden unit chief. we would like to get you involved in the conversation. the numbers are -- you can also reach us electronically via e-mail, twitter, or conversations on facebook. talk to us about the structure

and the moving ahead of al-qaeda post osama bin laden. guest: i think is important to emphasize the tactical victory. he was a unique individual within the muslim world. it was not a strategic defeat for al-qaeda unfortunately. we tend to live in an age of celebrity and contribute a great deal of the retirement of one person, but we have been focused on osama bin laden in south asia, afghanistan and pakistan, as we should be and we have done a terrific damage to them there and then what is happened since 9/11, al-qaeda has had 1 meter platform from which to train, arm, store weapons, amass manpower, which is afghanistan.

they are still in afghanistan. they are in a large area of pakistan. they are controlling cities in yemen. they are feeding on the prisons that were opened and the arsenals that were opened during the arab spring. they are causing havoc in iraq at the moment. al-qaeda is probably less talented at the leadership level, but in terms of dispersion and the number of people in arms against the united states, that number is greater than it was during 9/11. host: our first call comes from california. don is on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i just saw a national geographic program on 9/11 and i was kind of shocked. i am a person who cannot come up with the worst thing that bill

clinton did. stains on blue dresses, the fact that he didn't take proper action on the financial situation, and how he spent $7 million on a wedding for his daughter and say that is public service, but as a big shock is to see that he had a chance to take out, in numerous cases, that he would not act to take that out. he is personally responsible, in my opinion, for all of the people that died. could you please elaborate? correct me if i am wrong. guest: i think is -- i think it is important for you or any american to not have to rely on my word. go through the 9/11 commission report where it describes the 10 opportunities that mr. clinton

had to kill osama bin laden. is always interesting to me that mr. bush is a rather crucified for not taking action in august 2001 warning that osama bin laden was going to attack in the united states. when mr. bush got that message, he basically said, "what do i do? we do not want to know -- we do not know where osama bin laden is." mr. clinton never had that problem. i think there is a lapse of criticism when it comes to mr. clinton. i started a rendition program under mr. clinton, and yet mr. bush seems to be the one who gets hung with this.

when we created rendition in august 1995, the idea was to begin to dismantle al-qaeda cells around the world by taking people off the street who were either planning to attack the united states or had involvement in activities against us or our allies. of the goals were to get them off the street and to grab whatever they had at the time in terms of electronic document or paper documents. there was no intention to interrogate them because mr. clinton's administration did not want to hold these people. they sent him to egypt and other places around the world. the agency said to the administration that you are going to be -- you're state department is going to be very critical of the countries where we are taking these people. they said that is not a good thing. can you, the cia, gates

guarantees from the egyptians that they will treat them according to their own laws? we said we are pretty sure we can do that but that does not get you off the hook. they did not want to hold these people. host: they were taken to countries like egypt because? guest: they were taken to countries where there was an outstanding legal process for them. we could only go after people who had an indictment or were convicted or imprisoned and escaped. if al-qaeda -- we were able to operate only about 3 inches of a yard that al-qaeda was able to operate. europe was off the map, for example. host: and willing to be able to treat prisoners prohibited by u.s. laws? guest: yes, there was no consideration about how the prisoners were treated once they got to a particular country.

it was the agency that raised that with the white house more often than not. host: tony is on our line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. you seem like a pretty bright guy, but i tell you what happened and i am not behind the fact that you clint osama bin laden was behind the 9/11 at tax. i do not think he was. i do not know if osama bin laden had the capability to come up with this crazy notion that he could have 19 people in airplanes. everyone of the muslims on these planes, terrorists -- i do not buy that. i do not buy that osama bin laden could get up and down

those mounds with a white robe and not get dirty. it seems very shaky to me some of this nonsense. guest: everybody has their own opinion. you are right to express that opinion, but you just happen to be dead wrong. the conspiracies in the u.s. today are really a brand of insanity, but an understandable insanity because the government itself tends to classified data far too frequently and at far too high levels. i think the secrecy policy breeds conspiracy. your ideas are your ideas, but they happen to be completely wrong. host: our next call comes from kentucky. caller: yes, good morning.

i had a question for mr. michael scheuer. i think he is an intelligent man in my opinion. i was noticing cents 9/11, -- since 9/11, they had to float over a lot of services of law enforcement, but it seems like there is very little funding and the more for local authorities and crime. i wondered if he had any ideas how they might appropriate more money for that too because you do not want to miss that as well. thank you for taking my call. guest: i think there has been an enormous amount of spending on counter-terrorism. some of it has been worthwhile and some of it has not been worthwhile. it is something that cannot be ignored, just for the reason that you are doing counter-

terrorism. host: next up is los angeles, calif.. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to address the main motivation for 9/11 if you look 47 of the 9/11 commission report. that is u.s. support for israel. michael scheuer has addressed that in a book but we do not see that addressed anywhere in the u.s. media when it comes to motivation for 9/11 and the attack in 1993. host: we will leave its there. guest: this cuts to the heart of an issue that americans really need to consider if they do not want to fight this war forever. american lifestyle democracy, women in the workplace, elections, liberty -- all of

those things, they would never have in a country that they would live in. the policies pushed by president bush, mr. dick cheney, senator mccain, and barack obama, that america is being attacked because of those things is a disservice to the population of the united states. this war is not against americans because we are americans. it is motivated by the activities of our government and its allies in the muslim world. israel is an enormous problem for the united states and an enormous motivator for that area. it is not only that. is the support for the saudi police stayed. -- police state.

