our pleadings. as we reviewed this case the san bernardino case we are trying to exhaust all investigative tools to final information or evidence them of the two insights or information about those individuals. >> we will take you live to the american enterprise institute and hear from former cia and nsa director michael hayden. he has a new book out. just about to get underway live here on c-span. [crowd noise]

>> thank you. we are live. good afternoon everybody. welcome to the american into present city. i'm a fellow here at the american enterprise institute and we are pleased to be joined today by former cia and nsa director michael hayden. with the events in europe this week i can to give anyone better than mike to enlighten us and put everything we are seeing on

our television screens into perspective. thank you for joining us today you have a new book out called "playing to the edge." what does that mean? mr. hayden: just a brief terms of motivation. in the forward, which i wrote when the men's group was already done. payments is right -- what you write this book? i talked about being in australia, in the outback a joint facility. is called pine gap, we call it ellis. is really in the outback. road and you come to a "t." ayers rock. is way out there. we were having a schmooze and we were walking off the floor into this brilliant outback sun. i turned my counterpart and said

when you like to take your citizens and their and show them of the kids are doing? of course the answer was yeah. that is kind of the book. and the longer form of this, and this is a knowledgeable audience, i don't know of something so essential to american democracy that is less well-known by the american population than american espionage. the purpose of the book is to punch in numbers, bring my policymen along by inside the endzone, introduced him to the people in many of the things to do on their behalf. that is really the objective. it comes back to really something so essential and so consistently misunderstood. >> you called it plain to the edge. what does that mean? mr. hayden: that is my wife's title. [laughter]

she read the manuscript. that is what she put. into reflective of her reading the manuscript and the conversations we had over the last 10 years. in essence the summary, the intel guys don't go to the edges. that's created by the american democratic process. once you have gotten those lines, here are your limits. when circumstances dictate you have a moral responsibility to play all the way to the lines. even though you know when you do that it is inevitable that you have an ugly hearing and an ugly op-ed, probably want on the other coast about how it shows up in the omaha world herald. from one paper to another along the coast. and friendly your life will be less pleasant. the point i make is if you play

back on the edge you may be defending yourself or maybe protecting your agency. you are not protecting america. there is this moral that when compulsion. if the government authorizes it in the situation demands it, you have to go all the way to the edge otherwise you are not doing your duty. >> use the phrase getting chalk on the. gen. hayden: thing when arranged a session with cbs sunday morning. it was a very generous piece. the pittsburghat -- flew of the pittsburgh. we filled a chunk of it at this year's practice facility. one of the the role elements of the morning show was my walking along the sideline with david at the practice facility. one of the conversations that did not make it into the final

product as we were walking along i send those of the hashmarks. if you really conservative and really concerned, you can tell your team i want to avoid any potential mistakes. i don't want to see that ball moved outside of the #'s. -- hasmarks. the ball is not going beyond the hash. i know that cable and. that end. -- i know how that game will end. it will end badly for that team. >> one place for the don't have a lot of chalk is europe. [laughter] didn't mean to make you choke up your water. four days before the attack in brussels, they capture the cell.ic chief of the he was given a lawyer and told the other rights or -- to remain

silent he was then put in the criminal justice system. in four days he successfully protected the information he clearly had about the cell, how it operates in moves and then the attack happened. is in the something of the indictment of the law enforcement approach to terrorist and irrigation? gen. hayden: the answer is yes. i think your premise is probably true. i don't know the fine print. but i think this attack clearly had already matured to a certain point. i think it was put in motion because they feared he would say something that would interfere with it. this is a fully grown plot. this did not get cooked up sunday night and somebody basement. this had a lot of work done. i think you are right. and they he knew, feared so therefore they acted.

go through the consciousness on the. there is a passage in the book when i am the director of the cia. i get to go to the german enzi here -- embassy here. the ambassador, the german ambassador, is bringing us in every two weeks for lunch. it is the ambassadors from the union to the u.s. every two weeks, lunch on the germans. the ambassador, i'm sure they had euro conversations, but from time to time they would bring in an american. i suspect bob gates may have shown up. and me, the cia guy. we took this very serious. we could've been entertaining and talking about soft topics in building deeper intelligence cooperation. interrogations. i will never have this chance again.

it was a very candid, very polite, very respectful, very valuable conversation. by about page two or three of my notes i saw the speech. we had good speechwriters. this is one i did some personal work on. europeans to the look, let's the candidate. let me tell you what my agency believes in my government believe in what i believe might come true. we are a nation at war. we are at war with al qaeda. its global in scope. takemy responsibility to the fight to that enemy matter where they may be. global, there was not another country in the room that agreed with any of those four sentences. that not only rejected them for themselves, but clearly felt we were not on solid legal ground in terms of applying them to us.

you do have this dichotomy between ourselves and the european. there was another part of the book were talked about targeted killings. i have to use one that was made public. leaderling of a shibab in 2009 by navy seals. there really was no attempt to capture. this was a kill operation. there is not an intelligence service in europe that would have given us information to enable that rate. -- raid. it would have been unlawful under their law to enable the americans to do something they viewed to be an illegitimate use of force. you to have this sharp dichotomy between the north american view and the european view of what this really is. when you got a lot of americans who claim if we don't do this in

the law enforcement model, we are therefore being lawless. i say that is not true of law -- not true at all. it's a long answer. the second point is this. i think the europeans have an incredibly pathological structural problem. by pathological i'm using the literal meaning. it will be to the death of the organism unless you fix it. the problem is this. it is the division of labor between brussels as a european capital, not the victim, between brussels and the sovereign states. the sovereign state exported to brussels big chunks of their sovereignty. they have exported to brussels all questions of commerce, a lot of questions about finance and money, and frankly all questions with regard to privacy. we have a dialogue with the

