student leaders could have actually led in a way that would have been able to attack? they said they wanted to leave and go back and the radicals would just or the malay. this is the protesters movement and that's the way it's always been. >> it is a matter of much controversy and discussion, whether there was some point at which they could have acted differently then there's a fantastic amount of regret on decisions and whether it could have changed anything. he said the hunger strike was tactically wrong not that it should not have been held but the timing was wrong. many of the other student whatrs have talked about happened on may 30 mary and there was a vote on whether they

should leave the square and they even announced it. according to versions that i've heard, but the one that a lot of say is that they then changed their minds so the students continue to stay in the square. i think the point that many of the student leaders make is whether it is morally right to blame their own bad decision-making for what happened. have thether they decision-making power to do anything differently. the right-handy man in many ways actually believed that the students were really being used as a tool. it happened, they became a

for them toretext play out this power struggle. if that reading is right, it would not have made a difference what they did. >> an interesting question i wanted to ask you both. in your view, what are the thatquences of society undergoes an extraordinarily traumatic incident like this and yet is then not publicly able to digest and deal with the? are we in a new world where we can just say, forget history. why torment ourselves with something in the past? both view this thing as some kind of a wound that has yet not healed. hashe chinese government

made as many accounts as they possibly can to just move on including all of the slogans, look to the future and also rewriting what happened and trying to delete it from the history books. this year we have seen the extraordinary attempt to stop any kind of commemoration whether it he public or private with even groups of people meeting behind closed doors in a without beingent detained on charges of creating a public disturbance. i think when you try to suppress all discussion is that you locked into a cycle of towards people who try to remember. we are increasingly seeing that with the attempts to stop

any discussions. >> if you look throughout history, chinese massacre and they want the people to be suppressed and just forget it, this is happening in many other places. have engaging in human rights work all these years. of course it's always a question of where the experience goes. like this friend of mine who asked whether the students were important toas so him. whenould be celebrating

china won the olympics so where does that go? onlineu can see that where there are certain circumstances where people still talk about it. in government the fear that 25 years later, there is no less fear than 10 years ago, if anything. you can also see something that is not so obvious but also important. chinese students like me studying in america. abc investor going is aina looking for this

different story. demonstrations, trying to do but when her china, was in china talking to other chinese entrepreneurs, they're trying to make a deal funding a company, the biggest business deal and he does not know if they can do it or actually have the money. it's a very early thing about funding a business with a lot of money and ambition. one day they said, where were you in 1989? i demonstrated. you demonstrated. deal. we do this for china. that's where the company was founded.

that is something that you never talk about. it's there. >> how are we to assess the balance? tiananmen square ended as we know and then we have this enormous economic growth. way the assets and liabilities of what the party did? it failed in this way but then it succeeded. one is the balance sheet as you look at it now? doubt that no people's lives in china have improved since 1989. people are richer. their lives are freer, for the

most part. you no longer have to ask for permission to get married, travel overseas, get a passport. there has been all of this progress. for me, one of the very problematic issues is the idea that the government are obligated that there could have no other way. this is the only way this could have happened in the government did what was necessary. of the years of economic progress has allowed that retrospective justification to gain more potency in the eyes of many chinese people. it is quite a mainstream opinion now. what happened in 1989 was regrettable but necessary. ma, chairman of alley "cruel butsaid it was

correct." >> what was the other way out? we have much talk in the first panel about china never not being particularly sort of right for democracy. what are your views if not then now to embrace? if you want to say tiananmen massacre is the last of the china ruled, you can never challenge the ruler.

if you do, you cut him off. .hat is the message because there is a lack of equivalent or something. there is the absolute message driven and people's mind. i was there in june. i saw the soldiers with a very clear uniform, white gloves, gun .oaded on the street fear that spread right there to tell you to not ever again challenge the ruler. that page of history in china is

still there right now but eventually, in the coming years and decades, it will be over. later, they're clearly going in that direction. the middle class will have more participation they will see what happened in taiwan and other countries is the natural the government. those ideas compared with 25 years ago are much more common a threat now. since moving towards that thection, it does not mean transformation will be happening tomorrow but chinese society is democratic to a structure. mayhe middle class people

