the workers were treated worse .han the students around sixterms were six or lessess -- thomas sometimes life. one of the guys that through the accepted statue, the portrait of -- chairman matt. -- mao. they have used different tactics. they are very careful.

>> we are tiptoeing to a fundamental western. these people went through the of indoctrination and so on. they still had the old view of

the vanguard rt. people, but lot of you could say they worsened your murderers. -- they were sincere murderers. after the tendon and mass occur iananmon massacre to a

, theytion of communist told me, this means all my life destroyed. there is another story. after the massacre they went to see him. two old friends sat down and they said, ok, you did this. i supported you. now what? it means we thought we were wehting for liberation.

thought we were bringing freedom to people. now what? i cannot answer you. it is not our case. how true the story is. of communisme part that remains is leninism. that is the organizational part of the party, and that is very alive. it -- the utopia is gone. right here.

>> thank you. hello again. there was ak success story for the movement. could you comment on what they could have done differently with perhaps a different outcome? >> go ahead. fair western.

-- fair question. is that a failed story? yes, if you look at the you in resolutions never passed. messages making chinese government to behave that are -- better, so are -- for that article point of view, we still can't say those human rights effort doesn't really see

any result. not inc. that way. -- inc. that way. -- think that way. together with those efforts, that is part of the human spirit moving toward freedom. picture we all come together for one story. end. when reached the we look back the international community has fought for chinese people.

it will be. it takes time. it takes some process. nobody guarantees it will be smooth. i do not doubt freedom will prevail. >> just to follow up what did you make of the argument alluded to this morning with you here in the u.s., but i am sure -- which you hear in the u.s. but i am sure you also hear in china that democracy and these sorts of things are not right for chinese civilization, that china will take its own path?

you notice china you can listen on the internet every day. chinese evil so different than in taiwan -- chinese people so different than taiwan?n esther mark -- know he was a , and that this time he participated with others in a small in-house cooperation and

right now is undercut to be. why his story? because this march there was a south korean movie that came out. it was a big hit. it is based on the story of a former south korean resident -- president who from a tax lawyer became a human rights lawyer and later a politician. the movie was based on that story. it inspired many others so when the chinese human rights lawyer saw that he saw himself. if youlenty argument watch the movie.

you could say the south koreans need another 20 years of economic element. -- development. dead -- hehen he was there were a lot of people on twitter talking about it. surprise the movie star attorney and literally said a lawyer who fights or human rights and justice is truly inspiring. she has 20 million followers. the message goes throughout chinese internet right away.

if south korea can do it, why not china? this time maybe another 20 if so many people go to .aiwan for the election >> we have time for one more question right here. >> as a russia specialist i was in june. i was inclined to see what happened in china in comparative

context with what is going on in eastern europe. and theugh the analogy opposition to the failed military takeover of the soviet seems a little strange, the kinds of emotions you talked about among the sound a lot like what the people of moscow felt through those two days. one could see the opposition to the coup was successful and that it brought down the soviet union you it's notell clear if it will be commemorated

. they will feel this of voided. on the one hand they changed as evil being involved in that where they -- changed as people involved in the opposition. precisely this issue of what happened to an individual of how .his state reacts >> i don't know what i can comment. some peopletter.

of russia. history cannot always assume something different. russia has its own pattern and at a its own issues. certain turning point it took very different that. steps. thatu look at it i can say 25 years ago russia is ready for transition and the chinese communist artie was still very strong. was still very strong.

it became so huge it would be crashed. china nextt mean time was developing this company and the wrong direction. >> i think the russian example has an useful for the chinese drop again the machine -- propaganda machine. i think it is part of the justification. you wouldn't have joined -- enjoyed this level of era to. -- prosperity.

>> i want to urge all of you to have a look at this photo gallery. please thank me. -- thank them. [applause] >> tomorrow the senate foreign relations committee hold a elections in ukraine and the political situation. you can watch that beginning at 10:30 eastern on seas ran and -- c-span and www.c-span.org.

also officials from the fbi and participated before the senate intelligence committee. weekend, live coverage of the chicago tribune lit fast -- fest. andors include cal thomas barbara ehrenreich. sunday's topics include the father-son relationship, the arming of america during world war ii and vietnam's dragon lady . 2.e this weekend on c-span television for serious readers. >> defense department officials reef senators about the prisoner exchange with the telephone that

led to the exchange of sergeant bergdahl. this is 20 minutes. >> my concern from the beginning i have not been reassured is that the five high risk taliban reengage will not against us and our allies. i was not satisfied that the conditions were sufficient that they would not threaten america or our allies in any way.

concern from my the beginning. that is why i have been very ensuring america would not transfer high risk detainees without ensuring they would not go back. i would argue the conditions detainees these five will be held is the troubling this. four of them are high-level members of the telephone. -- taliban. tied. --that is satisfied.

>> the doctor can speak when he comes. the only thing i have said is we are not dealing with a war hero. -- dealing with a soldier. there is a lot to be understood with the family and his actions. we have to see report that are classified. that. alsoe will see we will reveal more about the people who served with him.

>> how dangerous is it taliban dangeroushey are people. that is why we held them in captivity for so long. put back onhey were the street. cars i would have loved to have them. that would have been horrific. if they do get back in it wouldn't be a good situation. >> everybody is concerned. we are hoping we can hopefully and there is some monitoring to keep that from happening. these are high-level people. these are people who have the ability to hit the ground running.

