technically he was 18 but he was in school still considered a youth in terms of the law. but i just thing it's -- i can't stress how important it is to train a police officer on how they should behave but also we have to train our children. i've had interaction with youth in workshops and i tell them how to interact with police. keep your hands visible at all times. lower your tone. speak slowly. just yes, sir, yes, ma'am, so i think those things are important again in building that mutual respect and trust. host: our next caller from rosedale, maryland. going. good morning. aller: good morning. i think the jen ration now is ing stuff

[inaudible] that we went through our parents went through. so that's one of the problems. e police [inaudible] bullying. because of the training they receive. guest: i think that's a good point. i think it's fair to say that african american community as well as the white community and hispanic community are tired as evident by the protests that we've seen in new york, the die-ins, they're tired of the racial profiling. they're tired of unarmed teens being shot. they're tired of feeling like their lives aren't valued. i think that's something that needs to be addressed through both our political system, our legal system, and socially. we have to promote a cultural change to where everyone feels that their lives are valued regardless of their race. host: edward from florida. good morning.

aller: good morning. i'm so glad to be on c-span. my question is we commonly speak in terms that we know that the police officers do a very dangerous job and we have a lot of respect for what they do because we know they are protectors. but the problem i have is why is it so difficult just to we'd out the bad cops? when you have the leader of the police from new york saying that the officer that strangled the guy is an eagle scout, he's a model cop. and your eyes are telling you that doesn't look like a model cop to you. how do you weed out the bad cops? guest: that's a great question as well. again, i think it has to go back to the initial selection

process and be more selective doing psychological tests to see if they have the attributes and personality traits to serve urban communities as well as we have to stop this illusion of object tivity that we have toward police officers. i would love to say that i'm objective at all times but again i harbor my own biases. police officers are human. so i think we need to recognize that and have a process in place as you stated to remove police officers that are not showing the cark tryst ricks of what we're looking for to serve our communities. and i think that is doable. and it's something that definitely should be addressed. i always like to use the reference of teachers. ere's been writeups of teachers.

whether or not they should continue in that profession. host: our next caller from south dakota. aller: good morning. i've been around for a long time and check it out. what i feel is that a lot of these police officers i know from around sturgess here, we have hundreds of thousands of bikers once a year and a lot of these police officers are from combat zones. around they do have ptsd. and i can relate because if i was a police auster and i went up to a car and i didn't know what was what, it cowl make me lash back to other traumatic experiences. and i was just wondering that if they have a program within the police department so that the brothers can go and have like a group and things like

that so they can talk out their feelings and stuff. host: thank you. guest: the best of my knowledge i'm not aware of any of those programs. it doesn't mean they don't exist. but i do think you've made some important points about the importance of evaluating police officers mental stability and giving them the support and resources they need so that does not impact how they're policing our communities. host: jack good morning. caller: good morning. i have three points. i've seen a number of bungled cases where prosecutions. i think that sometimes the reason there's a problem is the politicians, like the mayor wants enforcement and he gets it from his police and misdirects things. prosecutors themselves also may be facing with officers in a weak way. that's point one. host: we'll get a response.

guest: i think you're making some valid points with respect to concerns about the lack of nuletralt, meaning prosecutors work very closely with police departments and that might influence their ability to be neutral when there is an alleged incident or some type of police misconduct. host: do you want to follow up? caller: the ferguson thing i think one of the weaker things is they never interviewed that clerk on tv. considering the officer wilson was only involved for like 90 seconds i think that there was a mishandling of the media coverage. but the real point i called in for is to ask do you think better training is going -- on the part of the police force is going to result in less deaths? there's a lot of deaths with black on black murder. do you think better training is going to affect that or is there basically a reposstri of

real violence in the black community that it isn't the police that's the problem it's the lack of leadership on the part of like martin luther king? he isn't addressing that's violence inherent in the black community. host: back to a second point. the "washington post" reprinted two photographs. you can see the altercation that michael brown had with the clerk and how much taller he was. you can see that he was grabbing at his neck. guest: jack, i think that the black on black crime that you mentioned is a problem. and i do have -- i am aware of a lot of act viths that are pursuing how they can reduce that especially in the city of chicago. but i guess my concern is that yes there is black on black crime, white on white crime. but police officers are held to a higher standard. they're there to serve our community and to help prevent

those types of citizens crimes. so i'm always very careful to focus too much on citizen commiting crimes versus police officer interactions. because i think they're two totally separate issues. they're both very important and should be pursued. but i'm a little reluctant to say that. and with respect to training, yes, the training will work. it does work. again, in boston the training done by strategies for youth reduce the number of youth arrested from 646 to 74. those are real numbers. body cameras for a year, reducing number of complaints for police misconduct for use of force dropped by 50%. so i think training is important just like it is for professional development in the teaching fields and corporate america in the medical fields with boards i think training really is the key and it will make the difference. host: our guess is a senior

fellow at the houston institute for race and justice at harvard law school. and in addition to the work that she outlined with the police departments she has done research on youth issues in chicago and in the detroit public schools. jerry from ontario, oregon. good morning. ller: i would like to make a comment why martin luther king's family wasn't invited to the white house because al , the on and jesse jackson real -- jesus christ and jse jackson is a christian. he is out there promoting riot and disruption instead of the solving the problem. and when the people were rioting in -- they weren't concerned about that person's death. they were concerned about how much they can loot. host: thank you.