be ready for more political participation that the communist party, no. why i don't think it will be an immediate ring. >> even the elections that nick kristof spoke of, you saw the ways those played out and there any of thoser being elected even in city elections, one or two .ndependent candidates the local authorities will go to all kinds of lengths to stop them from being alike did -- being elected. any kind of minor threat is immediately stop and i think it's getting waste and waste. when i asked about what had happened to the reform wing of andparty, he almost scoffed

said they had been bought with the spoils of war. whether there is much of an appetite under the hearty ruled sure.jinping, i'm not >> how much appetite is there? you could say after 1989 where the parties appetite to even toy with the idea of reform sort of banished because it became too frightening, too dangerous. we have seen 25 years when they have not been able to revisit this question in a meaningful way. ofdoes raise the question how it will happen in china. how can it happen in china particularly after this? thanks that is actually a real question. -- >> that is actually a real

question. that sense, you could say, right or wrong, whatever your moral judgment, it was counterproductive. >> in my view, whoever started the massacre was responsible for that. did is the legitimacy of the party scene -- party so they cannot reverse a verdict. >> on the other hand, he did reverse the verdict on all of the intellectuals. >> that's different. responsible for basically everything, the whole party. if you reverse this one, if you , china will change.

>> do you agree with that, louisa? there is no way for the party to revisit the verdict of 1989? >> it seems to be a prospect that is further away than ever before. when he came to power, xi jinpin g, even to the extent that he was even embracing the maoist legacy refusing to repudiate anything that happened in the first years of communist rule let alone the most recent. it seems extremely unlikely when you are detaining people for signs inlfies with "v" front of tiananmen square. >> before we open it to you all, let me ask one final question.

given this rather rigid posture ,f the party towards reform given the fact that americans and the american government certainly has on its agenda the whole notion of democratization worldwide, what is the proper posture for the united states , very this kind of new rigid, and sometimes quite muscular government in beijing? >> the chinese government is mainly because of the rising economic power. it's also very fragile. it is extremely fragile internally. you can see those signs all over about how they are so preoccupied in the control of any of those smaller protests or

unrest. there are many issues that goes on in china now about economic slow down, you name it. many other things. then you have this on the , and muchlicy side more muscular china. >> much more susceptible to pressure. more resistant to pressure. >> yes. they are related. some of this is clearly a step diverging the internal attention. i could even imagine the scenario in order to control the domestic unrest, simply set up an x terminal conflict to make the control.

to me, that is almost a natural assumption unless they want to completely addressed the dish you -- issue differently. >> there has been some disappointment of the dissident's with the way the u.s. is dealing with china. whene within china said human rights went off and became a separate dialog, they believed but they had been let down what other way is there to deal ?ith a rising china that is the question that i can answer. -- that i'm not sure i can answer. has done a pretty

effective job erasing the memories of 1989. >> they've done a remarkable job of erasing memories. when i took that picture of tank man and i went to the beijing beenrsity, those that have most instrumental, only 15 kids could actually identify that it had been taken in beijing. people were saying it was an coast of though, south korea, and i was surprised because these are the smartest kids in the country, the ones with the most access to technology. they could certainly find a way if they wanted to. the cautionary tale of tiananmen is that this generation has no interest in politics, no curiosity and that has helped this whole strategy of state-sponsored amnesia.

>> what is the price of amnesia? >> the price of the massacre, one is the moral crisis in chinese society. what is right and what's wrong? what's good and what's bad? is this highly competitive environment. look at chinese society today. the context of rapid economic transformation. , the question was always there. what's right and what's wrong? were the students write? -- were they right? what is good and bad anyway? anything goes. .hina today

society where people can make fake milk powder and not worry about the consequences even though they know it will kill babies. there is a huge loss of values and of morality. the act of watching the government using weapons to then the people and hearing the different stories, watching as they change and wondering. >> that is what stands in people's psychology, what impact it is. >> let's have some questions from you all.