it is our present in the arabian peninsula and military activities in iraq, afghanistan, yemen, and some malia. none of that is to say those policies or actions are wrong. i would vote to change several of them very drastically. unless you understand the motivation of your enemy, you are never going to be able to understand durability, intentions, or the ability to recruit in the coming generations. that is where we are at the moment. you can argue whether we should support the israelis or not support the israelis. that is a legitimate debate. when you think that israel is an enormous burden on u.s. interests and our relationship is getting american soldiers killed overseas and threatening us at home, that is just sad.

you cannot get away from that fact. you have formed the basis of the conversation about whether we should continue or not supporcod the support in israel. host: talk about the power struggle that may be going on in the upper echelon of al-qaeda of who is going to officially take over for osama bin laden. we have a story in newsweek, and it looks like the leading contender -- is he still the go- to guy? guest: he has settled into the number 1 position, and we killed the man who was going to be number two in the last month in afghanistan or pakistan. zawahiri is in charge of the organization, and the question is how he will be perceived. he had the reputation of being a

very abrasive individual, and one who was very conscious of being an egyptian. if that kind of personality in doors, he will not last long. there is every reason to believe that he has changed his behavior over the last couple of years. generally speaking, he is a much more vicious man then osama bin laden. the move that we talked about earlier fto using smaller scale attacks is right up his alley. host: if he maintains his status as the leader of al-qaeda, will he command them as a single unit or will they be sent out as franchisees?

or will they be independent contractors that do not have to answer to him or anybody else? guest: i think there will be a variety of all three. what we do know is at the central core of al-qaeda remains in contact with its so-called franchise is. and had some influence on what they are going to do. there is not a command and control relationship. the yemenis will conduct operations as they wish. the people in somalia, the people in north africa, but they are all moving in the right direction. host: michael scheuer was the former cia osama bin laden unit chief. he resigned after 22 years of service with the cia in 2004.

his books include "and perry list hubris -- "imperialist hubris." we continued our questions with michigan. ed, you are on the washington journal. caller: i would like to make three remarks. sir, you have been on of the programs on cnn, and you leave the impression that bill clinton could have gotten osama bin laden. he launched missiles into their training camp, but there was an airplane that landed there and there was a tall man with garbs on sitting next to a plan with arabic markings. it was possible that saudi or

uad prints were on that plane, and did not want to take the chance of killing somebody else. the other remarks is that special forces had bin laden pretty well in their markings. as the head of special forces, he requested a little more money and men, and at the same time, bush told general franks makeop everything toand to plans to go into iraq. those are my remarks. i would appreciate your remarks. guest: he certainly had a chance to kill osama bin laden in february and march of 1999. i think what you do not know is mr. clinton was about to

authorize the sale of $8 billion worth of f-16's to the king of he crown pince orince of the united arab emirates. to prevent the death of american citizens, he had richard clarke called the emirates and warned them that we knew they were in the desert and say that osama bin laden was there also and it would be good for them to leave, and they did leave. mr. clinton on that particular opportunity -- one dead prince was not going to make a difference, but one dead bin laden with debt made a difference for those thousands of people killed during 9/11. host: next up is alabama, howard is on our line for republicans.

caller: thank you. i appreciate you taking my call. am in on? host: go ahead. caller: years ago, i remember the only people allowed in this country or those who wanted to be americans. the progressives, they changed all of that and made it in open country with open borders and allowed everybody in that wanted to come in. that is why we had 9/11. years before, those people could not get into this country. besides that, all of the millions of dollars we have had to spend protecting ourselves from the people they allowed in here. none of us feel safe when we go to the airport, when we go to chicago, detroit, new york, or wherever we go.

we do not really feel safe. you do not feel safe when you get on the subway. this was all because of the progressives. host: howard, we will leave its there. guest: i think there is an argument to be made that only an america in the 21st century you could define national defense without insisting there would be some sort of control over your borders. as we talked earlier, the three men who apparently got in our country to conduct car bombings came over borders and snuck in rather than coming through official entry points. than the whole discussion of border control is going to become relevant again. certainly, america has always needed immigrants. we need them to it. but the argument that we do not see -- that we do not need a way

to process those emigrants is wrong bank in our law enforcement has or million 12 million people in this country who do not know why they are here. that problem needs to be discussed rationally. host: we have a tweet from joe who writes -- . .