europeans. we are talking to brussels. the european commission of this or that of the other thing. national security remains in the capitals. it remains a national responsibility. the path elegy i've seen, and i said this to friends over the last couple of years, is you have a bunch of folks up here in the euro institutions making declarations about essential privacy and what constitutes essential privacy freed from the burden of guaranteeing the safety of their citizens. here, but wessues get the privacy mavens and security mavens in the same room and they have ugly fights. the europeans don't. you have this hottie treating creating rules and the only imperative is how much privacy can we guarantee. them a have these. here who have to live with those

rules. they have got rules that of an developed -- i'm overstating is a bit. roles that of an developed largely absent security considerations. -- waiting atr the war and they don't. even within the law enforcement model you have got limits on what the nations can do to protect themselves. i am finally down. now i am in brussels, the victim, and that is a small under resourced, from time to time is functional security service working for what is almost all the time a dysfunctional government. nature -- 90 have real issues. marc: yet people with no -- whenbility for the they can prevent the attack, they are responsible but not --gen. hayden: what i think will onpen is you have the brexit

the monetary union, and we might not impact that over. is creating work -- torque because they have transported security to the euro institutions and they feel uncomfortable about it. think as they think through what i just said this que willsecurity tor create great tension within the union. to whathe union adapts i just pointed out, this is going to get worse and lead frankly to the crippling of the union. besides whatever it might do to the powers and so on. marc: the logistics chief those captured. key is what we would've called in the cia contact a high-value detainee. someone who of the whereabouts,

location, identities. will we captured a high-value detainee, not only did not read them their rights, we did not announce the capture necessarily. did andthat if he people knew we had one of their compatriots, they would begin closing down the e-mail accounts, maybe accelerate their lands for an attack. in europe we had a situation were not only did they announced the capture, we had every european leader in the world holding a press conference and he's getting this information. which likely accelerated the attack. doesn'ta mistake and this show the need for secret detention? gen. hayden: there are lots of things you can go back and be run a video and say not so much. you can imagine the political pressure on local leaders to show progress, competency, or at least claim competency in terms

of we're doing this or we are doing that. i agree with you. in a world in which were focused on security, in which you don't know where the next she was , is goingall --shoe to fall these are self-defeating things. if we had picked them up in somalia, i would buy totally into what marc set. that is not current american policy. there is a fair argument that if he had been picked up because of the energies of american lawn is meant -- law enforcement in the homeland, i'm running up a much steeper hill to claim we should begin detention inside the american intelligence services. that is as a practical matter inside how we as americans view ourselves and how we pick between using the law enforcement model.

cia, ite, even if the would've been a tougher case to make to use the law of armed conflict model for someone who was arrested by american law enforcement inside the united states. one needs to make a judgment based upon the mentality of circumstances that you find yourself in at the time. the complaint people like me have is not that we did or did not do that in this particular case. it is that we do not do it. in any case. we have taken that tool at the table. people talk to me about would like to get the technique back? i stopped the conversation and said i like to capture somebody. committed toready putting through in article three a court process. so in the obama administration they were caught

in the same criticism in 2009 with the underwear bomber. they immediately read him his rights and it was a mistake. even administration today doesn't necessarily read them the rights on the first day. gen. hayden: that is right. that is a palliative to the stress point you just described. i'm a little worried. i like miranda. i don't want miranda adjusted casually. aranda protects me and you. rather than turning the dial backup miranda because you have chosen to do this from a law enforcement model, we are going to go light on miranda, i don't the fed's getting in the habit of going light on maranda. i think the solution is rather than fooling with something of which we all rely, why don't you begin the process over here in the law of armed conflict model?

anything you develop would never be used in a court of law. at some point later you would put him in the law enforcement process, i truly don't care. marc: exactly. that's the difference into law enforcement approach in the intelligence driven approach. law enforcement is capturing somebody after an attack has happened in your trying to get them to cooperate in providing evidence for a little conviction. time is a friend because you build rapport and do all these things. gen. hayden: and you can course. -- colors -- coerce. i will arrest her mother and father. marc: and you can do more in the law enforcement model because under the army field manual, district attorneys say would you rather be in a federal prison or the general population in rikers island? or if you cooperate we will take the death penalty off the table?

gen. hayden: that's right. that would be for bit -- for bit. -- forbidden. marc: you can see 9/11 coming. give the first world trade center attack. yet the uss cole, the mc bombings and other sciences was coming. -- signs this was coming. now we have the paris bombings and the brussel bombings. it seems like this story is repeating itself. the director of national intelligence testified it is likely that isis will try and directed attack against the united states in 2016. clapper said they will not be satisfied with lone wolf. they want directed attacks. are we reliving this movie. gen. hayden: we are. a couple of thoughts. not specifically consistent with the thinking that this is post manuscript. a couple of things. i will try to be very efficient.