.ight here on the aisle please identify yourself and keep your questions short. >> my name is craig. in other countries like south africa where i did my own doctoral research or brazil or poland, there were workers and students movements that were crushed but became extremely potent when they converged and came together. in this amountm of labor fermented in china today. ofthere is a large amount labor ferment. >> i have not seen that. yes, there is a labor movement. , there is not much

student back to visit. students are curious, yes. the books they're reading, lectures they're going to their very pro-democracy. i have not seen students taking more action. >> i think this was one of the lessons that the government learned never to allow these disparate sources of discontent to join up together and isolate any kind of protest. if you look what happened where 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 on the political situation in ukraine. you can twhauch hearing live beginning at approximately 10:30 eastern here on c-span. and c-span.org. also tomorrow a hearing on possible changes to the foreign intelligence surveillance act. known as spiza. officials from the f.b.i. and n.s.a. will testify before the senate intelligence committee. that begins at 2:30 eastern ere on c-span.

>> the reason we are trying to focus on the speaker is because it is the speaker with the full majesty and weight of his position who yesterday made certain allegations which at this point at least he has not yet answered to. would you prefer -- well, i was oing to yield to mr. wright. >> you have an audience other than the 26 hours you presented this case to the public. the interesting fact is the whole tenor of your remarks going back to 1970 and going back to 1972, taking out of context on mr. bolland, you were there for one purpose alone in my opinion. and that was to imply that members of this side were un-american in their activities. you stopped, you waited. your motions. would you respond -- you knew that there was nobody here. you knew that there was nobody here. >> camscam. put those two men from your perspective, give us your

perspective on the two of them. >> well, the speaker o'neill was really a giant. he knew the politics of the house. he knew the politics of the house. and he kept much of it to himself. if he would in terms of other members. but he obviously received a great amount of intelligence all day long from members. what was going on in different places. and he always believed that the politics was the art of the possible. that nobody got their way all the time. and he was a broker within the democratic caucus and within the house. and what you saw was newt gingrich who made a conscious decision that they would always be in the minority because they -- they worked with the majority. and so he started attacking bob michael. the leader. and john rhodes and everybody on that side. >> in his own party. >> in his own party. because he just said -- the only avenue to the majority is through confrontation.

and we're going to take him down. and this was an argument about the misuse of tv. now coming to the floor. where he would ask these rhetorical questions and make these charges. and he knew that -- and the chamber was empty. but at that time the camera was very tight on the speaker at the time. wherever they were. and then the rule came to show that the chamber either had people in it or it was empty and of course it chaningse the whole dynamics. but naffs a process that now many years later has torn this institution apart. and is really paralyzed the institution. >> congressman george miller. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> on a lonely windswept point on the northern shore of france, the air is soft but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke, and the cries of men and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon.

at dawn, on the morning of june 6, 1944, 225 rangers jumped off the british landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion. to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. the allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here. and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers, the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. and the american rangers began to climb. >> this weekend, american history tv will mark the 70th anniversary of the d-day invasion of normandy. starting saturday morning at 10:30. watch this year's commemoration from the world war ii memorial in washington. and that's followed at 11:30 by author and historian craig i'm whons will discuss his new book "neptune, the' lied invasion of europe and the d-day landings"

and mr. simons will take your questions and comments live. and at 1:30 a look back at presidential speeches commemorating the day. all on american history tv. saturday on c-span 3. >> this evening, defense department officials briefed senators about the prisoner exchange with the taliban that led to the release of sergeant bowe bergdahl. after the capitol hill briefing, several senators spoke to reporters. we'll hear from senators kelly ayotte, joe manchin, marco rubio, john mccain, saxby chambliss and lindsay graham. his is 20 minutes. >> my concern from the beginning about this, i've not been reassured, is that the five high risk taliban detainees will not get back and re-engage in the fight against us and our allies. and my -- i was not satisfied from the briefing that i

received today that the conditions that they've agreed upon are sufficient to ensure that they won't re-engage back in the fight against us. and threaten either americans or our allies in some way. and so that's been my concern from the beginning. it's been why i've been very focused since i got in the senate on ensuring that the administration in their push to close guantanamo would not transfer high-risk detainees like these five without ensuring that they won't get back and re-engage in the fight. we have a 29% reengagement rate from guantanamo. and i would argue that the conditions upon which these five detainees were -- will be held is a real troubling aspect of this whole thing. because of four of them at least are very high level