guest: i think your comments are interesting. i appreciate you sharing them. i think they highlight the importance of again if we feel like an injustice has been done, the importance of protesting peacefully. and working through our political avenues and constituents to bring forth real change. so thank you. host: the bottom line how do you rebuild trust between communities and law enforcement? guest: i think it has to take several steps. number one we need police officers in our schools more often starting when kids are young and formulating their perception of police officers and what their role is in their communities, which is to protect and serve. second, i think that the police department has to be more transparent in terms -- and more expeditious in processing alleged complaints about police misconduct. additionally, the country has lost faith in the grand jury system and in the federal prosecutor to be impartial because again arguably somewhat

of a relationship with the police officers. they work with them on a regular basis. so i think several things have to be done but those would be my top three. and just again walking the streets like we used to do back in the day like my grandfather used to do. everyone knew his name. and they saw him as an asset in the community not as a threat and they were both on the same side. host: if people want to follow your writings on twitter where can they do so? guest: at laura mcneal hash tag and i also have a website. host: our guest is a assistant professor at the louisville school of law. thank you very much for being with us. guest: thank you. it was a pleasure. host: we'll turn our attention to the issue of cyber security and the latest with that cyber attack. cory bennett is following the story. and dan is the former chair of the hostage working group in the bush white house to talk about u.s. policies towards hostage situations especially

in light of the american who was killed over the weekend in yemen. all weekend on c-span 2 and c-span-3's american history tv we are focusing on waco, texas. and one of the locations that texas rangers hall of fame. here's a preview. >> one of the legendary rangers that spans the time period from the 1930's to the 1970's was man well gonzalez. as the name might suggest, lone wolf as he was called gonzalez was born of canadian and portuguese parents. he imgrated to mexico, became an officer in the mexican army and decided he would immigration to the united states, to texas. wound up joining the texas rangers and became a legend in the east texas oil fields in the 1930s restoring law and order. gonzalez later went on to set up the first crime lab that the texas rangers and texas department of public safety

ever had. and then after retirement became a consultant to the movie and television industry for programs like texas rangers. host: you can watch the full program on c-span 2's book tv and c-span-3's american history tv at 2:00 eastern time and check out all of our travels with the local content vehicle on line at c-span.org. you're watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal" for this sunday december 7 of course historic day as the japanese bombed pearl harbor. we remember those who lost their lives on that date that led to u.s. entry into world war ii. we're going to take a short break. we'll be back in a moment.

>> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.

>> continues. host: we welcome cory bennett covers cyber security issues. his work available on line at the hill.com. guest: great to be here. host: we've been following the story involving sony pictures. how big of a breach was this? guest: it's huge. it's on a scale that we have not seen at a private company previously. it's not only the amount of data that was taken 11 tera bytes to put that in some scale security experts described it if someone is trying to exfill trait to remove that data without being noticed that would take weeks. it's a huge amount of data. it's very sensitive. it's employees' password information, social security numbers. but it's not just the fact that it's the amount of data that was taken. it's the fact that it was a destructive attack as well. there is evidence that the malware that was used is also destroying internal sony files and some of their computer systems. so it's a very big deal both on

the scale of data that was taken and on the effect that it's having on their computer systems. host: how could this have happened? guest: there are several ways. some people were quick to point to north korea. obviously sony has a film coming out arks comedy called the interview which has gotten a lot of press because north korea has called the film an act of war. sony plans to release it and the u.s. refusal to stop it from being released is undisguised ponsorship of terrorism. so people were quick to make that connection. host: we have the trailer from that movie. it's about 90 seconds so let's watch this and we'll come back with other theories.

>> you are eeptering into the most dangerous country on earth. kim jong un's people believers anything he tells them including that he can speak to dolphin or he doesn't urinate or deaf kate. >> you're telling me my man doesn't pee or poop? guest: everybody pees or poops. >> but he did you talk to olphins. >> the two best friends stair each other in the eyes they knew that this might be the end of the long road. >> even though neither one could say it out loud they were both thinking- >> i love you.

>> want to go kill kim jung un? >> totally. >> let's go back to north korea and the reaction by the north korean got to this film and that's just the trailer. >> we see it as sat tirkle obviously north korea sees it a different way. they're very scared of it being released in north korea. they've already caused a gust of hatred in north korea among the populous that the fact that we would be so sat tirkle about the situation and their current leader. so it was easy to make that connection. there's also technical reason that is it might be north korea. people who have examined the code told me that it does have korean language origins. also the code involves very much resembles the code used in a number of attacks on south korean banks and media companies in 2013 that that showed a very high level of

sophistication. people have very little doubt that they believe very strongly that those attacks came from north korea. those are the connections. but as i mentioned earlier, the fact that it would take so long to remove all of that data without being noticed, that's one of the reasons that other security experts have told me that the north korea connection is very tenuous at best. we really don't know. and it's very much too soon to jump to conclusions. they suspect it might be a disgruntled employee, either an ex employee or current employee. and the people presenting to be the hackers themselves have essentially indicated that is the case. do we know that they actually are the hackers, the people claiming to be so? no. do we know they were working with someone inside the organization? no. i think the third thing to look at is it's very possible according to researchers i've spoken with that smoke and mirrors are possibility. someone is essentially making this look like a north korea attack to cover their tracks. it's very easy to tie it to north korea. look how quickly people jumped

to that conclusion. so essentially framing north korea. for what reason? we're not sure. host: you're guest covers cyber security issues. and our phone lines are open. you can join in. i want to go to a story that you posted four reasons why you should care about sony getting hacked. number one it may inspire others. guest: absolutely. almost unanimously everyone i spoke with expects copy cat attacks. this is the first disruptive attack we've seen in a large scale on a private company. we've seen them around the world in the last two years proliferate. they've become more common. there was a very major attack in 2012 on saudi aram coon the largest company. that took down 30,000 computers

