there are a lot of places to

get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here, or , here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues.

>> i served -- we prosecute terrorists, we go after counterterrorism activities. conduct surveillance authorized by law that allows us to identify terrorists and other adversaries of the united states. at the end of the bush administration i served for about six month sunny the bush white house working on counterterrorism and national security measures. host: when it comes to measures of national security what is the significance of the assassination of ayman al-zawahiri? guest: taking out the leader of al qaeda is usually important. ayman al-zawahiri was part of the 9/11 plot. he was the deputy at the time for osama bin laden. he formed the islamic front

against jews and crusaders p that was the beginning of the big -- al qaeda movement. we focus on isis and now even that sort of faded from the headlines. the economy is the focus and the reality is they continue to plot against the united states, continue to desire to kill americans including here in the united states including mass casualty attacks. it's going to force al qaeda to go underground for a. of time and that's a good thing. it could inspire attacks but it could early for little bit. host: osama bin laden was the character and the personality. guest: when he formed with bin laden he took it from egg terrorist group and release banded their view to global jihad. he inspired people to do that. ayman al-zawahiri was the coo

who really made it happen. host: you talked about planning do you know if there was any current planning by al qaeda or affiliated groups? guest: we do know that he continued to put out videos. he put videos out on the attacks. we knew he was still alive he tried to inspire if you are there, then april of this year -- how suck in for get it that he was found in afghanistan? guest: it says he felt comfortable enough to come to kabul and live there. we got him there so he wasn't there -- that comfortable. after bin laden so you have to seep most recently the network

with the number 22 al-zawahiri. key player, ran a terrorist network. the fact that we know al qaeda knew he was there, he had been housed by a network member. no he was there and was protecting him at the time. host: our guest will be with us to talk about this recent even if you want to ask and you can call (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents and if you want to text or question you can do that at (202) 748-8003. you can post on twitter and facebook as well. let's hear from the president regarding this counterterrorism operation. [video clip] pres. biden: al-zawahiri has

been a leader of al qaeda. from hiding he coordinated al qaeda's branches and all around the world including operational guidance and called for inspiring attacks against u.s. targets. he made videos including in the recent weeks to call for his followers to attack the united states and our allies. now, just has been delivered. this terrorist leader is no more. people around the world no longer need to worry about this vicious killer. the united states continues to demonstrate our resolve and capacity to defend the american people against those who seek to do us harm. we make it clear again tonight that no matter how long it takes, no matter where you hide, if you are a threat to our people, the united states will find you and take you out. host: a little bit of what the

president said. guest: the president is right that the reach of the united states as long. our patience is long. no matter if it takes 22 years we will come, we will find you, we will take you out. that was not just the message to al-zawahiri but any new leader that comes in or al qaeda. you cannot attack the united states and get away with it. the president's right to take credit. this was built on 20 years of intelligence operatives, war fighters and leaders who have been watching trying to identify there is al-zawahiri, working we find him? the details of how they found him a really interesting. i think the big question is the president said look, this is a vindication. we don't have to be in afghanistan. it's a debatable point there is a discussion to be had about that question. certainly we were able to take up bin laden without having operations there.

does that mean that the overall situation, are we as a safe as when we had troops in afghanistan? that is a debatable question. human intelligence then probably wasn't existing in afghanistan. host: talk about the surveillance aspect and the information collected in order to order the strike. guest: i think there is more information coming out now. we don't have the full picture get but what we do know is that they identified bin laden's wife and children in kabul. they had been conducting efforts to avoid surveillance for they know how to do this. they operate in like nations. nonetheless they were able to identify the wife into the children. and starts keeping an eye on the house what they found was an elderly gentleman who didn't leave the house at all. unlike bin laden, al-zawahiri would come out to the balcony. an exposed balcony.