in a wartime situation the idea that we apply law enforcement activities overseas is perhaps good for the f.b.i.'s budget. it is terrible for the security of the united states. host: next up, ana on our line for democrat's. caller: good morning, gentlemen. first, i don't have the gentleman from alabama, i don't have any fear about getting on planes or anything else. i've been a 63-year-old african american there is more terrorists growing up here than from bin laden. and secondly, i remember president clinton and it was on the media doing the monica lewinsky scandal, and him lying

before the grand jury that he went in to bomb bin laden and the republicans came out and other members said oh my god this man is going to go in there, bomb afghanistan to take the heat off of him and monica lewinsky. so i think there needs to be clarification on that. so many people lie and how do you build a huge compound in pakistan? pakistan is one of the issues. we give them all of this money and he builds a compound and nobody knows he's there and then when president obama comes in, you know, here dick cheney says oh because of the intelligence that we got, we really are responsible for that. can you address that for me please. guest: intelligence is a process of accumulating small pieces of information that

finally come together either because they make sense of themselves or you collect another piece that makes them make sense. and i think eist probably fair to say that part of the information that it enabled the president to kill osama bin laden was gathered under the auspices of the bush administration. but it should not -- the bush administration should not be praised for that. the intelligence officers who collected that should be praised and they work for whatever government is in place in the united states. mr. clinton did indeed bomb host in afghanistan on the 20th of august, 1998 after our embassies were destroyed on east africa in the 7th of august. they didn't kill bin laden at the time. but what people don't realize is that we had a chance to kidnap bin laden in the third week of may, 1998, before the embassies were attacked and mr. clinton canceled that operation. so whether clinton was a democrat or a republican, i can

assure you from working inside the intelligence community in the area of terrorism he was not interested in protecting americans. he was interested in protecting his own person. he was interested in protecting his reputation and he was interested in selling airplanes to the arabs and treating the taliban with kid gloves because he supported a gas pipeline running from turk man stan to kandahar to cratchie and pakistan. host: talk to us about the episode during the bush administration where they thought they had bin laden in torah bora and didn't take him out there. how is that different from the members of the clinton administration not acting on intelligence that they had obwhere bin laden was and what they could do with him? guest: i don't think there is a difference. they had a wonderful opportunity to go after osama bin laden and kill him or capture him at the time and

certainly the troops on the ground, the marines and the tenth mountain division were dying to do that. but the generals at that time in our military were bureaucrats. they hadn't fought a war. they didn't know what they were doing except they knew dead american soldiers is bad public relations. and so they subcontracted the job instead of using our troops they subcontracted the job to a couple of afghans who had fought with bin laden against the soviets in the 1980s. and when we did the traces on the names of those two afghans we sent the information back to the field and said these guys are going to be a day late and a dollar short and they were. and they got away. bin laden lived from 2001 to 2011 because i gather that the white house did not press those generals to use our own troops to do our own dirty work. host: where does al qaeda get its money these days and can we sweeze squeeze that money

source? guest: a lot of the money comes from private donations from wealthy arabs who believe al qaeda and other islamist groups are doing god's work on earth. some of the money came from bin laden's family, his inheritance. donations and mosques are taken up around the world. they're involved in the movement of counter fit currency and there's money to be made there. al qaeda itself has always been very active in exporting gem stones from afghanistan and of course the enormous money maker for the taliban and probably some flow through is the her win industry. so there are no shortages of money. and the problem for the united states is that the treasury department is very good at stopping money in western banks if they can identify an account that the terrorist account or a bad account. but most times business in the muslim world is cash and carry

and you really don't have an opportunity to freeze anything. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania on our line for independents. caller: i had a question about the general efficacy of our intelligence gathering operations kind of on a global level. because how can we trust any of the intelligence when all of our most sensitive data bases have been penetrated by friendly nations and especially considering we know the prime beneficiary of thighs attacks is israel. guest: i'm not an expert on cyber warfare but increasingly we're facing threats from both nation threats and nonnation states, terrorist groups, organized crime groups. and the security of our computer files. but that's got to be fixed. i don't know how to do it. i'm not a computer person at all. but certainly china, israel,

other nation states do try to raid our data basis, our governmental data basis and also our industrial data basis to get an advantage from gaining access to industrial plans or particular pieces of equipment. so it is very big and growing danger as i understand it and the government seems to be taking some action at the moment against that problem. host: next up, louisville kentucky on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to know are we doing anything about the terrorist cells that funneling money out to country? how are we locating the cells and freezing their money and stopping the terrorist cells? are we doing anything about that? guest: i believe there was just a gentleman in new york

arrested yesterday or the day before for sending several thousand dollars i believe to the taliban in afghanistan. and i think that the treasury department and the f.b.i. and other people try very hard to do that. and as i said, just a minute ago, we're very good at stopping money in the western bank. we have good vision into the western banking system with our allies. but if it's a matter of carrying cash or transferring money via gem stones or jewelry or something like that it becomes much more difficult. host: tennessee on our line for independents. caller: i wanted to take issue with the guy from the c.i.a. and go back a little bit in your history and take a look at your history. ronald reagan funded bin laden and this is the reason that dick cheney said a long time ago without hesitation that he absolutely knew that there was