if this was a degree of threat under which we exist, i'm pretending this is where we are september 10, 2001. through the efforts of two some of it -- somewhat different administrations we got better. we really did. about 2011 forgot about here. since about 2011, it's going back up. here is not here. we are not get to that point. we are safer than we were on september 10. we are less safe than we were in 2011. if that is what you meant by your question, the answer is yes. we are going to the same cycle. in terms of what do we do about it, i tried to do this extended metaphor two days ago. i only have three minutes. [laughter]

here is the metaphor. if you take everything marc just talked about, how can the villages can do wiretaps? how far do you want to put the metal detectors up from the airport? let's think of soccer. we just had an argument about stopping penalty kicks, or at a minimum we talked about needing a bigger, struck -- stronger, faster goalie. and this ise, whatever good to the europeans with, when something like this happens you start talking about goalies. how come you didn't know it was this guy? how can he did no better security at the airport? white politicians make big statements and someone? it still within the 18. somebody has a real opportunity to score. practice defense, get some

better fullbacks, train your goalie. that is not a winning hand. if you're playing inside the 18, are playing to stop penalty kicks, you know it's going to go back into the net again. be extended metaphor is control the midfield. move the game up. the metaphor for controlling the midfield is to do all those things you ought to be doing before the attacks. things like what? metadata, collecting comparing the data with known -- you guys know this. you do all those things that a lot of the european friends are wringing their hands about. -- i mightnclined criticize the build him's what they did immediately. i'm less inclined to criticize them for their police did in that 96 hour period. i am more inclined to say now you want to have a conversation you thought you had two years ago about electronic surveillance?

withant to do it now, maybe a better handle on what the real facts are? and why this is being done? i just thought the soccer metaphor would work better in europe than baseball. [laughter] and i mean it. that stuff that became so controversial is about controlling the midfield. david ignatius has a wonderful piece in the post two days ago where he said after this all the europeans are now lining up in front of the american intelligence leviathan. [laughter] they are demanding more product. they are still wringing their hands about american collection. control the midfield. extend the metaphor. about one more -- i have got one more. after you establish control, you can plan attacks well before they are in your airports or your sovereign space. once you think about scoring

goals why don't you get into the attacking zone? why don't you begin to threaten their goal rather than worrying about yours? fight toely take this this that back to my speech and the german embassy, take it to where they reside. mosul, getugh in real tough of the islamic state. i will be overly dramatic. here comes. i would not be opposed if we used social media, traditional leaflets, we blanket that part of the earth called the islamic state with the notification if you move oil, you are going to die. . period. i think that's a legitimate act in the armed conflict in which we are engaged. you make it very clear that we are serious about this. the point i'm

trying to make is a lot of the conversation gets right down to the last 18 yards. the real answers are deeper. they hearken back to those feaux discussions and debates we had over somebody's telephone or some country's metadata. marc: the administration would argue that they are getting tough in those places. they just killed the number two leader of isis. they claim they've taken back 40% of isis'territory. bit like letting a cancer go untreated for many months saying you have reduce the tumor by 40%. by the way, it's in your lawns but it is -- lungs but it's prettier brain. harris and wherever the next attack is. and brussels or

wherever the next attack is. gen. hayden: you're asking me a political question and i will give you a political answer. think you can, i fairly characterize our effort against isis is what we call a level of effort campaign. we have been told we will give that much. ok, do everything you can with that much and under these rules. i would say, and are probably good friends of mine that we disagree on the inside, i would say we are not working backward from the desired of facts we wish to create. therefore, resourcing and governing our effort based upon the desired outcomes, here is what we can offer. here are the rules. go to the best you can. and we are actually good. i said recently i got to be part of the history of armed conflict.

greatest killing machine in the history of armed conflict. pacedisappointed with the and the level of effort. did go fornd of mine 1 -- gulf war 1. he would say the current air campaign is like a fine irish intended by god to be a thunderstorm. when you think of it, we are getting at the rate of about 20 strikes per day. modest at best. i would have amped it up. i would have moved the threshold with regard to direct elegant -- tolerance for collateral damage. on the outside looking in i

think the right number for collateral damage right now for roe's is zero. i would make the argument that might be a moral position because if you pass up multiple opportunities because of fear of collateral damage, you may end up with more dead innocent people because you have not suppressed the enemy's capacity to do harm because of your almost total allergy to collateral damage. we have talked about this. these are always hard choices. it's really unfair to second-guess but you asked. by the way, this is one war with . kinetic fight is ideological the battlefield defeated the enemy undercuts the ideological jihadist narrative. these guys are somebody because they are successful and they can

advertise themselves as representing both the will and the hand of god. nothing undercuts marc: the other thing, if they know the rules of engagement, when they think there is a dron fly over, how do they going to a hospital? practicedy have well intermingling. you say we are better than protecting the homeland before 9/11 which is why we are safer. isn't that what becoming more complex? was one/11, there threat. now, isis is spread out. you have all the al qaeda affiliates. we now face the danger from

multiple terrorist networks operating in multiple countries and also the new dynamic of free market competition. you have to who made her terrorists -- you have two major terrorist networks. how do you and that fight? michael: it is more complex. cia press every morning. recently,ently, very yet another great day to be another senior informant official. as much as what i just said, you cannot kill your way out of this problem.

if we could do that, this would have been over working years ago. you are more brought issues we have to take on. everyone in this room would agree we are less good at that then we are about the killing people thing. that is a part of the game we really need to recharge. it is a part of the game which we don't have direct control. it is a part of the came that we are in luck more dependent on our allies in the islamic world to achieve success in any success we could personally the chief. to begin the conversation, one of the things we have to do is to get over the fantasy that this has nothing to do with islam. response to this has nothing to do with islam is they all hate us. ok? frank the, i believe this begets that and they are both wrong. i think what we need is an adult acceptance. this has something to do with

islam. it is not all about muslims. but it does have something to do with islam and we need to talk about our muslim allies. the king of jordan says the civil war is with islam and the president of egypt is biking his finger at the theological fact that it is about islam. i am very careful how i say this. i understand this is one of the monotheism.est we cannot resolve it, but i don't think we serve anybody by pretending that is not what is happening. therefore, perhaps, we can help empower those voices within islam that we think actually have the best answer, not just for ourselves, but for islam. people like the king of jordan.