and wiped them clean. that was on a grand scale. but we had not seen that in the u.s. until now. and so there had always been this hesitation people assumed among hackers among nation states to be the first one to step into that territory. as one expert put it now that someone's kicked down the door and been successful, others are going to follow. host: if you buy the theory that north korea was involved could iran also have been involved? guest: that's an interesting component. someone told me that not only were there korean fingerprints there are iranian. that doesn't mean iran is behind the attack but it means there has been an exchange of mall ware of cyber weapons between them. and whether that's from an official partnership, whether that's from the natural way that mallware moves around in the criminal underground and between nation states with potentially nefarious intentions we don't know. but it is possible that there's a connection and it is worth examining the fact that north

korea and iran in 2012 signed a technical agreement. now, as it's been described to me publicly that is mostly about hardware not software. but it's not a giant leap to assume that there is also some exchange of software mallware cyber capabilities between the two countries potentially as a result of this partnership. host: what is the difference between what happened to sony and target, home depot and other retailers? guest: it's an interesting difference because financial gain was the main motivation in the home depot, target, and other retailer data breaches. in those instances things like credit card information were taken. in others it was email accounts , personal names, addresses, phone numbers. those are all thing that is can either be sold on the blact market for prolvet or can be used to then go hack someone's bank account and create bank fraud, fraudulent charnls et

cetera. that was the case in the jp morgan attack. that was the intent at least. and in this case the hackers wanted to be discovered. in target and sony hackers roomed around the system for days, weeks months. in this instance the hackers went in and announced their presence. they did not have essentially a main financial motivation here. so it really does represent a different kind of attack. more similar to something we might see from anonymous, which is a hacking group that is more activist oriented. they hack for political reasons, not for financial reasons or criminal reasons. and i'm not saying they're affiliated in any way or completely similar. but the motivations here do appear to be somewhat political and not financial. host: this is a tweet from richard. guest: that's a very

interesting question. i think the reason we should care is that destructive attacks are as -- i was talking to dutch ruppersberger the house ranking member top democrat on that can he told me that destructive atare a game changer. it's always been this threat that security experts, lawmakers have said it's looming but we haven't seen it yet. now we've seen it. now that we've seen it once it's sony, it could potentially spread. it's not a -- the attack at sony was very simple. it's effective yet it's simple. and it's not a large leap to go from attacking sony with what happened was a wiper attack where it takes things off a computer deleets them forever. it's not a large step to go from targeting sony to targeting every ip address in the u.s. every device connected to the internet at any given moment. that could affect millions of americans. and i have one backup of my

computer. i don't have two. and many people probably don't even have one. an attack like that could wipe all of your photos, documents, research papers, and i think to the average american that's millions of hearts broken right there. i would be devastated if i lost all of my photos. and it's really not a large

guest: in the future we have to resolve it. people have fought to have the froodm to make a movie like this. but i think maybe we should be looking towards our other freedom of choice and that is maybe not showing it so people don't have to get hurt over this. guest: it's an interesting point. and what is the level of responsibility on the u.s. government's end to control what private companies are releasing. this is -- it doesn't seem to be an instance in which the u.s. government step in but that is an area that people need to start considering. i was talking to the house intelligence chairman mike rogers about the fact that we have not really defined what is -- what constitutes an act of cyber welfare versus a cyber crime when the government

should and should not step in when they're seeing things like this. the government is unlikely to step in preemptively when it's a private company like sony. certainly sony is working with the f.b.i. to investigate the crime. but we have not defined those guidelines and those boundaries about what exactly is the u.s. government's responsibility to preemptively stop these kind of things. as opposed to investigating them after the fact. that's something that's being figured out both by policy makers and the private industry as well. host: robert is next from florida. aller: good morning. is it possible that sony is this ying to market movie? could it be themselves that sabotaged their -- because i don't see anyone actually taking their product and selling it on the black market. so it makes me think like this

is just a ploy to talk about a movie about a guy who is already crazy. guest: you're not the first person to raise that theory. although i have not heard from any security experts that there's any evidence that sony hacked their own system. what i have heard is that people -- people have speculated that if sony does identify north korea as the origin of the attack that it perhaps might be as one security expert put it to me a ploy to sell tickets. i'm not putting any stock in that theory. that's just one of the many things people have talked about. but from what i know we haven't seen any evidence that sony did this to themselves. host: a graduate of corn i will, earned his master's from columbia. now with hill newspaper but previously with national journal. lin has this point. will this bring to light the need for cyber infrastructure programs?

guest: that's a great point. right now we -- the one gap that people consistently point out is between the need for cyber defenses, the need for cyber security, and the talents that we have in order to provide that. there is a large gap. we need to -- people seem to unanimously agry that we need to bolster the budgets for cyber training. the government needs to work with the universities to bolster higher education cyber programs. and that is a huge gap that we're facing right now. we've seen certainly some great efforts at this. the nsa has worked with a lot of universities around the country to identify programs of excellence. they manage a list of programs of excellence and work with them to try to develop those capabilities. but it's still relatively small in the grand schemes of things particularly at the university level. that's something that lawmakers are hoping to invest more money in obviously extra money in any rea is currently a tough sell.

host: john is next.

