center in new york, the pentagon in washington, and the field sentence venue. but we also remember the care for our communities and, purpose we found after that tragedy, after their -- contacts as our nation talk to find light amongst the darkness. in our most divided moments, we should look to that as a reminder that america is a nation that is at its best when we seek unity and humanity over separation and hate. >> the illinois secretary of state testifies on the state anti-book ban law. the measure is in response to more than 1000 requests to ban books at public schools and libraries in the states. watch live before the senate judiciary committee tuesday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded ids television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started building 100,000 miles of new structure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communicatis supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a frt row seat to democracy. host: we are back now with a former 9/11 commission staff member and a current center for strategic and international studies transnational threat project senior fellow, daniel byman. welcome to the program. what is the legacy of 9/11 and the broader war on terror? guest: 9/11 shaped the nation

and had profound impacts on policy at home. when we think of foreign policy, two things stand out. one is the war in afghanistan, the overthrow of the taliban right after 9/11, and the other is the 2003 u.s. invasion and occupation of iraq. the first was directly linked to 9/11. the second politically was only made possible in the environment where americans were thinking about terrorism and very concerned about terrorism and iraq became, for better or worse, enmeshed in that. it also had an impact on u.s. day-to-day foreign policy with many countries around the world where the primary issue wasn't trade, the primary issue wasn''t

russia or china. the primary issue was, would you work with united states against al qaeda? and then starting over 10, 15 years later, would you work with united states against the islamic state? so, really in almost every aspect of u.s. foreign policy this had a profound effect. looking back over 20 years now, the war in afghanistan ended up with u.s. withdrawal. the taliban back in power, i think the vast majority of americans look at the effort in iraq and see it as a mistake. so it also shaped americans' attitude toward intervention abroad and the extremely heavy cost paid not only in trillions of dollars, but also in american lives. i think it makes many americans very leery of intervention, especially in the middle east. but the 9/11 attacks also shaped america at home. it created an environment of concern and fear about the next terrorist attack. for several years, especially right after 9/11, the bush administration was operating really with the concern that the

next attack was around the corner. and many policies put in place were put in place with that concern in mind. in this shaped things like various fbi and broader government programs to go after suspected terrorist suspects in the united states. it shaped americans' attitudes towards immigration, especially from muslim countries and muslim fellow countries. -- muslim arab countries. so the effects i really think shaped a generation, but it's important to look back at this because i think we are moving on from that in many ways, both in our foreign policy and domestic concerns. this marked an era, but i'm not sure how enduring this will be. host: you talked about how this really shaped america's fear of a terrorist attack. do you think americans are safer now from international terrorism than we were on 9/11? guest: yes. and let me explain why really using the 9/11 attack itself as an example. if you go back to what we now

know about 9/11, it was an attack that was plotted from safe havens in pakistan, in afghanistan where al qaeda was able to really gather a mini army. in the 1990's, thousands of people trained in al qaeda training camps, and al qaeda was able to take what it saw as the best of these to use for terrorist operations. the al qaeda leadership, osama bin laden, they had safe havens. individuals would come and go from these areas without disruption from the world intelligence of law enforcement services. and then for 9/11 itself, they were able to recruit people not only from the arab world but also from germany and they were able to travel to afghanistan. they subsequently held meetings in malaysia and spain and other countries without interference. and of course, they traveled to

the united states where there was, at best, a confused and limited effort to try to discover jihadi-linked terrorists in the united states. if we fast-forward five years later, we see all that has changed. the haven in afghanistan and pakistan was disrupted by the u.s. invasion, even the invasion, havens around the world were under pressure and this could be in the form of drone strikes taking out terrorist leaders, as happened a year ago with the killing of al qaeda's leader. it can also be in the form of special operations forces raids that are happening around the world to go after suspected terrorists. the united states is training allied governments to go after various groups linked to al qaeda and the islamic state. and perhaps most importantly, there is an intelligence campaign where the u.s. government's core 19 -- escorted meeting with governments -- is