donehere is a lot to be and what i am saying, the complexity is beyond the battlefield threat complexity. ande is a deeper complexity our tools to influence that are in direct and distant. marc: and empowering people at the local level. the number one victims of islamic radicalism are muslims. their killing more muslims than people in the west, at least for now, right? achael: i will offer you view, hyperbolic, but not without truth, that we are merely collateral damage. we are the collateral damage which is a war in one of the world's greatest monotheism. one of the reason the search was so successful in 2003 because theyiraq were predicted by the very people they represent.

michael: the sunni tribes. came to drive the u.s. out. that was a major ideological defeat. how can we empower people in the muslim world, who hate isis, to join us in that fight? michael: well, listen to woody allen. of life ismentals 85% is showing up. out of our way, erin friends -- arab friends. given historical circumstances and who we are in the world right now, which is not a permanent condition and does not -- given the

reality of the world which we now live and the relative power we can exert, our showing up creates opportunities for things to happen. our not showing up actually cuts in the other direction and in fact, might be a negative because of his begin to go do things on their own, and it turns out they are not good at it. yemen,ggesting invading for example. it makes the situation worse. i think there is a powerful role for american leadership here. i am not calling for the return of brigades to the western iraqi desert. it is a powerful role to play. this is all beyond the context of the book that closes out with snowden. that is in there. i do not understand the lack of a no-fly zone. would beat i think

broadly accepted by what i call the civilized world, christian,jew, or islamic. marc: you have accomplished what it not a single gop candidate has done, you got donald trump to back down. he said he would employ waterboarding, or worse. he openly used the word "torture." -- you pointed out that the military would not act down to break the law. that going well beyond the edge? michael: do you have a copy of ?y book wa marc: we do somewhere. wife says -- i thought i would have to spend

the book tour explaining my collective aggressiveness and going to the edge. did not happen. dynamics of the political campaign, the book tour was more or less consumed by my explaining that there were edges. [laughter] no, we're not going to do that. rather than explaining why we were here, i was explaining why we would never be here. it was an incredibly remarkable thing. the easy one is that we are going to kill their families, too. that is the one where belmar ohr asked me.ill m i already told you my view on collateral damage. a bitlling to embrace more risk for the desired military affect.

he was talking about killing the innocent. that's bad. just morally. that is incredibly stupid operationally. you still are mad for 9/11. we are 15 years. why do we want to create that dynamic inside our enemy? -- by killing their noncombatants. the tougher one was his call for waterboarding, which i did talk about in the book, which we did take off the table, which i justify as having been effective and defend the people who did it. there is a little more newmont and i haven't had as much chance to get into it. he is doing it with enthusiasm. we did it with regret. he's doing it because they deserve it. theyver did it because

deserved it. we did it because we thought they knew something that we had a right to know in order to keep our citizens safe. he appears to want to do it frequently. we did it rarely to three folks. his language on waterboarding was so bad that it actually gave waterboarding a bad name. [laughter] ok? -- i recognize it, that there is a lot of link in the book that object to people having done it. i get that the greatest respect. it i argue is that we did ,ut of duty, not enthusiasm with the legal judgment we had at the time. it did, in fact, lead to information. iseally honorable opinion don't do it, ever. it isnow, u.s. law says

off. you can't do it. i also make the point, i made the point on the book tour and i make it in the book that if a future president assad he was going to return to this, somehow creates a legal framework where , i sayo longer unlawful quite specifically, he better bring his own bucket because the cia is not going to do it again. i explained it in the back two or three chapters in the book, the people who did it in good faith, believed there were covered by the government and by their government's legal opinion. felt an undying sense of betrayal about what happened to them after the change of administrations, so there was a show on showtime called "my masters." "spy masters."

we were very happy with it. sayingve several of us no to waterboarding. of thenot a judgment actions performed in the past. it was, we thought when we did wes for you, the beak you, had a social contract in perpetuity that the republic had our back. turns out, in perpetuity, is one off year election cycle and the agency has taken -- ands a complicated issue the most offensive part of the current debate is how stupidly oversimplified the discussion has been made. us,: also, for trump, for waterboarding was the far end

point. for trump, it is the starting point. yeah.l: the reality is -- marc: we do need an interrogation program for terrorists that does not include waterboarding today. that does something more than the army manual. if we are going to prevent another 9/11, we are going to have to start capturing and interrogating them again. people who disagree with what is done by the agency, has to knowledge there was a line and the government, whether you disagree with the line should've been, the government did it knowledge online, stay within a line, and try to do it. trump wants to just erase the line. doesn't that undermine destroying something we need to

? michael: that is my point. he is poisoning what has to be a carefully crafted, deeply by aientious conversation free people as to what it is you legitimate is not based upon the totality of circumstances in which you find yourself. this put us back away from this discussion and poisons it. -- that pulls us back away from this discussion and poisons it. they are trying to get -- unlock the phone of the san bernardino shooter. this is been painted as a dispute between the tech world and the national security world. in the tech world, you have people like bill gates saying apple ought to be doing more. ,n the national security world they have people like you, who have actually back apple. explain that to us. [laughter] michael: it's like, were you on

the night of september 11 was ? i go towards apple. there are many ways of looking at the question. it is a constitutional question. if you asked my opinion, i think the government has within its authority to compel apple to do what they want apple to do. congress can make it so. i don't think it is a constitutional question. theapple is throwing up first, fourth, and 13th amendment. i don't think it is a privacy issue. he is dead. there are no privacy issues. by the way, it was never his phone, so i don't think these specific acts began to engage question security versus privacy. here looking at this