>> will they notify congress? asked that did not,. i know it will. up.> that did not come >> on the proof of life? come.t did not he was impaired. people who have medical -- tom can speak for that. that was not the person released here. he was not in a dire situation. skip thein as deeply call -- skeptical as i was before. convincedncreasingly that these five individuals who have been released will soon return to the fight in america, and i remain convinced the

president has set a precedent that will encourage enemies to target men and women in american uniform to capture them in order to carry out an exchange in the future. violated thee they law which is to not give 30 day notice? is no question the president violated the law by not giving her the day notice. the president -- 30 days. the president has now released the five most interest people. they will soon continue the fight, and we have created an answer for the enemies to try to capture men and women in uniform. >> were you given assurance is? about the risk to the u.s. in the future? fax it is my and in this has created an incentive for others to try to capture america -- my

understanding this has created an incentive for others to try to capture americans. we're not at that level at this point. right now the immediate concern is what dangers does this pose to other americans around the and beyond that, what are these five individuals going to do when they returned to the ?ight >> are they more dangerous than mohammed or the 9/11 plotters? fax there is a reason the taliban wanted these individuals released. they were potentially the crown jewels of what was in captivity in guantanamo. the telephoneson

wanted these released. five fixed really dangerous individuals committed american whonti-american fighters served in guantanamo have been released and will serve against america. >> have they talked about what this has prompted. >> not in great detail. i remain concerned about the of the qatari government to monitor these individuals. even than it is for a limited time. theseministration -- individuals will return to the fight. >> are any more detainees going to be released? fax they didn't discuss it. >> were any of the issues brought up? >> that wasn't discussed.

i imagine the administration will talk about it as part of i think theyffort would justify this as reconciliation, but i would view that as returning five dangerous evil to the fight against america, and i believe it was part of a political narrative that the war in afghanistan was over and the last prisoner had been returned. i have been highly skeptical of legitimizing what is either a government nor a legitimate military operation like the taliban. this is an organized terrorist safeization that provides haven for radical terrorist.

they provide safe haven. afghanistan returns to what it looked right on said -- looked like on september 10, 2001. >> i learned nothing in this briefing nor did i expect to learn anything except that i can in you to maintain -- continue to maintain -- we are glad buteant bergdhal is home this exchange of the hardest of the hard-core will pose a threat to the men and women who are serving. after a year they will be free to go, and they will reenter the fight. 30% has been the history of of those who have already been released and the tension of guantanamo -- the tension in guantanamo.

>> but this video. lex i cannot have meant except to tell you i did not learn anything i didn't already know. >> we have been in the process of having a briefing with the department of defense relative -- relevant to sergeant birdsall -- bergdahl. most of what we talked about remains under classified could classified- condition. i made this it meant last night i was shocked to see a new york times article yesterday in which hadas alleged a statement dahl left by private berg with his here in the camp enough to understand he walked away

from, and that contains certain that were not supportive of america, not a port of of the war -- not supportive of the war. we were told there was no snitch -- such statement. i want to correct any indication of that hearing out there. told that was not theect. with regards to other surroundings, he is in reviewed as to his medical condition. is going to continue for a time. you can imagine someone in incarceration for five years has the potential to have health issues. we were told there is no intelligence that indicated from

a medical standpoint his life eatingdanger, so he is analyzed, and there will be further reporting -- being analyzed and there will be further reporting as that develops. five how sick was he? >> it appeared he was drugged and barely responsive in the video it self. it was not a long video. much.n't conclude >> do you think that justified their argument about why they moved so swift late? don't from a health standpoint there was any issue that justified the release of these five nasty killers.

>> why was it secret? fax i don't know. i hope they would release it. e-mails published. i can't speak as to the validity of those e-mails. they contain some of the same statements. i am reference think this eight meant. -- the statement. i was shocked. wasad the report, and there no indication of such as date meant -- such a statement. i know they don't play games. the e-mails allowed there and -- or may not the legitimate may or may not be legitimate. >> was there any kind of threat?

that. i haveeak to not had confidence through these negotiations that go back to had that the qataris toability or the will monitor these individuals in a way they need to be monitored. in a safeeep them year but monitoring them the way they need to be monitored, i don't think they are prepared. >> can you offer us a better explanation as to why there was no consultation? >> the public needs to know more about what happened and the implications from this deal. a public hearing is an apt salute necessity.

-- absolute necessity. what he is accused of doing is to be determined by an independent army investigation. strategic consequences need to be discussed openly. by some ofistressed the logic. there is apparently a theory if we released these five talibans it would enhance the chance of teeth. i releasing these are the nurse somehow it would empower --t heart of the telegram part of the taliban that want to reckon file. -- reconcckon deal ile. disconnected karzai is from the average afghan. i believe the decision to release -- prisoners and

put our country in jeopardy fuels jihadist's around the world and was a great disservice to the afghan people because they have to live with these guys. these are the people who ran the government and led the military that took young women into soccer stadiums and killed them for sport. that this would be a gesture of goodwill to enhance peace should offend everybody who believes the taliban and is not the answer to the problem. i can only imagine how young women in afghanistan feel today that we just let out of jail the people who organized the hell in which they live. the concept of releasing these are the nurse whod him -- these prisoners

empower the taliban offends me to my core. i will let senator coburn talk about that. >> does the administration a spouse this theory -- a spouse this theory? >> are we talking about the same people? the theory was if we traded these guys that would show the modern taliban have clout. taliban?he goal of the to lay down their arms and light allegiance to the constitution of afghanistan? this is a complete disconnect. i found that to be the most offensive of all. what you have done is destroyed morale of those people in

afghanistan. your fingerprints on eventually releasing back into the country the people who organized the hell the afghans lived under. this to me does not enhance it. -- peace. intercepted act. back. let mengs tell you what we did to our own national security. it compromises us. , want them to all come back but you have to look at the big picture. the price we have eight is we have empowered terrorists. have unleashed forces that would make it more likely americans will be captured in the future. we sent a worst possible signal