i remember a film made called death of a princess and they showed it but saudi arabia had objections and it's just dead. i found that to be unconscionable. host: thanks for the call. guest: thanks for your comments. it's definitely an ongoing debate about how we want to protect our sil liberties as

well as be respectful of those around the world. i think it's one that we're going to continue to see play out particularly as these types of hacks and foreign entities continue to hack the united states. it's definitely going to continue to be a question. host: next call from texas. steve is on the phone. good morning. caller: just a couple of simple questions really. there are a limited number of servers connecting areas such as north korea to the rest of the world. protocols and what not are not rocket science. why do we not from either a commercial perspective or from a national security perspective develop separate systems nstead of using the commercial over the counter internet so to speak? that would not be -- although it would be expensive, that is

certainly doable and certainly a rational way to get the chinese and the russians and the north koreans out of our pants, so to speak. nobody's discussing that. if you could please comment on that. guest: thank you. absolutely. that's something that is actually it is being discussed rrently as a consortium of countries and gots work together to decide what the global internet standards are. it's called i can. it's a global organization technically a nonprofit that is working to establish standards for the internet. and i believe the reason that the u.s. is not explored those steps in depth perhaps is that e u.s. does hold itself to the thought should be free and available. one of the debates we've seen following the disclosures by edward snowden about several nsa programs is should

countries be allowed to balkanize the internet within their own country? should companies be allowed to should countries be allowed to require companies store data?

sunday morning programs that can be heard beginning at noon eastern time. good morning. >> good morning. hostage rescue will be one of the topics on the sunday shows today also race relations in the united states and what's ahead for the incoming 114th congress. and you can hear rebroadcasts of the talk shows on c-span radio it all begins at noon

with nbc's meet the press. cnn state of the union at 3:00 p.m. with george w. bush and castro of texas and his twin brother who is the secretary of housing and urban development. then 4:00 eastern face the nation with new york city police commissioner william raten and naacp president.

again reairs of five network tv talk shows beginning at noon. listen at c-span radio on 91.fm here in the washington, d.c. area. across the country on ex-im satellite radio. you can download our free ap or isten on line. >> monday night on the communicators. kim zetter on what she calls the first digital weapon. >> really sophisticated. first of all i guess most unique thing was that this was a virus designed to physically destroy something. in the past we've seen mallware that steals passwords, numbers, things like that. but we've never seen something designed to physically destroy essentially leap out of the

digital world into the physical realm and have some kind of kin ectic activity. that's the first thing that made it unique. other than that it was really sophisticated. it was as i mentioned designed to increase and slow the speed of the centrifuges. but while it was doing that it also did this remarkable trick which was to make the operators at the plant think that the operations were perfectly normal. it recorded normal activity on the computers first and then it played back that normal activity to the monitoring machines when stucks nick was doing the sabotage. > monday night 8:00 eastern. washington journal" continues.

>> good morning. thanks for being with us. i want to talk about news this is the headline from the richmond times dispatch. base on what you know what happened that led to the operation and why did it fail? guest: our intelligence community receives intelligence information gathers as much as we can to understand where our journalists are, where our citizens are, where our soldiers are, anyone in the coalition. in this case

normally more details about what happened but raising questions about these rescue missions. and again, they are very difficult situations, but from early information in this case and what's worked and what hasn't in the past, what are your thoughts? guest: our special forces are the best in the world, best equipped and best trained they go in with various amounts of intelligence. what they learnto from their experience, mosul, baghdad, difficult environments to take the information you have and rescue the american or the ally, the coalition, sometimes you think you will find an american and you find a brit. you go in looking for intelligence and find people you didn't expect. it's a highly dangerous, highly uncertain environment.

our forces have developed the skills since 2001 that we have needed to in a post-9-11 environment. they are the best in the world. whatever they accomplished, rest assured that it left a strong -- it had a short-term effect, which was, you know, they got them out. unfortunately, he passed away in this case, the journalist. the long-term effect is what we need to talk about. host: we will get to that points in a moment. phone lines are open. 202 is the area code. 748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8001 for republicans. share your thoughts on our twitter page. join us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. let me go back to your post about the long-term. what's at stake here? guest: there is a long term struggle here in their case, extremists are striving to establish a caliphate.

baghdad e, the current leader, mentored by zharkawi in the early 2000s, their path to the battlefield as well chronicled, they want to create theatre when they do these captures and beheadings. our goal is to dissuade, det deterand defeat and do not reward bad behavior by paying ransoms or concessions but, by the same token, we want to encourage other countries to join us in making it very pa painful and very difficult for them to continue doing what they are doing. >> what countries provide ransom? guest: i can tell you the ones that don't. the top five. us, uk,capped and new zealand t they are unified, solidarity on no concessions. after that, it's a toss-up. i don't think we need to list specific countries, but i will

tell you that the terrorists, isis in this case, al-qaeda, have learned well how to make significant amounts of money. hundreds of millions of dollars, through this enterprise. so, it's an issue we struggle with. it's one that we got -- we need to get better at. host: phone lines are open. we encourage your calls and comments. i want to share with you what josh earnest, white house press secretary had to say on this topic last month at the daily briefing. >> this is something that the department of fence, the f.b.i. intelligence community have been reviewing. the one thing that i do want to make clear, though, the review does not consider a reconversation of longstanding policies of the united states government that ransom should not be paid to those holding hostages. this is an issue the president takes seriously. we have long said and continue to take the view that significant resources have in the past been dedicated to trying to ensure the safe return

of american citizens who are being held hostage overseas. and there was an incidents earlier this summer where the president did order a rather remarkable military effort, principally military effort, to recover some american citizens who were being held hostage in syria. it's a mission that was successfully executed but it did not successfully result in the safe return of the hostages. host: so that was the white house press secretary, again, reconfirming what the administration policies are. guest: right. host: with regard to ransom. but what happens if the family wants to do it on its own? guest: by law, families cannot pay ransom to a foreign terrorist organization. if there is a criminal enterprise involved, they could pay ransoms. this policy is well established, historical tradition back to world war i. we do not pay ransoms. we do not offer concessions.