weapons in iraq and that was the reason for going to iraq starting this war. ok? all right? he knew it because we funded bin laden. we took care of bin laden. and the c.i.a. was complistity in that. when clinton cut the budget back on c.i.a., c.i.a. turned on him and said, well, ok, we'll give him this information in pieces of information and say this is possible and that's possible and leave it all up in the air. when george bush was sitting in the white house, we got hit on september 11th, he had ten days in that ten days he knew exactly within a half a mile where osama bin laden was. and fed had the guts of harry truman and knocked a nuclear bomb this was ten years ago. but it's turned into an industry for the c.i.a. guys who wants to write a book and make a million dollars out of it. guest: well, you're titled to

your own ideas. they're completely wrong. but you're entitled to them sir. unfortunately i think for us the c.i.a. bin laden would not deal with us during the war with the soviets. he made it very clear that he hated us then. he had his own sources of money and armaments and steered clear of us and he was on the side of the angels at the time because he was killing russians and that was the goal of the operation. i'm very confident that you're wrong that mr. bush had any idea of the location of osama bin laden. whether he would have killed him fed the opportunity to do so i can't address that but i was there at the time and we did not know where osama bin laden was in august of 2011, unlike unfortunately for you mr. clinton's raft of opportunities to kill osama bin

laden. >> in your opinion could osama bin laden have held up in pakistan for as long as he did without the knowledge of the pakistani government and the pakistani military? >> i think some people in the government and the military almost certainly knew where he was, sir. but i think also at least within the intelligence community the one thing we were very confident of was that pakistan would never be the agent of turning him over or killing him or helping us to kill him because it wasn't in their interests. american politicians whether democrat or republican very often operate under the wrong assumption that everyone's national interests are the same as ours. pakistan's interests wsh not ours and yet they helped us by doing a number of things. they now have a civil war on their own territory for example because of the degree they helped us. the real question is not why didn't pakistan get him.

the question is why did two u.s. governments under two different parties delegate their responsibility to protect americans to a third world dictatorship? host: next up, birmingham, alabama. guest: thank you. i worked in saudi arabia for 12 years between 1977 and 1989. i worked with a lot of the saudis, i worked in the refinery as well as all different parts of the country because i was an independent consultant for iran, the saudi government. i heard many times about our blind support for israel. and i often wondered every time i saw us giving money to israel something would happen that would keep that war going rather than diminish that war. and i don't know what your your

involvement or understanding of that if you haver had the chance to talk with saudis but i talk with them constantly and alet of the guys when i worked in the refinery when they took their 30 day vacation they went to afghanistan to fight the war. i saw many pictures, they take photos of helicopters they had shot down and people they had killed but which were gruesome but i had to go along with them and sure i looked at them and i understood what they were saying. host: we'll leave it there. guest: i think it's an important point, sir. osama bin laden was not an anomaly for the saudi educational system. he was indeed the poster boy for its suck setses. and along with -- successes.

and along with countries, saudi arabia is an enormous threat to the yidse in the west generally because of the manner in which it exports a brand of islam that is anti-western, anti-christian, anti-jewish, and certainly much more vicious in intolerance than anything that osama bin laden himself pushed ahead. the saudis are like the israelis, extraordinarily powerful in our congress because of the influence and the money they have used to buy support from various smen. the saudis in particular are very influential in our oil industry and arms industry. they're always buying billions of dollars of guns from us. and our president's, republican and democrats, pretend that the saudis are our best friends and reliable allies and i think that's exactly wrong. they are a maligned influence not only for the united states

but for the western community as a whole. host: we've got a tweet. our last call from alabama. joe on our line. caller: yes. first of all thank you for your 22 years of service. and providing us a blanket of freedom that some people don't understand that there's a lot of lives in providing that. but more importantly, i believe that if this country required our children when they turned 18 to give us two years of service, a, the other countries would realize that we're a militarily trained completely as silions, that they would think twice before they would attack us because anyone of us could cap them. b, these young people need to understand, an american,

there's always a price to pay but they want it for free. so i think we should require that they understand that there's a price for freedom but more importantly they should be required to pay it before they start their adulthood so that maybe they have a sense of direction as to, a, they're not mexican american. i'm an american hispanic. i think people should itesdzorer being americans first or get out. guest: well, we've certainly comb to the point with our military that we are stretched to the limit and are very understaffed, i think, and we're probably at the point where one more major crisis that required the deployment of an american army overseas, that the draft will become a new or a renewed source of debate in this country. i have to say that i think a conscript army would make the

politicians much more conscious of the losses our military suffers. we're going to with draw from iraq and afghanistan in defeat. we have accomplished nothing there that we set out to accomplish. not because of the military. but because of the restraints put on the military by mr. bush and mr. obama. and it's always seemed to me to be criminal to go war without intending to win and we have now generals who don't even use the word victory or win. their hearts and minds folks like petraeus and mcchrystal. and i think certainly a conscript army would put pressure on any government, republican or democrat, to get into a war, to win it, win it clearly and clearly get home. to rather than marines to build irrigation systems and clinics.