purely in a security lens. i think it would be a good thing at the government could get there. i think the government has the authority to demand it. i just it is a bad idea. because jim,ea said the most serious threat is cyber. that you have a private companies who apparently has encryption.great the government cannot get into it. now they will demand this company create something that does not yet exist, which is a way to get through. all i am saying is, what apple has done, it would be less secure and less secure even if you keep it over here and it requires multiple keys and to go to a court. all right? the fact that you have created

this, by definition, is less secure than it would be had you not created it. an essay, when you are going after a really have oneorithm, and i of my people come in and say, we just found out that someone else has been granted extraordinary access through the encryption. my response was, thank you, lord. by the way, that may not be enough, but the odds of my getting and have been increased because i have additional tools, that i can use to get beyond the encryption. when this began, i wanted to the with the bureau and theory under which i was trying to side with the bureau was this is good, this is bad. and i am not sure if this leads

to that. but the longer this has gone on, the more i am convinced this is not a one and done. first of all, komen has testified that this will establish a president we will use in other cases -- presidents we will use in other cases. attorney, the u.s. said he has a room with 175 just waiting to go. i don't think it is one and done. i was trying to say over here, but now i am convinced, it cannot stay over here. this to a less secure operating system. very briefly, ?et's say i am wrong say, ".we

what have we done through legislation or court order, prevented technological progress. i am not feeling good about that being a winning hand. ok? even if we are successful in doing it in north america, the sum total of all this will be pushing this offshore, which i think is the worst of all possible outcomes we could get. wait. there is more. if the government does get the authority to do this, what is apple supposed to do when other governments, for their own legitimate law enforcement reasons, what they perceived to be their own legitimate law enforcement reasons, now come to apple and say, i got to get in .ere, it is a fallen gun guy let me get into the phone. or the egyptian government comes and says, i got to get in here. he is a terrorist.

thatind of suggesting countries have brought definitions of terrorists. have you answer that? one more turn of the wheel. it doesn't matter. technology is long and arc in which it will be more and more difficult to retrieve content from intercepted communications. there is nothing we can do to stop that. my counsel, and the folks i left get over it. understand that no matter what we do with apple, it is going to get harder and harder to get content. that doesn't mean it's going to be impossible to get intelligence out of intercepted communications. you are not going to be able to get content. now imagine, apple has created this problem by creating this really powerful operating system with powerful encryption. you digitale

exhaust blowing out into the atmosphere that a good intelligence servant can't collect -- service can't collect. an incredible point of information. did you evert, think the last 15 years would be an anomaly? that what is happened-- what is recently that you and i that were really well protected and decided to put it in our phone with -- were not readily retrievable wes? now we are all regretting it. it is simply returning to status quo. we lived through a period of 10 to 15 years where electronic

surveillance, even law -- or foreign for intelligence, has a golden age. we put it up there not knowing how vulnerable it was. theare kind of returning to states back here. you are far more detecting it. sorry. far too long of an answer. bottom line is, yeah, i am shading apple on this one. by the way, think of all the and jim- mike rogers klapper have said about this dispute. ok, you are done. [laughter] they have not. fundamentally a foreign intelligence problem. it is a law enforcement problem. the foreign intelligence guys know they can cheat. [laughter] so, let's talk about the book. [laughter] marc: one more questions on

apple. play doubles advocate -- play l's advocate. everyone was criticizing them same a should have resolved it quietly. they put out the word saying, we can break into it. michael: we will see if it happens. if i install director of an nsa and apple says we are not going to do it, and i am agreeing, the next phone call is down to omb saying encryption is getting better, i am going to need another $5 million because i'm going to kick my way in. that is fair game. that is different from telling apple to build something that may make the system less secure. look, there are so many factors

bearing on this. we used to do this map against encryption that was not universally available. when you do the math against encryption that is not universally available, game on, kick the door in. right? fundamentally, now what is happening is it is against encryption we all depend on. that changes the math problem. marc: fbi goes to apple and says, help us get in. no, we will not let you get in. that means apple has a security vulnerability. apple -- michael: do not presume the answer to that question. that may the government's preserved -- preferred position. we just have this grand debate vulnerabilities

when it either creates or discovers a bone ability and encryption. the outcome of the national debate has been nsa has been shading too much of exploited the vulnerability rather than fixing it. incentive for no them to help out all right now. if they figured out a way to get into iphones, -- michael: the incentive to help , morals there broad responsibility to make america a safer and more secure place. marc: all right. let's talk about the environment we face today. to 1990's, 1988 when george h w bush is running for president, no one asked him about saddam hussein and hussein invades kuwait.

when george w. bush for president, nobody asked about al qaeda. the 9/11 happened. -- then 9/11 happened. looking at the threat environment, you're in the middle of a presidential debate, what is it that nobody is asking the candidates about that could into of dominating the next presidential term? used to get that questioned, who do you think is going to surprise you, general? here is how i into the question. my matrix is how bad are they and how much time do i have? vertical axis, horizontal axis, how bad, how much time. in the lower left-hand column are things urgent, but not existential.

he can go bad because a tsa guy in dallas missing that decision. years, i get another flavor of threat, a group of nationstates i have taken to label and fishes, brutal, and nuclear. pakistan, and i throw the russians in there too. when it goes bump, it is worse in what we are worried about because of brussels. i probably have 3, 4, 5 years to get a handle on them. i go the timeline to 10 and way up here is china. again, i don't want you to think i am treating china like al qaeda, or china like north korea, i am just saying that the people'stion of the republic is the most serious security challenge we have. we do have some time.