members of the taliban. so that to me is very troubling. and i'm not satisfied. that we can -- we can ensure that they won't get back in the fight against american or allies. >> senator, did you ask at all -- conditions >> senator -- >> and speak to that point. i'm sorry. yes. >> talking about the same thing? >> if you doesn't mind. >> the only thing that we've said, that i've said is that we all agree that we're not dealing with a war hero. we're dealing with a soldier that should be looked in more extensively. i think we all agree that every soldier should be brought back under any circumstances. and no soldiers behind. with that being said, there's a lot to be answered here and there's a lot of peculiar behavior that's gone on between the family, this soldier, and his actions. and very concerning. very concerning about that.

we have to see some reports that right now are classified. hopefully we'll see them later. the 15, 16 internal investigation, i want to see that. and also which you'll reveal more about what the people who served with him, what was said at the time. when they served with him. what is being said now. if it corroborates what's going on. >> how dangerous are the taliban five in your estimation? >> very dangerous. these are real dangerous people. that's why we held them in captivity for so long. and it's been said if they were were put right back on the streets and the disturbing thing is karzai would have loved to have them in afghanistan and tells us the person we're dealing with in karzai, that would have been horrendous. horrific. and if they do get back in, and that same mentality, it will be -- just won't be a good situation. >> what's the situation -- >> pardon me? >> did they address concerns about the five -- >> oh, yeah. everybody was concerned about that. and we're hoping that basically that one year, we can hopefully

trust them. and that there is some monitoring there. and prevent that from happening. but there's no -- there's no guarantee. these are all high-level people. this is not low level. this is high level. and these are people that basically have the ability to go back and hit the ground running. so we're concerned about that. >> and they didn't need to notify congress? >> that -- that did not come up. and i know it will. >> on the proof -- >> on the proof of life, the video, they said that is one of the reasons -- >> that was -- i did not. that did not tell me at all. the proof of life, five months ago december, at that time, he was impaired, ok? people have medical expertise, dr. coburn, i think, if that was you, i would ask tomko burn when he comes out he's able to speak to that. because that's where his expertise is. that is not the person that was released here. he was not in in a type of dire situation when he was released. i remain deeply skeptical today about this as i did before this conversation that we just had

with the administration. for two days now, we've asked questions many of which have not yet been fully answered. beyond that i would say that i remain increasingly convinced. from everything we've been presented, that these five individuals that have been released will soon return to the fight against america. and i remain increasingly convinced that we have now -- the president has now set a precedent that will encourage enemies of the united states to target american men and women in uniform. and capture them in order to carry out a similar exchange in the future. >> do you believe the president violated the law when he did not give congress 30 days' notice of this? >> in my opinion there's no question that the president violated the law. by not notifying congress. but to me, the most pressing challenge that we face is the fact that the president has now released five of the most dangerous individuals in guantanamo, is not the five most dangerous, they will soon return to the fight against america and our interests. around the world. and we have now created an incentive for the enemies of the united states to try to capture american men and women

in uniform. in an effort to exchange them. >> will you p were you given any reassurances about that risk in the future in the briefing? >> assurances about -- >> about their risk to the u.s. in the future? >> it's my opinion and i've heard nothing to contradict it that has created an incentive for others to capture americans in exchange -- and exchange them for prisoners. > i did not. that's not something i've called for quite frankly. and we're not at that level of point. i think right now the most immediate concern that we have is with regard to this is what danger is -- does this now pose to other american and women in uniform around the world? what incentive have we created for other american men and women in uniform to be captured? and beyond that, what are these five individuals going to do when they return to the fight which i believe will happen sooner rather than later. >> and these five individuals, more dangerous than khalid

sheikh mohammed or 9-11 plotters? >> there's a reason why the taliban wanted those five individuals released. these five individuals as i've heard another senator describe were potential the crown jewel in their term, not mine, of what was in captivity. in guantanamo. and again, there's a reason why the taliban wants these five released. >> these were taliban leaders. khalid sheikh mohammed and 9-11 were not -- >> five extremely dangerous individuals and committed anti-american fighters who have an increased amount of credibility because of the time they served in guantanamo. have been released and they will soon return to the fight against americans. >> in the briefing that they talked about, what kind of security qatar had promised? >> not in great detail beyond the fact that they made a promise. but again, i remain concerned not about the capability but about the willingness of the qatar government to monitor these individuals and even then, for a limited period of time. at which point by all estimates, including that of the administration, at least four of these five individuals