to those who have been trying to change afghanistan for the better. in the proof of live video is there any reason it shouldn't we no, everyc? >> american should be able to see the video. every american should be able to evaluating the process. this is democracy. i am not arguing about releasing private classification, but what is the reason the five release would increase the peace process? ?e have to act now this is something we need to put out in the open. you need to judge for yourself. >> and they tell you why it was secret? >> no. >> earlier we discussed the

taliban prisoner exchange with the former deputy assistant defense record area for detainee affairs. this is 45 and it. -- 45 minutes. with the former deputy on that issue,r and he was quoted the other day that this whole idea we don't negotiate with terrorists is more of a mantra that fact and all administrations have negotiated with terrorists. let's talk about this deal. >>dea we had them there for a is we got the deal credit the obama administration. the plane left.

there for a year. we have heard that they can travel around the country but they have pulled their passports and they are monitoring them. what happens after that year, we don't know. host: who negotiated it? guest: the administration, probably through the state department, negotiated it, and some folks in my old office in the pentagon probably had a big candidate. at this high level it had to go through the state department and probably secretary kerry. but i don't know. host: what about the role of the qatari government? guest: we don't know that either, other than that they accepted them and we have to compliment them. many other countries have accepted the road detainees back. they have, one, accepted them, two, agree to security measures, most of which are not in the public eye yet, and the ones we do know are pulling their passports and monitoring. with the detail of that monitoring is, we don't know. one, accepted them, two, agree to security measures,

most of which are not in the public eye yet, and the ones we do know are pulling their passports and monitoring. with the detail of that monitoring is, we don't know. host: other governments have agreed to accepted them, but have they kept them? tracks, and has for a long time, receipt is -- recidivism rates for guantánamo detainees. is 149, and the bush administration transferred or released -- we did the releases first for the people who did not need to be there in the first place, transfers of folks who we thought were still a threat but were asking the receiving country to mitigate the threat that they post. the bush administration did 500 transfers or releases before obama took office. meama has done 50-so

transfers. the easier case is likely i'll island -- the easier case is left of the island first. host: what do we know about the 5 that were released? some have called them graybeards. guest: we know a heck of a lot. interesting when you hear congressmen say that we want a classified briefing who these guys are. wikileaks has done a job -- whether you agree or not about what we do because done -- what leaks has done, you can look in a newspaper and see mugshots of these guys, but these are senior taliban leaders who, if returned to afghanistan right now, would clearly represent a threat to americans, and may indeed still be able to

call the shots from the sidelines from qatar. host: how would they get involved? is this about having a political presence in afghanistan as we wind down that war? guest: think of it this way -- these guys were not low-level fighters, not mercenaries. these were the heads of afghan troops, the deputy minister of intelligence, a personal friend of mullah omar. the reconciliation process is starting to work, or the people are working towards a reconciliation process. in the run-up election this summer, 2 candidates are going to run off and then one would be elected and the new president to succeed karzai. this has been said by many afghan experts to have a destabilizing effect, because if these former guys come back to our leaders in the militant , it could the taliban destabilize the situation now. john mccain and others who have

made this point across the aisle have a point. host: former taliban, current taliban leaders, but it was the haqqani network that had over -- that had bowe bergdahl. how did that happen? guest: don't know. i don't believe everything i read in the newspaper -- i know that is a shock in washington. but i don't know how he ended up in the haqqani network. there must've been cooperation at some level, people involved in the capture. network deemed terrorists by the united states government. what about the mantra we have heard, we don't negotiate with terrorists? when did it begin, and is it true? guest: the president that made it crystal clear to the american people is obviously ronald reagan. he said it many times, he made it clear.

we have seen countries like negotiations. thea the israeli -- gilad, israeli prisoner taken by the palestinians, was exchanged for several hundred palestinians. a lot of people who criticize this deal said that look, we are america, we just don't do it and we have not done it for a long period of time. we are negotiating now with elements of taliban, we are negotiating with other people , becausesketchy ties we have to. the general principle is that on the big issues we don't negotiate with terrorists, because we don't want to create incentive for future negotiations. this negotiation wasn't directly with the taliban, because the qataris were intermediaries. but let's face it, we were negotiating with the taliban,

because 2 years ago they asked for these 5 guys and we said no because of the political uproar. the thinking of the administration 2 years ago, greta, was that this would help process,ciliation smooth things for further negotiations. that was scuttled. they asked the same 5 guys over the years and we gave them the same 5 people that they asked for. host: did the bush administration negotiate with the taliban or other terrorist networks during those years and release gitmo detainees as part of deals? detaineesulations of at guantánamo -- the big three populations were saudi's, and

afghans. transferured a deal to detainees back to afghanistan into repatriation programs. we repatriated a number of them. the same with a number in saudi arabia. it was meant to be a rehabilitation program. it preceded the war against terrorists that started on 9/11. the sticking point are the you many's. -- yemenis. a have not been able to have level of satisfaction that they would mitigate the threat that those detainees would pose if we offloaded those 90 plus detainees to yemen. host: have these programs in saudi arabia and afghanistan, have they worked? guest: people who are critical

of any detainees leaving guantánamo say, no. people who support guantanamo through attrition say, yes. there is no perfect rehabilitation program. somebody isow that going to go back to criminal activity or terrorist activity. you have to do something. there is a fierce debate about something like that. concerns yesterday expressed on our show. 104 have reengaged into the battlefield, killing americans, killing afghanistan freedom fighters or military and children and who knows who else. 104 went back to the battlefield. these five, who are now in

qatar, where are they going to be in six months or one year or year and a half? of was the vice-chairman intelligence for the taliban. -- you knowry high -- these are terrorists with a great deal of concern for all of us. secretary of defense was against this back in 2010 and 2011. i am concerned about where they will go and will the care americans?- kill host: this is a headline from the london daily mail pointing 'st that some in bowe bergdahl platoon said that he should face court-martial.