>> host: one final question. they had this article with the title, nine 11 anniversary comes al qaeda 2.0. moving forward, where are the hearts and minds of al qaeda? is this tenth anniversary as significant for them as it is for us or is this just another day that they hate americans? guest: al qaeda has never been much keyed to anniversaries. american politicians are always key to anniversaries. we work endless thanks givings and christmases. this is a different anniversary. it's the tenth anniversary i think that's the smallest motivation. the second is that there's an enormous eagerness to extract an eye for an eye in return for killing osama bin laden. third and most important for them their recipe for defeating us is always included trying to bleed us to bankruptcy. our economy is very clearly on the ropes at the moment and

theg anything do to push us further, that's what they intend to do. so it's almost like a little perfect storm coming together at this particular point in time. host: thank you very much for being on the program. guest: my pleasure sir. host: we're going to take a short break and when we come back a discussion on the homeland security department ten years after its creation.

host: cats lean, homeland security and justice managing director at the government accountability office and is here to talk to us about homeland security. the homeland security department at ten years. and a lot of this has to do with a report that came out this week regarding the department of homeland security progress made and work remaining in implefmenting homeland security missions ten years after 9/11. welcome to the proom. guest: thank you. host: so after ten years what is the largest accomplishments of the department of homeland security? guest: i think it's important to remember when you're thinking about d.h.s. that it's a relatively new organization only in place about eight years. and when you think about it, they would be where you expect

them to be. on the accomplishment side i would say a major accomplishment of the department has been the creation of a program called secure flight. it is an aviation security program and it allows the government to check against terrorist watch lists records information on passengers flying domestically within the united states and also flying from other countries into the united states. so it enables t.s.a. to focus on potentially dangerous people versus just focusing on dangerous items. host: and after ten years what are some of the limitations and short comings? guest: i'll take that question in two parts. the first on the operations side. i think a big area where they need to strengthen is related to cyber security. now, d.h.s. has put more of an emphasis on this. they have a lot of leadership responsibility. and monitoring cyber threats and responding to them fwufment

area where they need to really put additional attention and focus is related to cyber analysis and warning capabilities. what this means is they really need to provide information to critical infrastructure stake holders, owners, operators on network traffic and potential cyber threats through their monitoring efforts. i would say another area where additional attention and focus is needed is related to chemical biological nuclear and radiological materials. again, the department has put emphasis in this area, developed a number of programs to combat those but there are still weaknesses that they need to address. on the management side, because i think management is important when you talk about the department of homeland security, i would say that is probably their greatest area where they need to take additional action and focus. because really when you talk about the management of the department, that has a direct impact on their ability to meet their missions and i will give

you just one example. d.h.s. spends about 40% of their budget on procuring major systems to protect the country. and they have had a lot of difficulty in developing systems, defining requirements, testing those systems and fielding programs that meet users' needs. we've identified a number of programs that d.h.s. has had to cancel because they weren't following a rigorous acquisition process. so i think it is going to be important for them to address the management side of the house to help it fulfill its mission. host: we're talking with kathy. with the government accountability office also known as g.a.o. she is the homeland security and justice managing director and we're talking about the department of homeland security tn years after its creation. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.

we want to take a look and listen at some of the things that president george w. bush had to say at the creation of the department of homeland security. >> take we're taking historic action to defend the united states and protect our citizens against the dangers of a new era. with my signature this act of congress will create a new department of homeland security. ensuring that our efforts to defend this country are comprehensive and united. the new department will analyze threats, will guard our borders and airports, protect our critical infrastructure, and

coordinate the response of our nation to future emergencies. the department of homeland security will focus full resources of the american government on the safety of the american people. host: has the department of homeland security fulfilled its promise of transforming 22 agencies into one? guest: i don't think they're there yet in terms of transforming and uniting those agencies. in fact, the transformation of the department of homeland security is on zpwoo's high risk list which is a list that we create to every two years and update congress on areas that require congressional and management attention. now, combining 22 agencies and creating a unified department is a massive undertaking. d.h.s. has to do that while implementing its missions and responding to homeland security security threats. what's going to be key to integrating the department is putting more of an emphasis on

the management, core management functions such as human capital making sure that they bring on board the people they need that they have an integrated financial management system so senior leaders can have ready access to manage and oversee the department. right now each of the components have their own independent financial management systems. information technology, acquisition or other areas. in order for the department to effectively move forward with its mission and utilize its resources, they need to do more work to really unify the department. they recognize that and are taking steps to do it but aren't yet there. host: our first call comes from omaha, nebraska. susan on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. my question is really a comment. and it's about over the last 10 years i have heard so many different officials make comments about this or that.