that is how i make it. it is not quite the answer. marc: tummy what you don't know, general? [laughter] michael: so he wanted to make it up. i do think that the brussels event will create incredible torque in the stability of a part of the world that is important to the united states. by the immigrant crisis, by the instability with turkey, we are going to have to pay attention to europe. that may be something that is going to be pushed. let me be kind. you have a populist government movements in several european countries right now if they were to be successful, would, i think would begin to challenge condoleezza rice and george w. bush's whole, free and at peace.

marc: let's talk about the tension between intelligence community and the press. in the book you write a great deal about the efforts you went to to prevent the "new york times" reporting things harmful to national security. you also say that the informed public is the lifeblood of democracy. how do we cut the balance between and if and the need for security? michael: the most important part of the book long-term is a conversation i had with carly fiorina, who was the head of the cia advisory board before she came -- became the presidential candidate. , thisestion i gave carly pre-snowden.8, at carly and said,

carly, i have a tough question for you -- will america be able to conduct espionage in the future in front of a broader political culture that everyday demands more transparency and more public accountability from every aspect of national life questione? being able to conduct espionage, which require secrecy and success. she looked him right in the eye and said to close to call. which is really important. in essence what is happening is is movingcal culture the socialder contract of the american intelligence community, but we add with american society.

footed --rribly black horribly back foot it. i'm surprised the -- i'm surprised they didn't explain things better. footedeason nsa was back was that this thing was approved by two presidents. well known to the oversight committees, who were frankly the strongest supporters of the program. the one i use in the book is that is the madisonian trifecta. that is the church pike solution. what happened when the program became public, not all of them on the wingnut population. constitutesthat consent of the governed anymore.

that may be consent of the governors. now we really do have a challenge. how does my old community tell you enough about what we are have thet we at least implied sanction? telling us so much it is not worth doing. that is the question we raised. my answer is we need to be more transparent. then i say don't pretend that is not going to make us, that is not going to shave points off of our effectiveness. asked mike and leiter.

need to be translucent. which is not bad. shapes, ithe broad concede broad movements, i cannot see the fine print. i think what we are trying to find is that sweet translucent spot. where most americans say i have a pretty good idea what they're doing, i'm looking at buying. that is as good as it gets. when we do have to find that spot, this is not going to pass. there has been a cultural shift. we have to accommodate to it. that's how this works. >> playing off of your last point, doesn't it seem like the intelligence community is in this vicious cycle? 9/11 happens?

then what do you do recur you set up the metadata program and they work. and then over time people become complacent and they say why are you doing all that? all these terrible things are happening. peeling them back and another attack happens. is that what we are doing right now? >> i let myself one existential .hy i hardly ever get this at heinz field. feelcan political elites free to criticize our intelligence service for not -- to immediately turn on the dime as soon as they feel safe again. >> that is kind of where we are.

>> let's take some from the audience. >> thank you very much. that this war has 21n going on for the last years and the cia knows everything that is going on around the globe. it started with al qaeda. do you think maybe osama bin but stillbeen dead among these people? also a chairman was speaking at the pentagon press briefing. where are they getting all these who youand financing

think today you have to control two or three nations. >> this is covered a bit in the book. on the night bin laden was killed. i guess the trade was an attitude of people with our background knowing there was no finale in this at all, that everybody would go back to world -- go back to work next morning. after all he was the guy who was most responsible for the attack. good, but it was going

to be long-standing. i go back to what i said in the book. until you change conditions on the ground you just get to kill people forever. need to begin a serious dialogue about changing conditions on the ground. it post rates the book. we are seeing the melting down of the world order as we know it. we are seeing them melting down to the post-world war i versailles in position of the european state system. we may be seeing some on the edges. for matters of theology and definitions of citizenship.

this probably isn't about getting bashar al-assad out of government. it is, but it is about so much more. my question is we need to get on with this. iraq no longer exists, syria no longer exists. put lebanon and syria in there. backis not about getting world order that has been pushed out. that is gone. the next president is going to the equivalent of the loan to kind of scope how fundamental the issues have become. until we do that we are going to be doing this for a long time.

> if there parties -- in your opinion hunted isis -- opinion how did isis -- >> at actually ties closely to what i just said. this is me being critical of policy. if you believe what i said about iraq not existing, why would you insist on approval from baghdad? -- if i'm still back in the government one has to be careful about one says -- about

what one says. structurel about new in the middle east. all my turkish friends were concerned. if the old is gone and the new is yet to be created, i think a good conversation to have is what is the future of the kurdish reason -- kurdish region ? i would not constrain myself for the old models. a long history. as we left, this would have not defeated isis.

it was simply we were an effective stopper and a bottle that was still unsettled. we are reasonably convinced as long as america is fair, the other two were not going to eat them. they all suddenly feared they were going to eat them. they act in ways they thought were defensive but were perceived by the other two factions as being horrifically offenses. -- horrifically offensive. >> mike has agreed to sign some books outside.

what were the rules of engagement or rules of rendition through countries? had to have assurances through the country. we believed they would be treated humanely and we would be embraced with a moral and legal obligation to ensure that would happen. i do get the question fm time to time, how can you be sure? the answer i give you is after all the cia is an intelligence organization. the current administration, that rendition policy, the same today. noiseis a little bit more and we insist on guarantees. which i find a little offputting. we weren't as much concerned about the law.