that: there was a report six soldiers died searching for him. their families continue to grieve for them. all of the needs to be sorted out going forward. again, those five terrorists, what will become of them? 104 of those released went back to the battlefield and that is the official mumble -- number from our government. host: what do you make of that? thet: he is right that director of national and security has number that have gone back. 16.6% have been confirmed to reengage in terrorist activity. likei took office, i

facts. i was concerned that the criteria for determining whether they had really gone back to the fight was solid. we had a series of discussions within the administration, we tightened the criteria. the criteria has been ever so tightened since then. there is debate over whether or not this number is true. we don't even know in this country how many criminals, career criminals go back to criminal activity until they are caught. to quote my old boss, it is an unknown unknown. exactly how many until you catch them or kill them. several of gone back to senior leadership positions in yemen and elsewhere. several have engaged and killed americans. several have been recaptured. there is never a risk-free

transfer from guantanamo. there was not from iraq or afghanistan. happened during the bush administration and it is happening now during the obama administration. the release of detainees going back to the fight. guest: that is right. i was just a lowly federal prosecutor and military lawyer when i was appointed to the position. the bush administration determined that you have to release the folks who should not have been there in the first place, who were not enemy combatants. but that over time to me you but overansfer -- time, you should transfer the lower-level detainees off the island and mitigate the threat that they pose, but that we should do that. over 500 went during the bush administration. 50 have left during the obama administration. host: you are on the air.

democratic caller. the taliban are a terrorist organization. that is a great question. there were some confusion. wereber that the taliban the ruling party of afghanistan when 9/11 took lace -- took place. when the bush administration determined that al qaeda was not a country and they do not fight for a country and therefore they cannot be legally classified as prisoners of war -- three countries around the world have recognized the taliban as the legitimate ruling party of afghanistan. afghanistan itself had satisfied -- ratified and signed the geneva convention.

administration decided that captured taliban fighters would be afforded pow status if they follow the rules of war. wearing arms openly, uniform with distinct emblems, following a chain of command, they did not do that. they were not treated as pows. changeda administration the definition. same difference. president obama has been calling them enemy combatants. he is now calling them prisoners of four. yet it says in the "washington times," obama said that america is still a war. legally, what does that all mean? that: remember back to proud day when obama was sworn in as the president the first time. he said in his first inauguration speech, we are at war.

for lombards like me who hear dsrds like that -- for law ner who hear words like we recognize that he understands that we are in a state of armed conflict. i'm not aware that this administration has decided that the detainees of guantánamo qualify for prisoner of war status. they have not decided that. that is not the case. that is more of a euphemism or an easier way of explaining it to the american people. host: what is the mean legally if they found out that bowe bergdahl was a deserter? he is not aan prisoner of war? guest: these are great questions. people are fired up about this. people have an opinion about this. and they should.

veterans like me have lots of opinions. people on both sides of the aisle have strong opinions. the folks that served with bowe bergdahl have been very vocal. that is the big surprise of the obama administration. that those folks came out as strongly as they did and shed some light, and their opinion, on who he was. host: let me read this tweet from jim. guest: it is a good point. people throw around that he is a traitor, a deserter, etc. let me put on my old military judge at. -- hat. to prove somebody is guilty of desertion, and the military will do a thorough investigation, you have to prove four elements. the other reasonable doubt --

beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused absented himself from his unit. that is for sure. -- such absence was without authority. that is pretty clear. this is the sticking point. that the accused, at the time the absence began or sometime during it, intended to remain away from his unit intentionally. those who believe he betrayed are going to say, of course he was going to remain away permanently. he wrote these notes and facebook posts. that is specific intent. a defense lawyer would say, we don't know that. he changed his mind when he saw some nasty stuff, he was on his way back when he got captured.

, i reviewed all of the charges he might be able to be charged with. desertion. unauthorized absence. that is a slamdunk. that is clear. enemyhavior before the with a possible death sentence. that is a hard one to prove. aiding the enemy, possible death sentence. misconduct of a prisoner where you could get life. another term, treason. we don't have a charge in the military of treason, believe it or not. that behavior with other charges. it is a crime under federal law. government would have to prove that he owed allegiance to the united states, clearly he did, he took an oath when he became a soldier. that he levied war against

the united states or paid comfort to the enemy. that is a minimum five-year sentence, maximum death. ,he spokesman for the taliban he has been the one person indicted for treason since the war on terror that i'm aware of. this legal process will take place. all soldiers suspected of the crime have to be read their rights. in addition to maranda. interesting to see when the care and treatment ends and when the interrogation begins. ont: he could arrive thursday for phase two of his treatment in texas. you are not considered awol until you have been gone for 30 days -- is that technically true? it is. but there is unauthorized

absence that can happen in a matter of minutes or hours. if you're not muster in the morning, you could be considered unauthorized absence. host: punishment of being absence? usually being yelled at by your drill sergeant or some superior. would not the taliban have announced that fact if you were a traitor? guest: that is a great point. they have been very sophisticated in their communications and deployment strategy. they would probably try to exploit that. host: we will go to an independent collar in wisconsin. caller: thank you. . have a question i am looking at desensitizing the prisoners of guantánamo bay.