coordinating with governments around the world to put pieces of the puzzle together so when people go to and from war zones, they are on the radar screen. they are being watched and arrested before they go or when they return. in the united states, there is a more aggressive effort by the fbi to go after suspected jihadists. so all the aspects of a terror attack like 9/11 become a charter for a group like al qaeda. i want to be clear we are talking probabilities. each step is more likely to be discovered but not 100%. but the chances of success for a group like al qaeda to do a terror attack in the united states especially are greatly diminished. host: let's talk about the role of the usa patriot act in government surveillance in general. guest: after 9/11, one of the concerns that the u.s. government had was that there were large numbers of americans, in this case, american muslims who were linked to al qaeda or somehow trained in afghanistan,

and that concern said this was an operation perpetrated by people coming from abroad in the american muslim community. in contrast to what people feared, turned out to be exceptionally loyal to work very closely with the fbi. but the changes that the patriot act and other legislation did were actually quite profound and in many ways quite necessary. a lot of the u.s. apparatus or -- four surveillance was very dated, just to pick one example. it used to be that when you had a warrant, you got up by the phone rather than by the person. so, in the old age, which some of your viewers may recall, before cell phones, it used to be that if i had a phone, i had one phone. but people may have multiple cell phones and you can easily change numbers. so part of the changes in legislation were just catching up with that. but a lot of the changes were

concerned with the access the government had to information gleaned by american technology companies. and as we all know, these are giant companies and they have huge reams of information that -- and so the legislation was designed to give the government easy access to that. also related to these changes was resources. there was a lot of effort at the fbi, especially, but also the department of homeland security to put resources to the problem of individuals in the united states who might be linked to terrorist groups. so not only was more information available, but there were far more people available to analyze the information and act on it. so this meant that there were a lot of programs in place that enabled the government to get a lot more information on americans much quicker and to keep it in ways that would help the u.s. government go after suspected terrorists. host: section 702 is going to expire at the end of the year. there is a reauthorization going

on. -- reauthorization fight going on. first, explain what is section 702, what does it do and where are we with that reauthorization? guest: section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act was a very large change that enables the u.s. government to collect information on foreigners living abroad without a warrant or any sort of traditional oversight if there was national security. and this what allowed vast amounts of information to be collected. what makes this controversial is that those foreigners living abroad might be in contact with americans. and so, that person abroad might have, say, 100 phone calls and 90 of them or to other foreigners but 10 of them might be to americans, and this sort of collection is called incidental collection. it wasn't the target. if the goal of the united states

had been initially to go after those 10 americans, the u.s. government we need to go to a judge and get a warrant. however, there is now concerned because those 10 americans are now in contact with someone who is on the radar screen of american intelligence, presumably for some concern, let's say terrorism, in our case. and so, 702 is incredibly powerful because it gives the government access to this information and now the government can query about those americans who showed up on the radar screen about their name, their social security numbers, whatever information they have and learn more about them. this is tremendously controversial right now, and for good reason. 702 is set to expire at the end of this year. that is unless it is renewed by congress. and it has been renewed in the past, usually in a bipartisan way because it's so incredibly

important to both intelligence and general and counterterrorism in particular. it gives a huge amount of information not only on suspected terrorists but also on unknown people who might be linked to them. and that is one of the biggest challenges of terrorism is not finding someone who is already on your radar screen, but finding someone who you don't even know is a danger. and here, this often reveals it, but the problem is that this sort of collection has tremendous potential for abuse. one thing that civil libertarians are concerned about is that it could lead to expedition. instead of going after her going to a judge to go after an american to getting a warrant that the government instead uses this ability to have a link to a foreign terror suspect and avoids the judge through 702 authority. and there have been uses of this that are clearly inappropriate, depending on what side of the political spectrum you are on.