will return to the fight against americans. >> did they give you a sense that any more detainees were going to be released in the near future in guantanamo? >> no, they did not discuss that. >> in 2011 the u.s. approved a taliban offer from qatar. did -- were any of those issues brought up -- >> that wasn't discussed. i imagine the administration would talk about that as part of a broader effort of reconciliation in afghanistan. again, i think that they would justify this as part of an effort for reconciliation. but the way i view it, what in five dangerous people in the fight against america and part of the political narrative that the president tried to further that the war in afghanistan was over and that our last prisoner had been returned. >> was it a mistake to actually -- >> i've always been highly skeptical of legitimizing what is neither a government nor a legitimate military operation with the taliban that describes

any sort of rules of war. this is an organized terrorist organization. that provides safe havens for radical islamist thrifts like al qaeda as they did in afghanistan. and as i anticipate they will do again when the u.s. is no longer present and afghanistan returns from what it was in 2001. >> i learned nothing in this briefing. nor did i expect to learn anything in this briefing. except that i continue to maintain that this individual who we are glad that sergeant bergdahl is home. but the exchange of five hard core -- hardest of the hard corral quade/taliban will pose a threat to the united states of america and united states of america and t m women who are serving. after his published information, after a year, if he lasts that long in qatar, he

will then -- they will then be free to go. and they will re-enter the fight. that's been the history of 30% of those who have already been released from detention in guantanamo. >> this video -- >> i don't have anything to say about what went onhere. i can't comment on what went on there except to tell you i didn't learn anything i didn't already know. >> all right. we've just been in the process of having a briefing from the department of defense relative to sergeant bergdahl as well as the five individuals, members of the taliban, from afghanistan. that were confined at gitmo. and there's most of what we -- d about, the remains that remains in classified condition. there's one thing i want to clear up because i made a

statement last night that i was shocked to see a "new york times" article yesterday in which it was alleged that a statement had been left by then private bergdahl with his gear within the camp in afghanistan that he walked away from. and that statement contained certain statements that were not supportive of america and not supportive of the war and was not -- we were told today that is not true. there was no statement. so i want to correct any indication of a statement to that effect being out there. because we were told that that simply was not correct. with regard to the other matters surrounding now sergeant bergdahl, he's obviously being reviewed from a medical situation. and as to his medical condition.

that's going to continue for a period of time. you can imagine somebody who's been in incarceration for five ears has the potential to have health issues. we were told that his -- there is no intelligence that indicated that -- from a medical standpoint his life was in danger. so he is being analyzed from that standpoint. and there will be further reporting coming out of the pentagon as that develops. >> what is your -- what is your sense from the video -- >> my sense as to his medical condition? >> how sick was he on the video? >> it appeared that he was drugged. d that he was barely responsing -- responsive in the video itself. it was not a very long video and you can't conclude a lot from it from any serious health

issues. >> did it justify their argument that that's why they oved so swiftly? >> i don't think from a health standpoint there is any issue that dictated the release of these five nasty killers. in exchange for bergdahl. >> and why is the video secret? is there a reason the public can't see it? >> i don't know. i hope they would release it to you. -- here's no letter >> there are emails that are public leshed out there. i can't speak as to the validity of those emails. they contain some of the same statements that were in that article yesterday. i'm just referencing the statement. because i said last night that i was shocked to see that. i read the 15-6 investigative report on sergeant bergdahl. and there was no indication of such a statement in there.