and it just doesn't seem to come together. it's like i can't seem to make any truth of it. it really angers me because every 9/11 is just a great big tear trop that never hits the ground with me. i would like to know the truth. because when i hear bush talk or cheney talk, you know just like the c.i.a. agent that was on, if there's just some thing that is they say that you just can't put together. and i hate to make this quote but like they say if it doesn't make sense then it's not true. and that's just how i feel. host: did it make sense to put an organization like fema that's responsible for taking care of the country after disasters and things like that, in with a group that was

created in essence to handle security and defense of the country from attacks from overseas and from within? guest: i think it could have been organized and structured in a number of different ways both in terms of whether d.h.s. should have even been created and what components should become a part of it. g.a.o.'s emphasis is essentially been that the decision was made to create the department to move these organizations under the umbrella of d.h.s. how effectively and efficiently are they doing that? now, i think it's important for d.h.s. to continually reassess its organizational structure. it's important for the congress to do that as well and make adjustments as needed. and i think they've done that to a certain degree and are continuing to do that. an example is fema that you mentioned. after hurricane katrina congress passed legislation that strengthened fema's authorities, it provided a direct communication line between fema administrator and

the white house and it gave fema better control over internal resources related to emergency preparedness and response. so i think that's a good example of needing to really reassess organizational structures as events arise. host: next up, michael for republicans. go ahead. caller: my questions have two parts. as a former director of h.r. i'm curious about the skill sets that are needed in employing people. i can only imagine how difficult it is for you to select proper people. but my other question -- i'm currently a professor of sosheyoling. and in my class of 9/11, 2001, i had some folks who work for the israeli embassy and i asked them what their reaction was to our security. they were very surprised how open we were in terms of our shopping malls, transportation

systems, ground transportation, et cetera. so i guess those are my two questions. how can you our security safety as civilians and then how are you selecting the right people to make sure that you have the best and the brightest, particularly in this climate where the government is not giving raises and the salaries aren't going to make anybody rich. so those are my particular comments to you. guest: host: we'll leave it there. guest: in terms of, i think you're right on the money in terms of the importance of bringing on people with the needed skills and abilities to manage the department of homeland security in this case. this has been a challenge for d.h.s. since its creeeags especially in two areas, information technology and management acquisition area. and because they've had those difficulties it's had a direct impact on their ability to perform mission business not having the oversight over contractors that they should have and not managing these

programs to achieve the results they set out to. now, d.h.s. has put a lot more emphasis on human capital. they're putting in training and other programs in place. but it's going to be important for them moving forward to make advancements in this area, and we'll be monitoring that as a part of g.a.o. ds work. in terms of security, i agree it's a very difficult and daunting task. especially when you're talking about the security of critical infrastructure which is so wide open. this is your shopping malls, it's water systems, it's electcal grids. the whole range of systems within the united states. a lot aren't regulated which makes it even more difficult to address. so i think critical infrastructure in particular is one of d.h.s.'s top challenges because they have so many diverse partners to work with. we live in a free and open society. they want to increase security while facilitating commerce.

so d.h.s. has a difficult road to walk in securing these open systems. now, they have done a lot to do just that. they've created partnerships with critical infrastructure owners and operators. they've issued security standards. they do security assessments. so i think there has been a lot of progress in the past eight years but given the vastness of the network it's going to take continued attention on the part of d.h.s. to oversee and secure these systems. host: melissa in rhode island, you're on the "washington journal." caller: i was wondering in this time of america politically speaking the palate of the mainstreet population is one of skepticism. and we're looking for accountability and results from our president.

and certainly there are lots of facets to be looked at. but yours in particular with the department of homents. i would think the american people would appreciate hearing some data or some results maybe even a report card kind of report from the department of homeland security as to what i think it would be good to hear the kinds of things you've been able to thwart cyber any kind of cyber things, any kind of civilians activity. and to just give a report to the american people and let them know that in the past year you've been able to keep america safe and this is how you've done it. the things the people would really appreciate that level of accountability and reporting. host: we'll leave it there. guest: my organization, which is a government accountability office we work for the u.s. congress and we support congress in providing oversight over the department of homeland

security. so that's my organization's role. now, related to a report card of d.h.s., we recently did something very similar along those lines. we issued a report on wednesday, you can get it off of g.a.o.'s website that's www.g.a.o..gov and search d.h.s., department of homents progress and work remaining. and that report really sum rises over 1,000 products and congressional testimony my agency has given on the department's operations. it also talks about over 1500 recommendation that is we've made related to the department of homeland security. now key areas of progress and work remaining, i can mention a few right now that are highlighted in the report. a big area of progress is the department of homeland security's security entrance for foreign nationals coming into the united states. this is a biometric system. d.h.s. collects information on foreign nationals coming into

the country and gives them more visibility over who is entering the country and i think that's been a significant improvement. there have been a lot of improvements in the area of aviation security which is very visible to many. many of those are visible but there's some that aren't visible to the public as well so there's been a lot of enhancements in aviation security. i think maritime security both the security at ports and also of containers coming into the united states has also been a key area of progress. now, on the other side in terms of work remaining, i mentioned that d.h.s. developed a system to track foreign nationals coming into the united states but unfortunately they don't yet have a system in place to track foreign nationals exiting the united states. so they don't have a complete picture of who is in the country that aren't u.s. citizens. and that's a top priority for the department to fix but they're not yet there. right now, another area where i think additional attention is