ideas.some i grew up in virginia. i was born in d.c. you go too to school, the smithsonian for a five times per year. i think desensitizing them with history and education would put more of a ease on letting the prisoners go. we can't keep them. we have to let them go. what is happening with these detainees at gitmo? keep them do we occupied and educated during the time of capture? he is right. you cannot keep them forever. you can only keep them until the end of hostilities. that is under the geneva convention.

early on, before my tenure at the pentagon, we realized that idle hands, trouble comes. people have criticized this. we have offered them training in history. -- i am aven them soccer fan and played in college and a new a lot of detainees would be interested in watching the world cup -- will play the world cup games on a delayed basis. they now allow them to skype with the family under the obama administration. they have always been able to send and receive mail. there is a library with a lot of books. tom clancy and a lot of books are rather popular. we censor the stuff we allow them to read. there are other educational classes. some people think that is wrong.

others say, absolutely you want to keep them occupied, so they don't riot like they did back in june 2006, and try to attack cards. -- guards. ,f they were a prisoner of war there would be even more educational opportunities. both administrations have tried to take a middle ground to make sure that they are not completely idle with too much time on their hands. host: if the administration is starting to call them prisoners of war, does that give their lawyers some argument here that you need to be treating them better? guest: i doubt it. thelawyers of butter on block many times. they look at what has happened -- the lawyers have been around the block many times. they look at what has happened. i don't think there is a change in legal status. there was a terminology issue. host: jack in new hampshire. republican caller.

caller: good morning. a couple quick notes. during the vietnam war, the viet were basically acting as the taliban, they did not wear uniforms. we did not classify them as terrorists. war inwas a prisoner of the vietnam conflict. some of the things, guys are tortured. you name it. , i don't that understand how this country can

hype up this whole ordeal. fox news was going haywire yesterday. we don't know if he had any mental defects. [indiscernible] theas brought back to united states. guest: one thing that really strikes home from his comment is that this notion of ptsd and the stress on prisoners. --don't know whether he will willingly left and want to be captured or protested his capture. the fact is, he was in captivity for five years. then tell you that me and

other military judges who have had the privilege of serving in military courts since 9/11, we have seen a lot of people accused of crimes, who stand tough us, they want to be , they want to accept responsibility, they want to plead guilty, and you see after the second and third combat tour , sometimes after the first, they have seen horrible things come and you have to question whether they have a mental disease or defect that either negated their ability to commit the crime at the time they did it or willingly participate in the plea and work with their lawyers. combat, it is a big deal for people who go there. we know that this administration and the previous administration have dedicated a lot of resource to that. we owe our vets that, at the very least. let's take deep breaths here. let's let the facts developed.

i think everyone wants to know what accountability is going to happen for bowe bergdahl, if any, after that investigation. host: how do we know he got captured by the taliban? here is another tweet. maybe he was mentally ill. when will those questions be answered? my understanding that there already is a classified investigation at the time he left his post and dropped his pack. whether it has been updated or they have updated it along the way, i don't know. saidecretary of the army yesterday that there will be a thorough, complete investigation. that tells me that they will make sure it is completely updated and they will get new information that they need to have, perhaps reinterviewing members of his squad. we don't know. i heard one guy on the news, one of his squad leaders say, bowe bergdahl said to him the day

before he departed, can i get to china through those mountains? that is an odd thing to say. either he is geographically challenged or he has something going on. i mean, i don't know. people are certainly entitled to this opinion -- their opinions. i have seen the phone lines lighting up like nothing. this is serious business, though. i don't want to make light of it. if the row, dispassionate, objective analysis needs to take place. thoreau, dispassionate, objective analysis needs to take place. he might be found guilty. then you have to get to what the sentence would be. with the fact that he served five years at the hands of captors factor in? you absolutely know that it would. it may result in no punishment. one way or the other, you can be

fairly confident that he will not be at the army -- in the army at the end of this period of time. the question is, how will he get out? by administrative process? will he be allowed to retire and collect backpay? will he be court-martialed? i don't know. host: robert, democratic caller. caller: i want to know what happens if sergeant bowe bergdahl had died in the hands of the taliban and this administration not have gotten him out? what kind of scrutiny would the administration be under then? alreadyf all, they have convicted this man in the court of public opinion all over the media. they convicted him of treason and howg a traitor

could he have a trial in this country at this point? excellent questions. talk about the political blowback the administration is getting now. if the guy had died, you know how this town works. the political accusations would be flying left and right. you could have done something come you did not do something. i don't do politics, i do policy. i think the first point has a lot of merit. the second is, i agree with him also. people are entitled to their opinion. about oj, about these other controversial cases that come up. where accountability happens is administratived and criminal proceeding. what has to happen first is a oroughu invest -- th

investigation. could be administratively processed out of the military. i think that will happen. host: what is the military court process like? it is not like he is going through jurors in a civilian court to rid -- civilian court. guest: we don't know that. i don't think he will go to civilian court. we don't even know if the investigation is going to thatmend to the commander they even file any charges against the sky. -- this guy. i think it is way premature to think about whether he is going to a court-martial. nerdlaying it out as a law and a former recovering judge. i think more likely than not that he willpen is

be administratively held to account, and that means discharged from the military through an admin board, but we just don't know. it is not wise to guess. host: the "washington times" is was key to agdahl plot in afghanistan. the last proof of life video they reported showed bowe bergdahl looking haggard and bruised. they believe the soldier may have been ill -- made to look a lot as a ploy. i don't trust anything coming out of al qaeda. i have a high degree of 'kepticism of our enemies propaganda. we don't know what they were up