they can see him and they identified him. between april and now, they identified him, and when does he come outside, how long is he out there? ella -- it allowed them to take a very careful precision strike. he is exposed, we know it's him for sure, they got briefed and they decided to do is use it to hellfire missiles and take amount while on the balcony of the which was a real opportunity to conduct the operation with minimal risk and in this case no seville and -- civilian casualties. host:. descriptive and the hellfire missiles these are common uses over the horizon kind of things. do you see more of that being used? guest: not necessarily, you can use drones were you have humans

operations and humans on the grounds it's often times more effective you have to follow them for so long and the like. they are most effective are you have on the grounds capability but yes, jones can be run, we run joint operations often. typically they fly from a local area and in this case, this was a drone that had missiles on it. we don't know whether the missiles were the explosive variety. we do have these hellfire missiles that have blades on them that conduct operations without exploding. some have a low yield explosive. but the end of the day what's important about this operation is we did do this on the ground but it's not clear because that is the ultimate success in counterterrorism. proof of operations. i think others are skeptical.

you have more limited capabilities to do this again for the number two, number three of al qaeda. host: oregon our -- is our first call. all is on the independent line. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am watching, what you guys are talking about and i'm not sure what it all means. guest: i think what it means is we have put al qaeda back on its heels. we have successfully taken out a key leader. this has been happening out over the last 20 years per it we have been taking out the number threes, the number twos and key operators for a while. this has kept al qaeda on the run and it makes it harder for them to plan large-scale terrorist attacks that we saw on 9/11. we have been safe for 20 years because of this constant pressure we kept on al qaeda.

no large-scale attacks. if we can keep the pressure up as we have for the last few decades i think we can successfully keep the nation naifa. -- safe. we got bin laden, we got al-zawahiri now it's time -- they want to regroup and will have large-scale attacks. host: of you are on twitter makes the comment i thought we weren't allowed to kill someone for no reason. we are not at war with them. let me expand on this. guest: in the immediate -- aftermath of the 9/11 attacks congress passed the immediate use of military force is been in place for two decades. that remains, the president continues that authority.

thickly the operations and use any necessary force against the people he determines conducted or involved in planning the attacks. in this case al-zawahiri a key leader in non--- 9/11. the president has independent authority as commander-in-chief to go after people who are threatening the united states but when you combine that with congress's authority jackson would say the president is at the height of his authority, and congress's authority yes it remains active and that is what the present was acting under. host: should be reviewed -- revamped for the modern-day we are under now? guest: there is a lot of debate going on that would serve back in 2013 were debating on this in question could be focused in on a certain set of groups? could resort -- focus on a certain geographic area? is it too broad is it to open?

a couple senators, a lot of senators were interested in bipartisan to come together to tighten it up we are -- ongoing fight against terrorism. we are authorizing the tour lunch -- the challenge has been to get a large enough group of senators who share the view. you couldn't find that middle ground, the vital center and you know things have gotten in politics with our national security. i think it is harder today than it was back then five or six years ago to get that up. host: we will hear from derrick in washington state. caller: you're doing more talking, let me ask you a few questions about when you were serving under the bush administration. i want to know about the

wireless tapping, the torture, and the black sites. in the constitution means nothing. you people go to college to be lawyers and the only thing that matters, the constitution being interpreted doesn't mean anything. abortion was illegal now it's legal then it was illegal. you will be backing the administration but america the biggest threat is domestic terrorism, white racists who are in washington, d.c. and these representatives. thank you. host: some of the things that happened under the bush administration counter the immediate threat after 9/11. it was highly debated in congress and the government. the question of wiretapping and conducting surveillance to protect the nation. we know the president authorized certain activities after the 9/11 attacks. authorized the surveillance of phone calls into and out of the united states using metadata. much of that was authorized by the intelligence court in 2004.