and i had a play answered. there is powerful continuity between 43 and 44. there really is. when it comes to the war on terror. i would offer the view there is a bigger difference between 40 , the first and second bush administration. i could fill the rest of the afternoon complaining about things that were changed. a great line" in their, -- a great line in their was a .quoted -- was a cloaked

we thought there were two americas. now we know, there is just one america. it was stress producing for a lot of people who are friends in europe. >> last question. lady way in the back. >> thank you general. you have mentioned some limitations. -- some limitations from our european counterparts, especially as it relates to intelligence. does that mean it is time for the u.s. to have a larger global role? >> my argument is we do have a large global role and we have stepped into that.

what i would be inviting is we ,ould not be the lone striker that we actually got somebody on either wing. we have the sincere conversation that with our putative teammates , we can argued about specifics. this is not the forces of darkness trying to suppress european privacy. let's do that one again. and then with regard to this definition. if you think you can handle this problem at the greek border and make it go away, you are wrong. lie don't you come here and play a ball in the offensive zone?

time.'t have much is a conversation among people who share our values and interests. it is time for us to do this. that german embassy thing that i was talking about, i am hitting this pretty hard. this is related in the book. the ambassador wants to find some common cause. surely you must admit we are all children of the enlightenment. and i said yes sir, mr. ambassador.

we are over here with hobbs. which are two great enlightenment philosophers that our common culture and civilization embrace. we begin to share our view of this problem? it is part of our mainstream. >> thank you so much for taking questions. he has agreed to sign books outside. please wait a second while we get him out to the table and then you can ask questions as he signs your book. thank you very much.

now fighting to sketch him him

thank you. jonathan? [inaudible]

thank you for your time. hello.

hi.

my goodness. >> i'm with the heritage foundation. thank you. you are marshall. >> thanks for your work. >> i enjoyed your talk. the question i get to ask is what is your comment on morning, but educating and trying.

>> teaching how people think things work. the most important things for me. traditional catholic liberal arts. high demand education. thank you.

>> i think we say everybody has -- religion outicing -- >> that is driven in the american system. we allow religion in the public square. >> with everyone around here -- >> this is a longer conversation. it is cutting against the grain of our traditional value.

i don't want to equate anyone with a new job. >> do you know about islam? know -- it has everything. my was in texas -- >> i was in texas. >> nice to meet you. i really liked the metaphor. before those comments -- it may be ironic that your look sold out. so i think, i hope that --

there is an interesting piece in the bbc. i agree with you, the global order is changing. they might be using it to achieve goals that are curing cancer. i hope we can work toward that. >> here we go, we are done.

>> they welcome americans, they have begun an impressive project . step in our form policy to deepen relationships with people who seem to share our values, who seem to be friends with the united states. when the fight begins they show up to the fight. >> thank you very much. here we go. >> the -- said about the relationships between china and the united states is by far the most strategic question we have to face him solve. -- phase and solve. i mean a country so large

emerging onto the world stage -- it is a relationship we have to get right. as we wind up in continuous conversation, like a relationship they used to have with the soviet union.

ok. >> former nsa director signing books after his discussion and q and day on national security. a on national security. here is our conversation with christopher bale. >> i'm going to argue today that a small network of anti-muslim thenizations in the wake of september 11 attacks captivated the media, specifically through emotional appeals.

once peripheral actors within the broader family of organizations trying to shape public discourse, they have to mount oneillion of the most significant campaigns to shift american opinion against islam. the recent wave of anti-sharia laws. disturbingly even how they have been hired to train our counterterrorism officials. all of this occurs in the broader context in the battle of hearts and minds that we find ourselves against groups like isis. show you at the end of my talk these fringe ideas, these anti-muslim ideas are -- they make it picked up through harm byd do their

tarnishing the reputation through the united states. if theing it seem as u.s. is in fact anti-muslim. the u.s. is fundamentally at war with islam. bale teaches at duke university. how anti-muslim fringe organizations became mainstream. and how perceptions of muslims are shaped in the united states. tonight at 9:30 em -- 9:30 p.m. eastern. ashton carter announced this morning that a top isis leader was killed in an airstrike. secretary carter says the leader oversaw the funding for isis operations. this is over an hour.

>> good morning and thank you all for being here. i want to start by reiterating that our thoughts and prayers remain with all of those affected by tuesday's bombing in brussels. this strategy has hit our military as well and our hearts go out to the injured airmen and his family. brussels is a strong reminder of why we need to hasten the defeat of isil wherever it exists in both -- in the world. the united states is committed as ever to our european friends and allies. our enemies are one and the same.

together they continue to do to bring the full weight of our vast military capabilities. general dunford and i spoke to our commanders this update you one some new actions we had taken in the last few days. in deed the u.s. military killed several key isil terrorists this week. mom --ng hot ge , who was aaji imam finance minister and responsible for some external affairs and plots. terrorist,ll-known dating back to its earliest worked undern he zarqawi as liaison for

operations with pakistan. leaderoval of this isil will hamper -- both inside and outside of iraq and syria. this is the second issa leader we targeted this month after confirming the death of their so-called minister of war a short time ago. a few months ago after going after iso's financial infrastructure, we started with a storage site. and now we have taken out the leader, who oversees all the funding for isil's operations, hurting the abilities to pay fighters and higher recruits. our campaign plan is first and foremost to collapse the tumor in iraq and syria, focusing on power centers in rocca.