to. the administration and intelligence officials might. host: we will go to carl next. independent caller. caller: good morning. i love c-span. but i wish that the program moderator would let us know what their political affiliation is, so we can ask what kind of angle you were going to come from with your question for your guest. what a breath of fresh air. somebody come in and try to tell us exactly how to be. we don't leave anybody behind. it don't matter what the guy did. he didn't shoot anybody. there are always going to be people who want to kill americans. that they of the fact

got the guy out. if he was a millionaire's son, we would have turned the world upside down. we have these guys a volunteer to go into the military to make a living. war. in the i am a veteran. i would do what i had to because i raised my hand. thank you for your service. thank you for your compliment. that is one of the nicest things anyone has said to me. call was a tough call for the president. he is receiving a lot of blowback because it was not adequately stage-managed at all. in "the washington

times," it is a timing issue. , as a legalpolitics matter, at the end of this war, like all other wars, we have to release the detainees, unless there is another way to detain them for mullock prosecuting them, likeaining prosecuting them. or if congress passes a law. everybody who raises their hand does it for a variety of reasons, most likely because they are patriots. we don't know what turned bowe bergdahl into the man he was when he dropped his pack and went away. it is not totally uncommon, but that common. the fact that he did it is only angering his squad members.

imagine the feelings of those people whose sons went out on patrol to find this guy and now their son is not going to come home. their son is not going to be a father and a grandfather. they are rightfully angry. host: the front page of "the new york times lowe's quote digs into whether or not the six lives that were lost can be tied times" digsyork into whether or not the six lives that were lost can be tied to bowe bergdahl. they say it is not so clear-cut. we will go to bj next in annapolis, maryland. caller: good morning. let me set the record straight. there is a precedent for leaving soldiers behind. , pows the korean war

wanted to stay in north korea and did. what documentation is there that bowe bergdahl wanted to come back to the usa? i have no idea. that is why there will be an investigation. mates --ave his squad believe his squad mates and take his commentary at face value, he was dropping his pack literally and figuratively. he may have been in tempting -- attempting to renounce his citizenship. he was still an american soldier. this administration thought it was a good idea to get him back. i think this has been stage-managed very poorly. i think they honestly thought that this was going to be a good story, that it was going to grease the skids for more transfers from guantanamo. is that the political

reaction to that has been the exact opposite. now they are trying to recover from that. host: critics are questioning a miller can -- american military credo of leaving no american behind. guest: i don't know who those critics are. i don't know anyone in the military who thinks we should leave our people behind. i would like them to name their sources. that is a bizarre concept. what they may be getting at is that the critics are the very same people who say, look, this guy is not a hero. this guy is not somebody who served with honor. this guy literally dropped his pack and walked off post and abandoned his fellow soldiers. that may be what they're getting at. but in terms of the general ethos, you do what you do for

your country, god, and family. but you don't leave your soldiers behind. frequently is that reinforced inside the military? at the last four or five medal of honor recipients that the resident and previous the nation'stowed highest honor on. these guys dove on grenades, recovered people who were injured or killed. this is part of our dna. it is who we are as american service men or women. bush how many times did went on his own without informing congress? guest: i have no idea.

i will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional statements. president bush used more signing statements. president obama has issued over 30 signing statements. research found that almost all presidents have used signing statements. obama is no different. even though he has used less than bush, he used them for the same types of things. make did president bush deals in secret without notifying congress similar to what we are seeing? guest: i don't know. in the context, it is a big government. tot: just on the comes detainees, the transfer of them, dealing with the taliban. was that done in secret? guest: let me set the stage and try to answer the question. off, after the horrific

events of abu ghraib in iraq, were people tortured and mistreated detainees, and this happened on our watch before i came into office, and set -- it set in motion a whole series of things. much more oversight by congress on detention matters, culminating in the mccain amendment. one of the internal mechanisms we arranged with congress was that every quarter, i or the previous deputy secretary or my successor would go up to all ofs and show them the international committee of the red cross correspondence. they are the international body that goes into places of detention and talks to detainees and has a confidential dialogue with us. itill not go into what consists of because that would violate confidentiality. we would show congress that and

how we responded. we clearly notified congress before we brought the 14 high-value cia detainees of fighting -- out of hiding in the cia to guantanamo in september 2006. congressmen and women have been to guantanamo and places of detention from the very beginning. i had the privilege of taking many myself from both parties in 2006-2007 timeframe. congress pays attention to these issues. sometimes they do not pay attention to detention issues. there will be a senator briefing today at 5:00 p.m. with the administration. the details on the release of bowe bergdahl. is this considered in all of branch from both sides? guest: too early to tell. gets closer to fulfilling

obama's promised to fulfilling -- closing guantánamo. it brings our last american g.i. home from thick to the -- captivity. it is an excellent question that we are not able to open right now. host: charles stimson. the deputy assistant defense secretary for detainees from 2005 2 >> on the next washington journal, jonathan turley on the deal with the tell a to secure the deal of army sergeant. growingok at the phenomena of growing -- children entering the u.s. without their parents. we speak with alan gomez of usa today. washington journal began to 7:00 a.m. eastern. up, president obama

.isits warsaw, poland a discussion about china's crackdown on protesters in tiananmen square. in the deal with the taliban to secure the release of army sergeant bowe. c-span's new book sundays at eight includes michael lewis. >> we are living through a traumatic area. are real structural problems. we are going to be living -- i'm not an economic forecaster. but everything suggests we will unusuallywith it -- high levels of unemployment. pain from over indebtedness. a quarter of the country is on food stamps. it is not a great depression. we are not surprising exactly

what happened in the 1930's. >> read more of the conversation with michael lewis and other on c-span's sundays at eight. now available as a father's day gift at your favorite seller. >> today, president obama along with other world leaders visited warsaw to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the first free elections in poland. he discusses the efforts of for democracy activist during the cold war and u.s.-polish relations. this is just under one hour.