it is a tension between the families, obviously, and the government at times because we can't reveal all that we are doing. but we believe that the policy is effective. it has reduced the number of americans and coalition members that have been taken hostage, and it is not behavior you want to reward, although it has a short term good feeling. it's a long term illusion of security because you equip them, fund them, underwrite them, legitimize them for future hostage taking host: whether it's yemen or africa or syria, not only journalists involved but relief workers. what impact is this having on those agencies trying to send volunteers to go in and help the people who need assistance? guest: you would think it dissuades volunteers. the reality is people are

dedicated, loyal and committed to their cause. they are there because they believe that greater love has no man than he give up his life for a friend, john 15:13 is what they use as their conviction. many of them are there knowing full well the threaten environment, knowing full well the risk they have taken, but they trust and they are committed to being there for that very reason. sot irony, the paradox, if you will, is that many of these journalists, humanitarian aid -- look at peter kasig, former army ranger. he knew full well what he was going in to. he committed to the muslim faith and his life was taken. so we need to think, i think, long-term. this has got to be a proposition that involves a lot of factors. we ask the families to be patient, to work with us, and they do. the families are phenomenal. each family is different, but to your question, the families are

extremely helpful and honestly, the spirit of service, selfless service, dedication, continues. they oftentimes are not discouraged by this because they are devoted to helping people. >> means they have to pay a price, be taken captive, they have thought about that in add majorities. i can't believe james foley, peter kasig and the latest had not thought completely about that. host: let's go to sandy join joining us from prescott, arizona. good morning, with dane egli caller: my question is wasn't the exchange for sergeant be bergdahl considered a reward of sorts? guest: thanks for the question. i wrote wrote an op-ed issue that framed the issue. i would say yes. it was problematic. it caused us to pause and

evaluate those of us that are no longer inside the hostage rescue business, but i guess the one way to look at it is: there are a lot of moving parts. there is a lot of pressure. the administration did what they thought was best under the conditions. now, the nature of that is highly risky because with five taliban now out and about, the question is: where are they? what are they doing? was it worthwhile? notwithstanding sergeant bergdahl's status, i would say it departed from the trad i thinkal no concessions, no negotiating, no trading, but the president in every administration has the authority, has flexibility to do what he or she thinks is the best thing, and in this case, whatever information was presented from the hostage working group to the administration, the national security ad vicar, i have to believe, i want to believe and i trust that that -- that they

thought that was in the best long-term interest. host: you worked in the national security council. you certainly advised president bush on these issues. what question should any president be asking when it comes to hostage negotiation or hostages in general, i should say? guest: we treat all hostages the same. so, if it's a military, a missionary, humanitarian aid worker, a coalition member, we first and foremost look for the opportunity to leverage and exploit the quick response after the event takes place. get a kinetic reaction based upon intel skwlenings. can we quickly get in there while things are still in flux? can we quickly get in there while things are still in flux? they are trying to move quickly, secure their cantor and get there. can we quickly, immediately do something? so there is pre-approved, prooern identified protocols, rules of engagement for special

forces. >> that's the first thing. that's a low return investment, but we still have the capabilities. the next thing is that you now are faced with anywhere from one month to one year to five years, however long it's going to be for them to be held. during that time, we want to have proof of life videos. we want to know that they are alive. we want to show the enemy that their -- that their actions are not something we are going to reward, that under no conditions are they going to get rewarded or given resources for what they did. and then it's a long-term proposition to try and gather intelligence and fund mentally beat them at their game. we are a society with rules of law, a civil society, so one advantage they have recognized right up front is that they are not following any rules. they are asemittric, not looking at the geneva convention, page 2 or 3 as they go through this. we have a rule of law.

now, that's their advantage perhaps. our advantage is that we have the ability to do things covertly that allows us to affect some rescue host: part of that playing out with nbc news showing the drone strike killing a number of al-qaeda commandos. we will go to andrew from wilmington north, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning, captain. first, i would like to congratulate you and thank you on the great work you are doing for our great nation. i do have some questions about risk versus reward. and i believe that our nation has and should protect u.s. citizens abroad. however, in a situation as is recently occurred in yemen, my feeling is that this journalist took on a great deal of risk to

do ostensibly good things but he took on that risk as well for u.s. forces that are employed to get him out of a bad situation. host: your response? guest: that's a great question. i would say absolutely. the calculus that goes in to this, it's shouldered by the inner agency. you have the special forces, themselves. you have the joint staff back at the hostage working group, the state department, the f.b.i., the three-letter intelligence agencies and the national security council adjudicates a lot of this but often you have an ambassador in the region, a combat commander there. as many are aware, there has been a maturing of our command and control in these cases where we act quickly. the risk calculation that you bring up is sobering at times. but again, we are a free nation. the plates that places high

value ol human life. we tend not to adjudicate in the operational field. if it's a missionary, it's a journalist, it's a member of the military, we are going to do everything we can to move heaven and earth to try to get them safely rescued and send a strong message to the captors that this is behavior that's not going to be rewarded, and you know, these -- these situations, andrew, showcase just what kind of enemy we are facing. this is a generation of terrorists that is more extreme than we have ever seen before. so, this is a sign of strength when they kill innocent children, unarmed women, they take missionaries captive? is this a sign or strengths or weakness? when our forces are in there encountering this risk and the reward of it, all of that plays in to it that we are in a long-term conflict to demonstrate that what we are

doing, why we are there, is for what we think is honorable purposes and good objectives host: or topic is u.s. hostage policy, something the president is reviewing. our guest is dane egli, his book is entitled yac, "beyond the st: disaster management." this is what the book looks like. paul is joining us from bradington, missouri. caller: hi, guys. host: go ahead. caller: i said how are you, good morning. guest: thanks, paul. caller: sorry. i just wanted -- yeah, i mean, president obama, you know, says go on with the negotiation policy like you got to stop isis or anyone. host: let me take part of paul's points. as he the president reviews the policy, what should he be doing

guest: the question the president should be asking is: is the best policy in place to allow us to exercise the instruments of national securitsecurity against any opposition, against any cantor for the hostage? any isolated person? do we have the policy in place that would inform the inner agency, inform military forces, inform travelers that are going out from the state department that includes training all the way through military forces? the entire continuum of people who go overseas. he should ask do we have the right leadership within the hostage working group, security council, day-to-day, habitually are we reviewing the policy on an ongoing basis. it's great to announce a formal review on our interaction with families in how we respond and rescue. >> that's entirely appropriate given the surge in kidnappings.