they severed the artery between syria and iraq. as a result it becomes much harder for iso leaders and forces to travel. to see iraqiased security forces have moved from their staging base and are advancing to new positions as part of the early stages of operations to collapse iso's control. staff sergeant card and gave his life and we are now providing artillery fire to their desk to the request of the iraqis. both syria and iraq, we are seeing important steps to shape

what will become crucial battles in the months to come. forward weners move are continuing to bring relentless pressure to iso commanders. taking a significant numbers of actions this week, one of which i already mentioned. we targeted one of the top iso leaders. we targeted a number of iso associates. -- of iso associates. these came after recent strikes that destroyed a significant equipment that could have been used against our partners. believe these actions have been successful and have done damage to iso. as chairman dunford noted earlier this week, the momentum of the campaign is now clearly on our side.

the united states military will continue to work intensively with our coalition partners to ourd on this progress as counterparts throughout our government works to defend our homelands at the same time. , yesterday ie ,poke with my saudi counterpart their defense minister. agreed -- president obama's participation in a leader summit there the following day, this will be an important form on brussels last month. and to strengthen defense partnerships. during the 2015 u.s. gg --

please respect the fact that we are not going into any further -- ils couldre details than that put lies and our future operations at risk under the effectiveness of our campaign. we are going to ask you to be restrained in that regard as we tend to be as well. condolences for the attacks in brussels and particularly to the families of two americans that were lost. great leader we lost last week in and operations in iraq. thank you.

>> relies you said you didn't want to go into any more details. the senior leader was in syria. aboutroadly, can you talk , we saw a lot of al qaeda leaders killed over the years. the number three is killed every six months or so. what do you think this actual death, particularly those involving the west, do they mean anything or do they simply just replace them? >> i will turn it to joe after this. >> i will take your question first on the question of leadership. a striking leadership is necessary but far from sufficient. leaders can be replaced.

leaders have been around for a long time. they are seen year, they are experienced, so eliminating them is an important objective and achieves an important results -- important result. it is not sufficient but it is important. >> the marines this week in support of the iraqi defense operation, is this something we look to see more of as time goes on? bigcan you talk about celebrating the secretary has talked about before, that this is a key part of what you want the military to do more of? >> we spoke about setting the conditions of success and facilitating the iraqi forces

and staging to begin isolating -- these marines that were there, they were in direct support of that. we advise the iraqi forces and provided position -- and provide a position of support. no different than the support we have provided to the iraqis all along. the secretary and i do expect there will be increased capabilities to set the conditions of their operations in mosul. a different tailored operation. the primary force fighting will be iraqi security forces and will provide assistance and enabling capabilities to make them successful.

>> it appears to be part of a ground combat role. we have surface fires and we have used those in the past. mo this happens to be the most important tool in that particular location. >> and iraqi prison -- in and iraqi prison since 2012 -- in prison since tony 12. would feel about releasing these prisoners? >> the number of leaders were in years -- in iraq for in iraq in former years.

it is important that these are people who have experience, they have shown dedication over the years. >> do they talk about releasing prisoners from gitmo? >> that is why we need an alternative defense facility. it is not safe to release everybody. that is the very point of that. >> lies the pentagon and senior military leadership reluctant to say it is more than 3800? >> what we track is the number in our force management level, that is 3800. that is not inconsistent with what is going on in the last 15 years.

people that are in direct support of the embassy. it has been going on in the past 15 years. at any given time we have 3800. of 200 and a unit they both happen to be on the ground at the same time, we don't count that as 400. the accounting of our people has been consistent. i think you got the numbers from us. in terms of what counts in the mission and the direction we have been given, the 3800 gets the mission. i sit 3800 was the force management level area some number is a result of the people who support the embassy and people in other candidates that -- and peoplees

in other categories. >> this is an independent base. these are u.s. military only. they are not just defensive but havelatest movement, they provided fire support for offensive operations against isis. why is this not the first footprint of a combat ground operation in iraq? >> it is simply a function of geometry. their design is to support forces -- the artillery cannot be located with the ground an effectiveing fire support. necessary to support that

particular location. with regard to providing support to the iraqi defensive capability, to me there is no inconsistency between what this did and what our aviation support is doing every single day. in other words we said we are providing enabling support to provide our capability to iraqi can -- iraqi forces as they conduct operations. >> we have all indication this is a pretty permanent decision that after a short period of time, u.s. army personnel are going to replace -- it has all indications that the u.s. military is directly involved in the ground operations. week, sincee last the iraqi started to consolidate their positions, the situation on the ground has changed.

that is already changed throughout the course of the week. consistent with everything we have been doing over the last several months. >> and what we will be doing in the coming months. this is our approach to eliminating isil from mosul. the iraqi security forces are carrying out the assault. that has been our approach and we will continue to do that. >> ground forces closer to the line. whatis position is behind is known as the fourth line of troops. and the question about the

future, we have a series of recommendations. supporter enable our for the iraqi security forces? there will be an increase to the u.s. forces in iraq. alluded to decisions about army units, there have been no decisions about what the future. in toused on what we need to do -- need to do to maintain momentum in the campaign. >> did you think this was -- and whether or not this was a u.s. raid?

>> the only thing i will say is i am not some consistent strategy. we have discussed previously, right down to supporting local forces. operations ino iraq -- i want to make clear and everything we to his with the consultation and approval of the iraqi government. -- we do is with consultation and approval of the iraqi government. i'm not going to talk about how -- ways theya number of can do that and i'm going to ask for your forbearance.

>> i don't think he wants to add anything. >> you have sent to congress that the european needs to step up their intelligence sharing. i noticed several people part of the brussels attack were on our lot -- on our watch list. we have increased our sharing of intelligence. i can speak from military to military level. i was speaking brought her to congress. intelligence agencies, military capabilities. we have locations to bring together our coalition partners. we think over 100 fighters have fighters -- 100 countries have fighters in syria in iraq. that gives you