[speaking polish] >> related as and gentlemen -- ladies and gentlemen, the head of the official delegation. commemorating 25 years of freedom. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪

[speaking polish] >> the ceremony will begin with participating states. ♪ ♪

the national anthem of the republic of poland. ♪ ♪ ♪ please take your seats.

the welcome of countries by the mayor of warsaw. i on behalf of the people, welcome the guests. us, celebrateith the 25th anniversary of the gaining of independence. it was here in the capital a quarter of a century ago that the talks ended in partially free elections. not many generations before us had the opportunity to develop a free country. we did. today, it is my pleasure to

welcome you in the city of free, who are creative, people passionate about freedom. people who did not take freedom for granted. kept we burying again -- rebearing again. now it is the modern capital of central and eastern europe. i wish to welcome the head of the foreign delegations. the city celebrity and sweet fifth anniversary of freedom. [applause] [speaking polish]

the declaration of freedom has been designed especially for the president of poland. it is open to be signed by anyone who subscribes to its value is. in a moment, it will be read out by you. -- for you. >> warsaw declaration of freedom. citizens of free and united dated by solidarity in our love of freedom and joined

warsaw inther here in 2014, marking the 25th anniversary of the victorious election where the selection of solidarity ushered in major translations -- transitions and countries in central and eastern europe. view that freedom and solidarity represent fundamental values on which people should base their relation. our profound attachment to values that represent the common heritage of our free nation. and the source of human rights.

the source of the rule of law. -- fundamental edibles principles of democracy. we real for me appreciations that respectful human rights and fundamental freedoms are an essential factor contributing to free justice and stability in the world. any manifestations of -- in any forms of discrimination. we condemn all acts of violence. remembering the traumatic past of the european continent, we that theur conviction annexation of crimea violates the foundations of legal and

political order in europe and undermine the functioning of the whole international system. [applause] effective means to achieve these and security should be neighborly relations between states and nations. based on international law. territorialr, on integrity and political independence of states. we jointly subscribe to the hope of the state of freedom and inidarity should expand relations between nations and individuals.

and in 2014. [applause] >> an address by the president of the republic of poland. [applause] madam speaker,

prime minister, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, members of parliament, senators, all distinguished guest's and compatriots, we are standing in front of the royal castle in warsaw, the symbol of polish statehood. and the difficult country our country -- history our country looks on. in 1939, the first -- second world war broke out. castle burned down under loop waffle bombs on the 17th of september. uftwaffe walkoff -- l bombs on the 17th of september. poland was also attacked by the red army. poland lost its independence. participated in

war operations from the first day to the last date. -- we were not granted the joy of freedom after the victory of valid forces over the not these -- nazis. we were deprived of this opportunity by the arrangement ta. all the -- in yal the victorious powers divided spheres of influence. poland, like many really -- other countries, found itself dominated by the soviet union and governed by stalin. the iron curtain prevailed. aspirationsam and survived. our pursuit of freedom survived.

the source of our strength flowed from our national traditions, embracing the lively memory of regaining independence in 1918. achieving victory over the bolsheviks in 1920. the source of this power was also the polish family, one of of last enclaves independence and the mainstay of the nation's lives. we also derive power from the catholic church. the curious signal of our belonging to the western world. -- the clearest signal of our belonging to the western world. the normal economy prevailed in the form of small trade and private enterprises. circumstances were train gene. -- changing. the forms of fighting for freedom are changing.

after the drama of the postwar armed underground movement followed other dramas like the 1956 inebellions in 1917 that were suppressed in blood but finally did away with enemies of the people -- the communist state. of special, was importance. the workers striking for bread again to support of the this was the- beginning of the path leading towards freedom. the path to victory. street inthe mission warsaw in front of the previous

seed of the communist censorship i will unveil a new memorial together with dissidents. play -- paysh to homage to those who fought for freedom. it turned out to be hundreds and thousands at the end of the day. he 10 million and solidarity, within the borders of the soviet empire. addressing these millions in reaching their hearts was the polish pope, saying john paul the second, who said let your spirit descend. the fate of this land. these millions were led by -- such a great number of us, a great movement of solidarity

that survived the martial law. imprisonment. in incarceration. the tension. symptomsed until the of the internal decomposition of the soviet union began to show. then we sensed that the time had come for the struggle for freedom. the propaganda and dictatorship bankrupt in terms of political, moral, and economic values. in poland, it was strengthened by the strengthening resistance of the solidarity. every victim of the regime would only enhance resistance and and hence -- enhance people in opposition. is why the communists had to make concessions. reached the compromise

at the roundtable were possible. was decided that solidarity would be really lysed and partially free elections would be carried out. on june the fourth, 1989, partially free elections -- the forces of freedom. the old forces were defeated. it was a political knockout victory. itomplished despite and on -- unequal playing field and the preferential treatment the communist party was accorded. the nation decided about the feet of poland. it was a ballot without resorting to violence.

droput spilling a single of blood. 4,years ago, on june communism finished in poland. we pulled it down the iron curtain. we pulled down the iron curtain to be able to live in the truth. the curtain behind which the resuming -- the ruling regime was hiding. in order to build a system that was not -- was democratic for the first time. fiction. were not a these were genuine elections. triggered an avalanche of events. it was like the first domino fallingd to the other of dominoes. regimes would go down one after irether until the evil emp

was disintegrated. freedom gives you enormous power. the desire for freedom is contagious. freedomwhy tyrants -- inspires human action. it's triumph and progress began in poland. the wall which divided the german nation and the german and symbolizee the division of europe fell down. the wave of freedom spread further. romania, bulgaria, the balkans. borders of the soviet union. bringing freedom to latvia, lithuania, and estonia. we all became free people.