and i know the army does not play games with us on issues i know the army does not play games with us on issues like that. so that's the part of the record i want to clear up. the e-mails are still out there, not be legitimate. kind ofhere any imminent safety threat? that.an't speak to >> do you have confidence that -- >> i have not had confidence through these negotiations. to 2011 that the either the capability or the will to monitor these individuals in a way that they need to be monitored, and that's the key to it. sure, they can keep them in a have for a year. but monitoring them in the way monitored, ibe don't think the qataris are

prepared to do that. >> the public needs to know more about what happened and the implications from this deal. public hearing is an absolute necessity. belief that noal one should be tried in the press. camp.me in that sergeant bergdahl what he did or may, what he's accused of doing, done, is to bee determined by an independent army investigation. me, the strategic consequences of this decision openly anddiscussed i'm for disturbed now than i was before i went in about some of lodgic. there was apparently a theory that if we release these five taliban that it would enhance the chance of peace in afghanistan. that by releasing these

woulders that somehow it empower that part of the taliban that want to reconcile. i find that whole concept disturbing. fact that karzai would call for these people to be returned to afghanistan and shows you how disconnected he fridays the average afghan. decision toe release these prisoners put our country in jeopardy. fueled the jihaddist all over the world. and it was a great disservice to the after again people because they're eventually going to have with these guys. these are the people that ran the government and led the military that took young women into soccer sometimes and killed them for sport. the idea that this administration has been floating of goodld be a gesture will to enhance peace, should offend everybody who believes the taliban is not the answer to

the world andf afghanistan. i can only imagine how young feel today.hanistan that we have just let out of people who organized the hill in which they lived so whole concept of releasing these prisoners would empower elements of the taliban just offend me to my core. senator coburn talk about that, he's a medical doctor. >> did the administration espouse that theory in the briefing? >> yes. i responded like are we talking about the same group of people. if wee theory was that traded these guys, that would taliban haverate clout. they've got our guys home. to resort to violence to meet your goal.

the taliban?al of to lay down their arms and pledge allegiance to the afghanistan?of this is a complete disconnect. i found that to be the most theory of all, that they had been pursuing this release for a couple years tone reconciliation. what you have done by releasing destroyedle is you've morale of those people in afghanistan. have your fingerprints on releasing eventually back into whocountry the people organized the hill that the afghans lived under. does not enhance peace. it says the whole process back. those afghans who have fought, died to display the tail ban and keep their country moving forward, not backward, we let them down and let me tell what you we did to our own national security. we compromised it. to comevery soldier back, but there's a price you pay when you're in uniform.

we release khalid shake mohammed to get me back or anybody else. you have to look at the big picture. so the price we pay that that we empowered terrorists, we have undercut our efforts to secure afghanistan, we have unleashed forces that will make more likely that americans will be kidnapped in the few, and we sent the worst possible to those who have been change afghanistan for the better. video we saw, is there any reason that you belief that it shouldn't be made public? not., absolutely every american should see the video. every american should see the video. every american should be able to evaluate the decision making thisss. what led to decision. this is a democracy. asking about releasing classified information. but what was the reasoning that five taliban being released would empower the peace process?

was he in dire straits? did we have to act now or lose the opportunity. this is something we need to put out in the open, look at the yourself.judge for >> did they tell you why it's secret? >> no. >> the reason we are trying to speaker is because it is the speaker with the full and weight of his position who yesterday made attain allegations, which this point he has not yet answered to. would you prefer -- going to owe. >> you have an audience you the 26ormally have in hours that you presented this case to the public. but the interesting fact is the tenor of your remarks going back to 1970, and going to 1972, taking out of context on mr. bowen, you were

one purpose areason, in my opinion, and that was to i members on this side were unamerican in their activities. you stopped, you wait. your motions. will you respond? there was nobody there, you knew there was nobody here. >> camscam. put those two men from your perspective, give us your two.ective on the >> speaker oh neil was real a giant. thenew the politics of house. he knew the politics of the house and kept much of it to himself, in terms of other members. but he obviously received a amount of intelligence all day long from members, what was places. in different and he always believed that the politics was the art of the possible. nobody got their way all the time and he was a broker within the democratic caulk us the house. and what you saw was newt

a consciouso made decision that they would always be in the minority because they the majority. so he started attacking bob leader and john rodes and everybody on that side, in his own party. because he just said the only majority ise through confrontation and we're going to take them down and this an argument about the misuse fore, now coming to the where he would ask these rhetorical questions and make these charges and he mew the was empty. but at that time the camera was the speaker e time, and the rule came to show the chamber either had people in it or was empty and that changes the whole dynamics. that was a process that now many years later has torn this reallytion apart and is paralyzed the institution.