host: let's go to barbara from the bronx. caller: the last time i heard of kidnappings were in lebanon, years ago. and until the beheadings, this is the first i have heard of all of these kidnappings. why was there no publicity? who is stupid idea was it not to publicize it so that the journalists and everybody else knew what was going on? i didn't know anything about these kidnappings until the beheadings. i would like some information whose policy it was to keep this stuff secret. thank you. host: thank you, barbara. >> has been a double-edged sword for the families, the administration, this one and previous white houses. guest: it's not kept secret. it's well publicized. the state department website cautions, warns, sends out the information about the threaten environment, cautions people about going in there whether they are journalists, whether they are tourists or humanitarian aid workers.

second of all, since 2002, jessica lynch was taken in a highly publicized ambush in iraq. since then, we have had jill carol of the christian science monitor. we have had roy hollands, a contractor retired navy officer rescued in a very dramatic fashion. all of them have written books preceded by a lot of publicity. so, i would say the average american, barbara, is busy doing a lot of other things. this is not necessarily on the front page of whatever magazines they are reading, but i can tell you that at times, there is even more publicity we would like to have because we are trying to do some things while the case is going on and the media is very effective at getting this information out, from my experience. host: dane, how often, when that happens, is the administration in touch with the families? and what can they tell them and what's kept from them? guest: it's tough because when the terrorists do openly and

with great bravado and theatre, we tevendz to do below the radar to maintain secrecy and confidentiality and we assign an f.b.i. liaison who would be in touch with the family. a state department person as well. those two people have the lead and the relationship with the families. every family is different in how much interaction they want to have. every family is different in how they react to this very traumatizing, very difficult situation. so that's an issue. there is also a tension. i met with some of the families of hostages held over five years in colombia. it became apparent to me. you are dealing with grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, children, spouses. but the f.b.i. and the state department have people that are specially trained to do this,

and they should be interacting with the family early, often, and, also, the fact is, captors, the organization, isis, al-qaeda and in the philippines will try to call the families. we want the families to be as prepared as possible, to be as helpful because they obviously want to do what's best for their loved one. host: i want to ask you about your job specifically in the bush white house but let's get to earl from post halls, idaho. good morning. caller: good morning. my question for dane is, he said that we are not rewarding countries or giving them aid yet with iran and sahid and others years later are being held and we have released millions of dollars, released all kinds of sanctions on that country. and yet we still have three americans being held in that country. host: thank you, earl.

guest: this is a vexing problem. the white house, the inner agency, the state department, they are faced with negotiating diplomacy, a lot involved that i currently do not have access to. when i was working in the national security council, obviously, inner agency players would evaluate this and make a recommendation to the national security advisor at that time, steve hadley or condoleezza rice. no constellation of issues, they would try to do the best thing. your question with iran in the past, again, i think to the extent we have the state department is going to have to

lean on other tools of diplomacy to affect that release. all of these hostage cases, all of these kidnappings have their own unique situation, and they require a very nimble, flexible, adaptive response across the inner agency and the national security adviceor informed by the national security council are designed toniquely evaluate the intelligence and what are the options you might be able to affect host: i am sure you have seen some of the pictures of these beheadings that are horrible, gruesome. why that tactic? guest: steve, they want to send a message, several messages. number one, this for them is something they can do. it's something they have at their deposal and they are right there with the individual. first of all, as americans, whether we are tourists, missionaries, or military members, we have been inserted into their culture, their world. they have been doing this to

each other for thousands of years. this is not a new tactic. this is something they do in afghanistan between tribal societies, between different tribes. it's happening. we insert ourselves. we show up physically. we become part of the nasty mix unfortunately. the intense air strikes are not breaking us. look how strong we are. be encouraged. be emboldened. we are winning. the second is they want to send a message to others in the region who think this might be cool, this is something i want to be part of. this is what makes me a good terrorist. i don't want to be a suicide bomber. i want to go and do this kind of thing. you see, for example, with peter kasig, they took their mask did off and they are excited about what they are doing. and so two others in the region, they want to recruit. they want to train. they want to embold en and it's

working. it's working. communications systems are very good. the third message they want to send to the coalition of the united states is to destabilize the area and to tell us that you are not taking care of your people. look at us. we are able to do it and in a restaurant it. again, i would say is it a sign of strength or weakness that you can take someone who has no arms, no defense and is there to help your people and you are going to display for all of the the world to see that we don't value life and we are going to take these innocent people with no arms and no weapons and take them out and for full view. it has a way of backlash and in long-term, it's not going to work. it's a sign of weakness host: braden in florida, thank you for joining us with dane egli caller: i wanted to know how