again in 2007 and by the court, they authorized it and of course engaged in illegal disclosure there was a debate in congress about it. a variety of laws including the section 702, the amendments act and the usa freedom act they put restrictions and they also authorize those programs. i know we talk about the detention and interrogation of terror suspects. we know again the president conducted an operation to capture certain terrorists. there were held in overseas like -- locations and there were things conducted will be engaged in what was called enhanced interrogation measures. obama famously said we tortured some folks and there was a debate in congress we tightened up the rules on that. that is how america operates. we try to protect our national security.

we restrict certain things that's what we do. and the last point is about domestic terrorism, it is a threat we understand. we saw what happened on january 6, the outrageous activities that day. we know the justice department is very focused on that. i served under the bush administration led by matt olson it has focused on domestic terrorism and they are spinning time looking at that. there is a debate to be had, how do we deal with that? these are really important issues. we should debate and discuss and argue about. that's what makes america a great country. host: adam in kentucky, independent line. caller: hi, good morning. you know derrick brought up my point which would be does the amu under the president extend to domestic terrorism and the case i would point out is he

still on 9/11 with george bush and said this war is not against the nation of islam and rather against the people who see to do harm against the united states. then fast forward to the obama administration, a u.s. citizen, i'm not a supporter of this guide but a u.s. citizen was killed in yemen so i would like your guest to speak to that. guest: great question about the killing of an american citizen overseas. he actually took a small leaping terrorist group and turned it into a very aggressive, very successful international terrorist operation. dual citizen born here in the united states. just over the river here in virginia for a while. ultimately, did join up with al

qaeda and what happened here was there went through analysis and said if we have an american leader -- citizen who went overseas to conduct terrorist operations against the united states and inspired and set the guy who captured on the plane i believe in detroit, he put up a bomb on that plane. he was active in the operations in the obama administration made the determination with the justice department to use military force combined with the president's authority to get a senior al qaeda leader there was a determination made by the u.s. government that he is a senior operations leader and was in imminent threat. they can take action without a court order. you can't imagine how to get a court order, that complied with the requirement of our

constitution including the due process clause of the first amendment. this is not a clear question. it is a highly debated question. some say that is completely not acceptable a lot of people are very careful and determine that was lawful under the u.s. constitution. host: he makes the case like you did earlier why was america's number one most wanted in a gated community and how many are moving into the suburbs of ask of -- afghanistan? how might that change as far as who is going there and what might actually happen once there? guest: i think the tele-bent or reformed. they made a lot of efforts to look different than the television of the late 90's but they are not reformed. they were involved as a government back around 911 like the ones that supported bin laden, after 9/11 attacks they refused to handle the united

states we don't have to invade afghanistan you can give us bin laden they chose not to do that. they went into hiding for 20 years they fought against us and ultimately president trump made a deal with them biden cared out that deal and now before the anniversary of 9/11 came back into power, they are -- the number two runs a beautiful -- brutal terrorist network. they are at the heart of the government. his no question al-zawahiri felt comfortable going back to kabul. he was wrong that was a theory and the taliban government took him. it might come out, i would be skeptical -- including not allowing american citizen green card holders to leave during the

evacuation pair there were not helpful. i was involved directly in the efforts to get americans out of there. americans were stopped repeatedly and brutalized by the taliban. they are trustworthy partners that we can work with them, that is not true. they are a terrorist group and they are in charge. host: what is it mean for security measures if we have taken a hands-off approach? guest: i worry we are more vulnerable today because we are not present in afghanistan. we don't have a military operation or intelligence operatives on the ground. the president deserves very strong credit as intelligence operators the reality is i think we are less safe today because of the withdrawal, because the taliban are in charge. i feel we are not safe today. host: we will hear from john in alabama. go ahead, you're next. caller: yes, i would like to say

that i applaud ms. pelosi for going to china and i think that americans should get together and be stronger because of china and russia because we need more bombs to take out, and that's all i have to say thank you. guest: john makes an important point here. host: pelosi is to be credited for going to taiwan and standing up to the threats the chinese made about taking action against her and our allies in taiwan. i think, frank lyons wish the biden administration had been more supportive of her effort to go. that is proven true, china did not undertake any of the threats. i do -- he's right.