>> congressman george miller, night at 8:00 op c-span's q and a. c-span's new book, sundays at lewis.includes michael >> we are living through a traumatic period and it is not over. it's sort of the beginning rather than the end. real structural problems. yes, we're going -- not an economic forecaster. but everything i read suggests with going to be living unusually high levels of unemployment, a lot of pain from indebtedness, whether a quarter of the country is on saw on tv. i it's not a great depression. repricing exactly what happened in the 30's. but it's a version of it. of our conversation with michael lewis and in c-span's sundays at eight.

now available for a father's day favorite book seller. weekend on book tv, live coverage of the chicago tribune row lit fest. saturday's authors include cal thomas on solutions for a america, scroaf ellis on his book, revolutionary barbaraer inlike, living with a wild god. tribunely fest, live this weekend on c-span 2, book tv, television for serious readers. >> earlier on "washington tallal," we discussed the you ban prisoner exchange with former deputy of assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs. this is 45 minutes. " continues. host: we are back with charles

, who served as the assistant secretary for detainee affairs and is now a program manager at the heritage foundation. thanks for being here. guest: absolutely. host: let's get to the details and what we do know about this deal. , as has beeneal widely reported, involved a swap 5 talibane highest people we had in captivity in guantánamo, had been there for a long time coming for one american pow. the deal is that we got them first and i credit the obama administration for making sure we had him in our custom meet before -- in our custody before letting the wheels go up at guantánamo. for aguys are in qatar 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 come from the -- have to come from it them -- 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.

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

wulled you premb -- i was going to yield to mr. wright. >> you have an audience. you don't normally have that in the it have hours that you've presented this case to the public. but the interesting fact is the whole tenor of your remarks going back to 1970 and 1972 taking out of context. you were there for one and one purpose alone in my opinion and that was to imply that members of this side were un-american in their activities. you stopped. you waited. your motions. would you respond? you knew that there was nobody here. you knew that there was nobody here. >> put those two men from your perspective give us your perspective on the two. >> well, speaker o'neal was really a giant. he knew the politics of the house. he knew the politics of the the house and he kept much of it to

himself in terms of other members but he obviously received a great amount of intelligence all day long from members what was going on in different places. and he always believed that politics was the art of the possible. that nobody got their way all the time and he was a broker within the democratic caucus and within the house. and which you saw was newt gingrich who made a conscious decision that they would always be in the minority because they worked with the majority. and so he started attacking bob michael the leader and john rhodes and everybody on that side. and his own party. because he just said the only avenue to the majority is through confrontation. and we're going to take them down. and this was an argument about the misuse of tv now coming to the floor where we would ask these rhett orkle questions and make these charges and he knew in fact the chamber was empty

but that at that time remember the camera was very tight on the speaker at the time wherever they were and then the rule came to show that the chamber either had people in it or was empty and it change it is whole dynamics. but that was a process that now many years later has torn this institution apart and has really paralyzed the institution. >> congressman george miller sunday night at 8:00 on crmp pan's q&a. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> we wanted a building that was very accessible to the community. and it needed to be able to incorporate a future that we didn't -- you can't predict the future. part of the problem with the old library is that we were tampled out on as many computers and wiring as we could fit in so our new

building needed to have a lot of flexibility and movement into the future. one thing we liked about this design is he combined different geometric features. we have the triangular main part of the building, we have a round auditorium that sits upon the side of the building, a rectangular structure on the west side that we call the bar and then the crescent wall that hugs the library on the north and east side and all of these different geometric feetors are bridged together with sky lights so just light flows through the building at all levels and we have a total 360 degree o view of our surroundings. >> i think it is vital for a community to have a library that brings people together. and this particular space was geared in bringing the community together. it's an opportunity for people

to remember that the things that hold a city together, the public safety officers, the mayor and his various departments and the library all work together and i like that we have physically done that with our architecture. >> learn about the rich history of salt lake city, utah saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday at 5:00 p.m. on american history tmp v. >> yesterday president obama along with other world leaders visited war saw to commemorate the 25th anniversary of poland's first free elections. in his remarks the president discusses the efforts during the cold war and u.s. polish relations. the president's remarks are 20 minutes.