needed is related to emergency preparedness and response. fema has a lot of plans and strategies and programs in place for response and they're continuing to work to strengthen that but the recovery side after a disaster has occurred either man made disaster or natural disaster there's been much less emphasis on that fema has a drafted strategies to try to improve efforts but more work remains so that fema is there when people need them after a disaster and are there until the necessary actions have been taken to get people back up on their feet and fully recover. so those are just a few years of progress and work remaining. i would recommend looking at g.a.o.'s report for our complete assessment. now, the department of homeland security is also issued a report on their views of their progress so that's another source of information. host: next up, kirk in

baltimore, maryland. you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: i want to thank the guests and thank "washington journal" for the freedom of speech. now, basically what i just want to say is by the time i finish if i get the maximum time allowed because i only call here to tell the truth. what i want to say is the other day, a little while ago obama after the debt ceiling thing he went on vacation but that was after the republicans went on vacation. none of the news media covered where they went and who they want to talk to but somehow they put a tracking device on what obama was doing. but what i want to say about the whole homeland security security, the truth of the matter is you can eliminate

terrorism around the world if we were to eliminate the terrorists here. now, a perfect example. you've got a man who looks at fox news and saying i'm going to burn all the korans. now that causes anger, causes fear, and some of the black people fear they're being attacked here. host: let's move on to mchenry, illinois. frank on our line for republicans. you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: thanks for hearing from me. i wonder what's being done to protect the entire internet which of course any kind of a breakup would cause a tragedy. and when i travel i see small little complexes that how's electcal power that is going to all over the areas. and i'm wondering who is protecting them. host: kathleen, cyber security and the grid guest: cyber security and the

grid key areas of focus for the department of homeland security. they have a lot of responsibilities in this area although they work with many partners in doing this. this is an area that's actually also on g.a.o. my agency's high risk list that's in need of continued management attention. i say a key area of progress is that d.h.s. did develop what's called a computer readieness and response group whose sole purpose is to really monitor network traffic identify potential intrusions and then notify critical infrastructure owners and operators of those and also help them respond to it. now, d.h.s. also does tests of operators systems to try to identify vulnerabilities and point those out to the operators so that they can put programs in place to try to prevent that. having said that

and the dhs does security checks

to make sure that they are being implemented. however, other sectors such as surface transportation and security and the networks like freight rail mass transit are largely unregulated. in these situations, there are not specific security requirements that operators have to implement. the department's approach has been to go out and do security assessments about the potential vulnerabilities, report to the owner and operators, develop voluntary guidelines and standards for security that they recommend be followed, and to try and improve security. what we said in that area in our work is that dhs, after doing these assessments, needs to go back and assess what impact they are having. what i mean by that is our vehicles that carry hazardous

vehicles, are they adhering to these standards? are they making adjustments to their systems to strengthen security based on dhs assessments? we think dhs needs to go back and do more. host: calling from arkansas, you are on "washington journal." caller: i wanted to thank the gentleman who called before. my question for this lady is when they created the department of homeland security, when they created a bureaucracy, they do a lot of that to get a job for their friends. how many "do nothing" high- paying jobs did this create? guest: that is not a part of

the gao's per view. we look at programs within the department and we are mandated in legislation to the review. that is not one area that we have not looked at and would not be with an hour per view. -- within our purview. host: atlanta, georgia. caller: i have a question about whistle-blowers. what i am interested in is the police chief of atlanta was part of the corrupt regime that was the convicted former mayor, so i think whistle-blowers would be needing all the encouragement that they could get. guest: there are legal protections that they have it

that our agency of years to. if you have people that sometimes come forward and provide information to our agency since we are viewed as an independent watchdog for the congress to provide us with information. in those cases, we coordinate closely with them to make sure that we are adhering to requirements and loss for the protection of whistle-blowers. host: was an article on governmentexecutive.com. one thing that charles clarke writes about is, he says -- he bound that airport and passenger baggage screening is not detecting efforts -- not detecting threats. guest: related to technology in

the airport environment, relating to baggage technology, dhs obviously had to deploy a lot of its equipment after 9/11. they were mandated by congress to do that. what we found is that as the years have a progress, dhs has continually assessed the threats to aviation and increased the standards that they think of these baggage it screening machines need to detect. they did this after 9/11 in 2005 and in most recently 2010. the problem as they have not been able to upgrade these machines to detect explosives at the current 2010 standard. we have a number of machines out in the inventory that cannot detect explosives that dhs has deemed to be more significant threats. host: because they are not

technically able or because we have not supplied the money? guest: a little bit of both. they need to refine the technology and have a plan in place to upgrade these machines. that was a recommendation of the gao, that they come up with a strategy to approach this. part of it is resources. this is a very expensive piece of equipment and a very expensive upgrade procedure. the dhs did agree that they need to upgrade their equipment and are developing a strategy to do that. on the checkpoint side, the technology there is an area where the dhs had put a lot of investment, but more work remains. you have probably heard about the advanced imaging technology that dhs has put out recently. we are booking up this technology right now to see the detection capabilities that it provides. we have testified before the