they can come together around the long-term threat that china poses for our national security. we are seeing unfortunately now china is conducting live fire exercises. that may result in short-term economic challenge. there is debate now about whether we should try to run the blockade and potentially get into a, -- conflict with the chinese. one side says it could happen for weeks and months. we are in of situation with our allies some people say we made the point nancy pelosi went to taiwan. we have to let that play out. this is a hard question on what i think the white house has a big heart on. if we are going to go to war, if the chinese to invade the president can convince the american people we need

leadership in d.c. to make clear to americans white, what is it about taiwan, the democracy there and the economic ties we have with that nation including semi conductors that make it important to our economic security. host: in florida, republican line. james is next. caller: i was calling to find out, i read that al-zawahiri died a couple of years. is that a fake news or? you know, it was reported that he was, he had passed away of natural causes. guest: we see a lot of reports about al-zawahiri and lawton before we killed him. that he died of natural causes or internal squabble or the like. in this case we know that al-zawahiri was a lie for two reasons, he taped and released videos in 2021 and april 2022 that referred to activities

taking place in december 2021. so we know at least as of december 2021 he was very much alive. so he did not die of natural causes a while back. in this case the administration had eyes on him. they identified him individually unlike bin laden who when they took pictures of him on the ground. host: a viewer alludes to that point. we must have intelligence on the ground in afghanistan if we didn't, how did we know that bin laden's wife and children were living there? guest: one of the ways, the way we identify the scent of bin laden we spent years and years trying to track his couriers. people who might be associated with him and the first sign we saw that we might be onto something was the fact that one of his couriers would travel to

a location and take the cell phone battery's out and put them back in. they would make phone calls and one phone call he made was to his mother. he called, we were covering his mother's home phone and he said i'm with the same i used to do -- they with before. we thought maybe he was with bin laden and they followed him. remember, pakistan was not a place we had a large-scale operation. we did have an embassy and the like but we were able to get folks to follow him. he goes to this weird compound with a big gate kind of unusual for the neighborhood. they burned other trash, they were very private. there were a lot of women and children in the house. as one gentleman we saw never left. could have been a drug smaller, -- drug smuggler. i think you could assume that was the similar type of footprint on the ground in afghanistan.

no u.s. embassy, no military on the ground. some sort of intelligence, some sort of allied human intelligence combined with what we do know is they provided multiple streams of intelligence to identify the family, identify al-zawahiri and we actually saw him with cameras from the john -- drone. it's a think tank. we were set up about five years ago. needed to bring a bipartisan group together in regards to the political questions. identify real concrete actual solutions. we generally don't tend to write our long articles. you can get members of congress they sent deep analysis. you can pick it up in your car on the way to a meeting, read it, and have something

intelligent to say when you get there. it is the calm set -- concept. a lot of smart academics, policymakers. we sent women to the trump administration. we sent to the biden administration. host: here is thomas in alabama. republican line for our guest: ahead. caller: good morning. i love your show. and i watch it regularly. my question is do other countries or organizations have the capability of the drone strike and what prevents these other organizations from striking the u.s. or somebody on their list? guest: makes an important point. we do know that many other nations over the last decade or so have developed drone capabilities including armed

drones. turkey sold drones to the forces in -- operating in the ukraine theater. we know a lot of our allies and a lot of our adversaries have during capabilities. we do need to be concerned about drones being used to attack americans. obviously we have two oceans to protect us from threats. therefore -- of course we have the u.s. air force that keeps an eye on the nation. i think it is likely we will be able to identify such a threat and take them out. it is a fair point that now our adversaries are increasingly, they can get access to modern technology including drones. we know they have a desire to obtain more weapons, cyber capabilities, biological weapons and drones that are certainly on the path. they want them, they can get them from some of their allies.