big is your (bleep) host: let me go back to the issue of these negotiations. dealing with isis, is there any way you can even talk to them? guest: absolutely. i mean, they have extensive social network skills. they have the same iphones and cell phones that we do. they call. they call the families. they call. they reach out. they are making hundreds of millions of dollars, not just from the oil in the region. our works of antiquity. they are making a lot of money from this hostage enterprise collecting monies in ransoms. so they are going to try every way they can to get payment from the u.s. from families. the vexing part of this is even if you pay ransoms, there is no assurance they are going to release your loved ones. we have had situations where if you look at grace uubernumim in

the philippines, her ransom was pa paid by someone, be it private or whatever, they still didn't release her. these people do not have to follow any rules. they do not have a system of protocol that assure there is any assurance. they are not a trusted agent that you can negotiate with. the idea of paying ransoms, even if our best day we come up with the money and say, let's do it, it's a very low probability return because they do not have to follow any rules. and they don't. so... host: let me apologize on what is a serious topic and sobering topic to have people call in with insultsz like that, we apologize. please take your calls elsewhere. we don't want to hear from you. again, we conclude from this sweet: we need to talk to hostage takers in language they understand, most only understand power. they understand power and using

fear." guest: no question. if you look at the cases where we have been successful, first of all, the person held captive has done a good job of keeping things under control there. they haven't done anything to increase the risk to themselves. the longer they are there, the longer we have to get in there and do something. and it is with force and intelligence gathering, no one saying it's going to get them out of there but at the tip of the spear are the american special forces who go in and can defeat that tactical situation and get victory. host: hot dane egli is the author of the book "beyond the storms: strengthening homeland security and disaster management to achieve resilience." the outline ahead as we deal with hostage situations arrange the world. thank you for being with us.

guest: my pleasure host: please come back again. we will take a short break. we will open phone lines. tell us what's on your mind. host: thoefte. host: this is c-span's washingt "washington journal" thursday, december 7th. we are back in a moment. >> ann compton who recently retired on her over 40 years covering the white house and the administrations of gerald ford through barack obama. guest: set and watched him listen to a group of second graders and the president was -- andy interrupts and no one does

even in front of second graders. the president went into a side room and then we heard, we discovered that it was two planes down, two plane crashes in new york. ari fleisher came out to the parking lot outside the school and said, stay right here. the president will come talk to the pool. i said, no. there are live cameras in the cafeteria. the president has to speak there. he did you want want to scare the children but he did go into that cafeteria. he said it's an parent terrorist attack and i must return to washington. we raced to the plane, the door slammed and the pentagon was h hit. >> tonight at 8 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q & a". >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to use the remaining program to hear from you in an open-phone segment. we have a new set of numbers with our new phone system at 272-search 48-8001 for

republicans and 202-748-8000 for democrats. a lot of you weighing in on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span and send us a tweet at c-span wj. linda sanchez is the next claire of the congressional hispanic caucus and talks about the president's actions on immigration earlier this year. here is a portion of the program which airs at the top of the hour at 10:00 o'clock eastern time. >> i think the president deserves a b plus. there are areas which we obviously would have liked more done on immigration. clearly, the president has limited by certain legal precedent but we think he has been receptive on the issue, far, far, far more receptive than the republican leadership and the house has been in their delay and stalling tactics and promising they want to work on comprehensive immigration, renege okay that and sitting on

their hands and pointing a finger of blame. i think the president has been solid. i think he understands the issue. i think he really, fundamentally understands what's at stake for the hispanic communities and so i think he is done over all a pretty decent job host: our guest on newsmakers, we hope you tune in to the program at eastern time this headline from the "washington post" thousands honor marion barry, during a service. it's available on our website at c-sp c-span.org. alison from trenton, new jersey, good morning. caller: hello and good morning. i just wanted to comment about the conversation you just finished with i think it's mr. egli host: yeah. caller: some of the things he mentioned near the end there with regard to the terrorist groups over there not following

the or taking advantage of the innocents who don't have any arms or whatever, i want to ask who's rules are they supposed to follow? the people who have military basis in their country? an took over their country for purposes who have nothing to do with the wellbeing of people who live there. i would like to ask people to imagine that these people had military base ins our country and told us how to behave and told us we were going to take whatever resources we wanted -- that they had from us. i think there is something a little backwards in the way we are handling things over there. those people have a right to defend their country. i think it's hurting the united states host: thanks. from the "washington post" dan balls with jeb bush charting a

course for an uncommon campaign pointing out, jeb bush said, quote, "running for president, you should be prepared to lose the primary to win the general election without violating your principles." many saying that he is commenting on campaign that mitt romney ran in 2012. >> event also on our website. a run-off where congressman bill cassidy is now senator elect, winning by a 14-point margin over senator mary landrieu who went down in defeat in the run-off yesterday. here is congressman cassidy last night declaring victory. >> we got lots of challenges, if anybody hasn't noticed. and so my commitment to you is to listen age and learn from you so that we together can address those challenges for our state and for our country. again, as the colonel said, it

is not about us. it is about the united states of america. each of you in this room cares about our country deeply. i am so honored to be the person you elected to express those concerns we've got lots of work to do in the future, but tonight is a night to celebrate. so god bless you. i'm sorry? oh, by the way, chavalier. i have to brush up on spanish. probably cost me votes. but zel edited myelogramar so it's her fault if it didn't turn out. god bless you. god bless louisiana. god bless the united states of america. thank you once more. host: this is a headline from the "new york times" giving the republicans 54 senate seats in the next congress, which will be