congress that there are questions whether this technology would have detected the december 25th attempted bombing. we're looking at this further and will be reporting to congress later this year. technology at airports is probably the area where dhs meets the but the most emphasis. there is a lot of emphasis on the screeners. dhs has a rigorous training program, certification requirements, etc. there is a lot of emphasis on the screening procedures, making them risk-based come getting input from operators, adjusting as needed. the third piece comet technology, is where we think they need to put more emphasis on moving forward. host: a look at dhs by the numbers for the 2012 budget request. the administration is asking for a total of $57 billion for dhs. customs and border protection would get $11.80 billion, coast

guard $10.30 billion, fema $10 billion, gsa $8 billion, -- tsa. pennsylvania, on the line for democrats, you are on the "washington journal" with cathy berrick. caller: i would not call this cia expert a liar because his expertise is a region however when the southern gentleman called about the progressives and liberals allowing people to come into this country, it is nonsense. for every 10 employers bill clinton had arrested, george bush only had one. that is a attend one ratio of what bill clinton tried to do -- it was a 10 to 1 ratio. this has a fell under the bus

because of the right wing agenda. we are tired of hearing the nonsense. people like that should get their facts straight before they go on television. host: you have a comment or question directly aimed at cathleen berrick and the report from the gao on the dhs? then we will let you go and go to oklahoma, kansas on our line for republicans. -- kenneth. caller: as long as we are all living in fear, we are running from the bully. if you keep running, you will see it. americans need to get on with their life and do it they were doing before 9/11. host: democratic line, st. louis, missouri. caller: great to have you want. the department of homeland security was developed after 9/11.

it seems like it has ballooned into a huge private contract. scheme. from what i have read in foreign affairs, there is a lot of stuff that is done duplicitous lealy. there are so many reports being written that you cannot even keep track of the intel coming in. i am wondering if there is anyone out there looking at a way to slim this down so that it is able to be handled by a group of people and put into context so that we might actually get some intelligence out there that we can use. thank you. host: cathy berrick? guest: there are a large number of contractors, by some estimates 200,000, supporting dhs. there is an effort underway to try and look at it to see if it

is an appropriate number or whether some of these functions contractors are performing could be performed by government employees. that effort is ongoing. just the overall area of contract and within dhs, the gao agrees that this is an area that they need to improve in. this is a part of the core management function of the department and really impacts their ability to developed security systems in a cost- effective way. part of this has been bringing on the people with the right skills and abilities to support dhs and provide oversight for contractors. part of it is making sure dhs it hears to their own policies and oversight structure for overseeing the development of systems and contractor operations. we think dhs needs to focus more on this. it is part of the reason the gao has put the transition of the management on the hybris the

list and we will continue to monitor it. host: in "the baltimore sun," yesterday -- and in the tribune papers, -- is there anything in this report that addresses the indication and training of people working in the dhs particularly in areas like tsa? guest: we of looked at training employees to route all of the departments to see how well they have approached that and prepared for it. it really varies across the different areas. training is one area where they

have made significant process and want to make sure they have people trained with the right skills and abilities. in other areas, there has been less, so it is a mixed bag. host: san diego, calif., on our line republicans. you are on "washington journal" with with berrick. caller: i would like to ask about the input of that the electric grid. in southern california, we had a blackout for roughly 12 hours. i wonder about the requirements of the private companies. they are making a good profit and charging higher prices out here. if you could speak to that, thank you for your work. guest: that is not a part of our work as the department. host: florida on our line for independents. caller: as i look on your web

site, i noticed the general focus is efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. the ultimate free market accountability for our government is the constitution. i am curious why you do not have any focus -- say it is purpose to well in these areas and those sorts of things. i know the dhs has been sued in has had to change some of their policies and operations, but why is there not a focus, or is there, on how this affects the people as far as their liberties and whether that is being done well or what have you? is that an area of the gao since it is part of the congressional oversight agencies? and that is what the oversight of congress itself. guest: thank you for the question. that is a large part of the work that we do at the dhs.

when you talk about security, there is a balance that needs to be achieved between security and protecting civil liberties, privacy, and the flow of congress -- commerce. in the area of aviation security, i mentioned earlier that a major achievement of the dhs has been the development of secure flight which enables tsa to compare passenger information against terrorist watch list records. as the system was being developed, they asked the gao to monitor and review the development of the system and specifically they wanted us to focus in several different areas. one of them was privacy. that is related to how the government was handling, maintaining, and using information that it was requesting in order to conduct

this screening. we made a number of recommendations to the tsa to strengthen and privacy protections and controls as they were developing this system. at the end, right before tsa implemented this, the congress asked the gao to provide a report card and say whether or not they met these conditions and they were ready to go live. at that point, we thought they had implemented our recommendations, strengthening areas including privacy, which i think was a big success of the department. i think that you are absolutely right that privacy and civil liberties needs to be integral to security and constantly be a consideration for the department. host: there are a bunch of barriers that was put up around various buildings, like these in front of the white house. we see this gentleman roller