it is a concern about terrorist groups and nations using drones against america. host: color from indiana, independent line. caller: thank you very much c-span and i must offer my apologies right off the bat. i am not certain of the topic that you guys are discussing here appeared i just woke up and die wanted to make a comment about the unfortunate visit to taiwan by nancy pelosi. one of the greatest environmental commentators and authors of our lives warned the u.n. security council last year that climate change is a very great threat. he is also remarked that it's a problem that is so vague, is going to require transnational

cooperation which we have never seen. those two players won't beat the united states and china. instead of ramping up the tensions and ignoring the one principle, we should be opening scientific technical dialogue so we can unite our strengths and deal with this problem. thank you, and think you c-span. guest: he makes an important point about climate change and what an ac -- nancy pelosi's visit meant. it was the right thing to do, it was important to make her that we support our allies in taiwan. but this question about whether we should ally with china or -- when it comes to these global issues is an important one. china is the single largest polluter across the globe. they are not abiding by a lot of what we agreed to abide by.

they are building their economy on the backs of powerplants and the like. so the idea that china is a player when it comes to climate change is hard to imagine. one of the biggest concerns we have today as we are moving to a largely electric vehicle economy. at the core of the batteries are these rare earth components and critical minerals like cobalt, like nickel, china made an effort to try to secure the market. we had very few domestic sources for these minerals so it is important that we find a way to make ourselves independent domestically or with allies to get those to make the green transition. we have to be independent, china is not a good actor. they can cut off our supply right away and forces not to survive. that changes the economy and a fundamental way and i think we have to be careful with that.

the idea that's not realistic. the fact of the matter is they don't share all the world -- our worldview. what amounts to prison camps, we sell what they did in hong kong. we see what they have done in taiwan and the like. religious freedom doesn't exist in china. it's a real challenge for us as a nation but aaron is right to raise the question, what does it mean when it comes to issues like climate change. host: are run talks are set to resume what do you think it means as we go forward? guest: i run is on the verge and they have been for a long time whether you measure that in months or a year at best the nuclear core by the obama administration we are year out. the fact of the matter is iran is determined to get a nuclear weapon.

i think it is not particularly well-founded. it allowed congress to vote on the nuclear ill. we knew they didn't have the support of the american people or members in congress. then president trump came in, president biden has been trying to get tech intro to extend the time friend the question is can you extend the deal long enough to make it worth it? can you get the right kinds of provisions and will they do a deal now at this point? that's what i think the biden administration is challenged on. they haven't done that. the problem is they know they have us over a barrel and the question becomes is there a middle ground or not? i worry there isn't. remember by the way i ran husband activities -- has bad activities.

the biden administration, make that part of a deal otherwise it's not necessarily a good deal for the united states. host: jim from west virginia independent line. caller: good morning, think you for taking my call. in the previous administration there was an event that took place. i don't think that's quite enough attention and that was the assassination of a general. i believe we have laws on our books about assassinating foreign leaders and although he was not the head of my run -- iran as the military leader and as a result of his assassination 176 innocent lives were lost. when iran retell you waited an airliner was accidentally shot

down. so i'm wondering whether the general who i don't believe was contemplating or developing any plans to attack our country was a legitimate target. thank you. guest: an important question john raises. under the trump administration. what's important to remember about the assassination it was an executive order. that's not -- that is about political leaders. in this case, he was a military leader, a general. the leader of the elite force of the military. this was a targeted military strike and the question then becomes what was he doing to deserve such a straight? what happened to lead up that attack? we saw the missile attacks against american bases in a rock over again. you cannot kill americans with

impunity they continued to do it. they did it that way for years. they supported terrorist groups that killed hundreds of american soldiers on the ground there in the iraq area. we told them you have to stop. and ultimately president trump made the decision it was a lawful military strike and took them out. there were fears after that a lot of people thought we would be at war with iran. this is going to be a huge conflict and in fact they did not respond in any effective way. the ukrainian airliner was shot down. it whether it was a mistake or night, we can debate but they did not take direct retaliation against americans. i think that is a demonstration that at times in order to carve that activity you have to get aggressive. it's like sitting on the playground we have to tell our kids don't put -- don't punch the bully back.