we needed to decide how to manage the newly regained freedom. how we should reinforce it to read freedom which had previously been just a dream now turned into a sense of responsibility. guests, it was a time of daring, pioneer political, social, and economic reforms. we were implementing in the spirit of compromise with the broadest possible political consensus. theing -- rising above divisions of the painful past. the patron was a communist prime minister. the last 25 years of polish freedom have been marked with difficult decisions.

work with much sacrifice. it also, with huge achievements. we are more experienced than we were in 1989. it happened because we knew how reform in economic shoulder the burden of freedom. we were successful not only in developing the economy but also laying down the foundations for the state of law. we are reinforced our security and theng nato developing partnerships with the united states. we became members of the european union, something we dreamt of. what must be also included are is theluded -- reconciliation within poland.

the reconciliation with the germans and ukrainians. constant perspective, challenge continues to be the reconciliation with the russian nation. it is widely managed, will always favor good relations with neighbors. that is why, it is with great satisfaction that with the president of germany, we will connect to germany and further onwards to western europe. the way of the immortal way of freedom. we fully appreciate the freedom we have regained. we are starting to treat it as something for granted. something obvious.

that being said, we remember the days when freedom was lacking. we remember the price we had to pay to regain it. very happy to see that now, 25 years after more than 71% of worthwhile,e it was 80% of people declare themselves to be happy. polandress acceptance of 's alignment and participation in the western world. in the european union. anniversary is the best opportunity to thank the entire nation. i want to take this occasion to thank polish women and then -- men for having survived the evil they. day. thank you for your courage and prudence. difficult,nce of

challenging, harsh but necessary reforms read 25 years of freedom is the opportunity to enjoy the day. to enjoy our good fortune. particularly good fortune. to liveortunate enough in a very happy. -- a happy. of time. in poland's existence. opposed everyone who evil during the time of coming as him. and everyone who changed our country through their hard work and effort to the 25 years of freedom -- i wish to thank all the opposition leaders. the freedom fighters. and my special words of for -- walesa -- i to let

wish to think the presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. the activists for all they have done. i also wish to express my wholehearted hanks to our to get and the nations, there with whom we broke free from the divisions. the ones with whom we regained freedom. i also was to thank our allies and friends from the free world who showed understanding and support. i am glad that today, together with the president of france, i will have the opportunity of unveiling an exhibition. the exhibition that will commemorate the aid to the people of free world.

express special thanks to the united states, represented by the president, mr. buster -- barack obama, for so verythe standards high. the bolstered our faith. the efficiency of our actions. i also wish to thank the ones who helped us to manage our freedom wisely. to reinforce it. i wish to thank the people who live in the free world and who believed in us. who lent of support in our endeavors to help poland. two -- to join nato and the you -- e.u.

i wish to thank you for supporting us. as you follow the same path as we did. the path to the west, towards freedom. there is no freedom without solidarity. this is what we shouted out a loud. during a solidarity demonstrations under martial law. there is no freedom without solidarity to date. i wish to reiterate the widely known truth that there is no freedom without solidarity. withoute is no freedom the solidarity of the free world. there is no freedom without solidarity. there is no freedom without

solidarity with those -- the countries of the eastern partnership. especially modal but, georgia, and ukraine. moldova, georgia, and ukraine. i want to express those words clearly in the residence of the ukrainian president elect. our solidarity is needed. a nation that is facing the threat of aggression. it is facing immense challenges of modernization. there is no freedom without solidarity with ukraine. [applause] for that reason, i asked ending -- i'm extending my warmest thanks to the leaders of the three tests of the free world. for that reason, i am

extending my warmest thanks to the leaders of the free world. beliefbstantiates our that the sense of freedom continues to move our hearts and minds. it substantiates the conviction that the defense of freedom remains the set -- source of our solidarity and power. thank you. [applause]

>> the address by the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] >> hello, warsaw! [applause] witaj, polsko! [applause] mr. president; mr. prime minister; madam mayor; heads of state and government, past and present -- including the man who jumped that shipyard wall to lead a strike that became a movement, the prisoner turned

president who transformed this nation -- thank you, lech walesa, for your outstanding leadership. [applause] distinguished guests, people of poland, thank you for your extraordinary welcome and for the privilege of joining you here today. i bring with me the greetings and friendship of the american people -- and of my hometown of chicago, home to so many proud polish americans. [applause] in chicago, we think of ourselves as a little piece of poland. in some neighborhoods, you only hear polish. the faithful come together at churches like saint stanislaus kostka. we have a parade for polish

constitution day. and every summer, we celebrate the taste of polonia, with our kielbasa and pierogies, and we're all a little bit polish for that day. [applause] so being here with you, it feels like home. [applause] twenty-five years ago today, we witnessed a scene that had once seemed impossible -- an election where, for the first time, the people of this nation had a choice. the communist regime thought an election would validate their rule or weaken the opposition. instead, poles turned out in the millions.

and when the votes were counted, it was a landslide victory for freedom. one woman who voted that day said, "there is a sense that something is beginning to happen in poland. we feel the taste of poland again." she was right. it was the beginning of the end of communism -- not just in this country, but across europe. the images of that year are seared in our memory. citizens filling the streets of budapest and bucharest. hungarians and austrians cutting the barbed wire border. protestors joining hands across the baltics. czechs and slovaks in their velvet revolution. east berliners climbing atop that wall.