sworn in, in early january. tom from birmingham, michigan, good morning. what's on your mind today? caller: i would like to mac one comment about the previous one where the terrorists are not following rules and asking who's rules they should follow. i think by all means, they should follow our rules because anybody who has some brains would say those are better rules to follow. and lastly, i wanted -- i wish i would have asked the guest who was wonderful -- thank you -- if we take pun i have been actions because that may have a good effect to solve their heels after they have done such terrible things to good-meaning people. i hope that's part of the policy post-recovery or post-rescue, when possible. host: tom, thanks for the call. johnny from duncanville, texas. good morning. caller: yeah. i just wanted to comment on these things that was happening, you know, like the police and

i'm sorry i can't hear you because i have my t.v. all the way down. i'm sorry. host: we can hear you, tommy. go ahead. caller: just like michael brown, for instance, they said he was charging that police. i can't see -- okay. host: we are getting feedback but thanks very much for your call. when you get through, turn the volume down on your set. >> would eliminate the echo. senator mary landrieu among those who supported the affordable care ability that took place on christmas eve in 2009. the "washington examiner" has a story. half of those senators, either through retirement or through defeat will not be part of the new senate. mary landrieu con seeding the rates with her family in new orleans. here is what she had to say. tonight, we have so much to be proud of, a record of courage, honesty and integrity and liberating for the state, what matters after katrina,

rita, and the bp oil spill so the joy, the joy has been in the fight. it's been a blessing. it's been a fight worth waging. louisiana will always be worth fighting for. may god always bless us, bless our nation. we thank god for the democracy that we have, for the right of people to vote. we honor and accept the decision tonight, but i cannot tell you all and my family how proud we are to have this big difference every day for many decades and we will continue to do so. thank you so much. god bless. host: senator mary landri ieu wither had husband, the republicans capturing two house seats in the run-off that took place yesterday. details available online at the

hill.com in the seat held by congressman cassidy going on to the u.s. senator held by ralph abraham, he con feet the mayor and edwin edwards trying a comeback at the age of 87 was defeated by garrett graves, the republican, of course, governor edwards has served in the house for seven years, had been elected governor, convicted on federal racketeering charges, did spend time in prison. he lost in his comeback bid to serve in the u.s. house of represe representstiv representstives. ash from florida is next. caller: good morning. i just have a comment in regards to these police shootings it seems to me that the obvious answer is to disarm the police of deadly weapons, you know, give them something other than guns so you don't have this over reaction and killing people. host: okay. we will go to robert in eugene, oregon, republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.

caller: i tried to get through on the hostage one, but why can't since they have the way of communicating and all of these millions of dollars from hostage taking, why can't we just jam all of their communications except for a line to washington? david? caller: good morning, c-span. the best channel on television g morning, steve. host: good morning. caller: it's good to talk to you. host: it's good to hear from you, david. what's on your mind? caller: 73 years ago today i was 17 years old, listening to the radio on sunday afternoon, december 7th, 1941. and i was listening to the football game between the new york football giants and the

brooklyn dodgers and they interrupted the program to say that the japanese had attacked pearl harbor. december 1st, 1942, i enlisted with two of my buddies in the armed forces. host: you are now 90 years old? caller: i will be 91 next january, this coming january. host: how did that change our country, david, as parts of the so-called greatest generation? caller: the one word that described the greatest generation was two letters: w-e. everybody worked together to do what was best for our great country. the armed forces, industry, financial institutions. everybody worked for the betterment of the government and the people of the united states. unfortunately, today, in most

cases, the one word that describes what's going on our wonderful country is a word "me. uh-huh. >> that's the problem with our wonderful country. we have to get back to we. and i like to remind everybody that the first three words to the preamble of our constitution are now me, the people. they are we the people. host: david, thank you. thank you for your call. thank you for your service and to all who served in world war ii. certainly my own fair and the greatest generation on this date, as you indicated, december 7th, 1941, the date that franklin roosevelt said would live in infamy and led the u.s. into world war ii that did not to a conclusion until the spring and summer of 1945. david action, thank you very much for the call. we appreciate it. caller: all right. host: a story we want to share with you a senior al-qaeda commander and 5 militants were

killed in a drone strike in pakistan, one day after pakistan said it had killed top al-qaeda commander indicted in the u.s. over the foiled plot to bomb the new york city subway. pakistani officials telling nbc news the drone fired two missiles and hit a compound where the militants were hiding. our last call from panama city, florida. rick, you get the last word on this sunday. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, rick. i am going to ask you to turn the volume down. this happens a lot. otherwise, we have to cut you off. go ahead with your comment. you have about a minute. caller: okay. host: go ahead. caller: my name is roderick standish from panama city, florida. host: rick, i'm sorry. i am going to have to move on. we are short on time. there is a slight delay. if you turn at a time volume down action you can continue.

we will continues tomorrow. among our guests, emily etheridge of cq roll call to talk about what lawmakers will face in the week ahead, demp 11th, a deadline for an agreements. the u.s. power grid. how vulnerable are we? james hoecker will join us and henry willis on emergency aid to insurance companies after terror attacks. some of the guests and topics tomorrow morning on the "washington journal." thank you for being with us. "newsmakers" is coming up next. we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend. ♪ ...

"newsmakers," congressman linda sanchez am incoming hispanic caucus chair. we also have the editor in chief of "roll call." and we also have a congressional reporter with politico. thank you for being here. approveday, the house legislation that would stop the

president's executive action on immigration. ity had also found to defund in congress. what can democrats do? >> it is interesting because there is difficulty getting consensus within his own caucus. to avoid a government shutdown, the president will need a fair number of democratic votes to keep the government open, and in order to do that, there are members of the hispanic caucus who are willing to say that you homeland security and put our nation's security at risk simply to keep the government open. i suspect that there will be a lot more negotiation. they must have some leverage in that negotiation over not wanting to see a government shutdown happen. >> there is clearly some leverage for democrats. you see them supporting a bill