but the truth of it is, one of the most effective things punch the bully. not saying you should do that but i will tell you in international politics sometimes you have to punch the bully in the face to make it clear you won't stand for this. that is what president trump did and i think it was the right thing. we saw the iranians walk back as a result of that. we spent a lot of time talking about isis. host: what is the status of isis these days? guest: we have allies there in the region. there was a successful long-term operation. they remained there but isis hasn't disappeared. they are in hiding. they faded into the background. like al qaeda they took a page out of the al qaeda book. it broke up, they started creating franchises around the globe. you see isis franchises in

africa, asia, and they like al qaeda try to inspire attacks locally. we know that we have seen isis operatives talking to americans in the united states and around and moving to encrypted communications we don't have access to and we are concerned they are putting terrorist attacks. we haven't seen major attacks conducted yet but there is a fear that that is a potential. isis, like al qaeda very much a real threat. they are on the run, al qaeda was on the run, but very much interested in conducting large-scale attacks. host: jim in arkansas, hi. caller: good morning, settlement. i have a novel idea. why don't we blockade our ports?

until china that as long as they are not being good partners with taiwan that their ships will not be allowed to unload their containers in the united states? period. guest: it's a real interesting idea but the one challenge with that is we americans rely on a lot on the chinese good spirit almost everything in your house, almost everything you are wearing at least one of two pieces or are -- or more are made in china. it would teach them as much as we rely on them they rely upon us. it would hurt them, it would cost them but it will also raise prices in america and with inflation it will be a challenge to do that. we have seen gas prices, food prices and other things hi. the administration will have to think carefully before they close ports. it's going to be a long-term

cause is the economic relations. it's not like the cold war rush over there were few economic ties. it was a political and military ideological fight. now in some ways i think that's a good thing it makes it likely -- less likely. a fight with them over anything including taiwan, that would be costly not just for them but for us as well. host: virginia lives in sacramento, independent line. good morning. caller: i heard your guests say he feels comfortable, safer in the united states. i don't feel that way because of the domestic terrorism that is going on here. we are quick to take out the people that are causing problems overseas but we have people here in this country that are going around in malls, shooting theaters that are taking out people but we let them live.

so how can you fix that? i would like to hear how america is going to deal with these domestic terrorists. guest: really good point. we have to get a hold on it peered we can't have americans walking into schools and malls and killing other americans. we have to take aggressive action. the justice department and biden administration have taken a strong stance. they want to identify these folks and put them into over a long time. we are not going to, nor should we conduct counterterrorism type operations in the united states. this needs to be a law enforcement matter when it comes to domestic terrorism but that doesn't mean we don't need to be aggressive or it doesn't mean we don't need to put them in jail. we do have the ability to potentially, i mean they have the death penalty. there are these opportunities but we have to go to our legal process. if we can identify them before that happens and be able to address that, one thing to think

about as a nation is there is a lot of talk on the internet in these forums and the like for people are trying to inspire others to conduct international terrorism but the messick terrorism is a thing how do we deal with that? we think about free speech and the ability to have debates about political issues but where is the line between debate and terrorism? it is about a minute threat. if it is a vile act, imminent threat you can't yell fire in a crowded theater that's not free speech. where is the line had a we police that in a modern era with all these social media outlets? how do we police all that while allowing americans to debate political issues question mark that is a tough question. host: law school national security serves ason the fatal f

breonna taylor. >> good morning everyone. earlier today, i spoke with family of breonna taylor. this morning they were informed the justice department charged for current and current metro police officers with federal crimes related to ms. taylor's death. those alleged crimes include civil rights offenses, unlawful conspiracies, unconscionable --