there have been reports that this is been misused to go after people linked to black lives matter. there have been reports of it being misused to go after people involved in the january 6 insurrection. in these sorts of cases, the fbi should've gone to a judge to get approval rather than use 702. the fbi claims that yes, it has made mistakes but that it has put in very significant safeguards and that in recent years, the number of queries has gone down by 93%, and extremely large number. so these safeguards are having a big impact but there is a question of if there should be further restrictions on the types of queries that might be done on american citizens and on some degree of judicial approval. so this is an example of broad power given to the government in the years after 9/11 that is being reconsidered in a very different light given the current threat environment. host: i will let our viewers

know that if you want to wait in our ask a question, we've got our guest daniel byman until the end of the program, a little before 9:00 eastern. if you would like to call, if you're in the eastern or central time zone. if you're outside the united states you can call us on 202748 8002. dan, you are a professional staff member on the 9/11 commission. can you remind viewers of what the commission concluded about what happened that day, intelligence failures and the recommendations? guest: 9/11 commission had a large number of recommendations , some of which were related to the threat itself. urging the united states to focus not just on terrorism in general, but instead on al qaeda and associated movements in

particular. rather than treat this as a broad danger where there is enemies everywhere to focus, but a lot of the response concerned immigration. one of the problems in the pre-9/11 era was a distinction between threats at home and threats abroad. and it seemed like the fbi focused primarily at home. organizations like the cia and national security agency focused abroad. and there would be some sort of handoff. but what the 9/11 attack showed was that sort of distinction does not work. hear you had a group based in afghanistan and pakistan was operating in the united states and there was concern that there were terrorist networks in the united states there were extensive that were responding to foreign direction. one of the goals was to integrate foreign and domestic intelligence, and that was done to a fair degree. we just talked about 702, that's one example where there was greater power to go from abroad

and individuals who were suspected of terrorism abroad to investigating at home. there were organizations formed like the national counterterrorism center to try to bring together people from different neuropathies to work together more effectively. one of the hopes is better foreign and abroad coronation. related to that is better data sharing in general. one of the problems that 9/11 investigations found was that the fbi in particular was often not fully sharing information. let's be fair to the fbi. parts of this were bureaucratic and the fbi had different field offices that often were keeping information to themselves and then the fbi as a whole often was not sharing information with other parts of the government in a timely way. at the time the fbi had their

-- a very bad information system and part of that was simply a technical issue. there had also been an emphasis, and you have to go back to the 1990's and look at things like waco and rubi ridge where the fbi's efforts were seen by many americans as abusive and infringing on civil liberties. there was a term that the fbi shouldn't be sharing information probably until it was proven to a very high degree. so if the fbi simply gathered some information on americans, it should not treat this as something it should share widely throughout the u.s. government but instead guard very carefully. one thing the 9/11 attack showed was that had consequences for national security as well. one of the goals was to better integrate that information. another recommendation was on foreign policy, and that was the recommendation that counterterrorism be elevated as an issue of importance. that a really shaped american foreign policy around the world. i think with the rise of china, brussels brutal invasion of

ukraine, there has clearly been a shift in recent years but in the aftermath of 9/11 itself and with the arise of the islamic state, there was a strong sense that this is the primary foreign policy threat facing the united states and america needs to optimize itself. host: just stand by, because we will show viewers the beginnings of the ceremony happening right now in new york city at ground zero. ♪

[reading names] host: that is the beginning of the ceremony happening right now the new york city at ground zero, the reading of the names. if you'd like to watch that, that's over on c-span2 right now. you can also catch it on c-span.org and on our free mobile video app. we are going to go back to daniel byman and start taking your calls for him, staff member of the 9/11 commission. luke is up first, kingston, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a 9/11 first responder and i got disabled from those events.

so this is really a day for me never to forget. and when the planes hit those towers and the towers went down, was there within 24 hours of the buildings collapsing. the buildings were still collapsing for 5, 6, 7 days. the whole week. the sirens were going off and people would start running all over again. it was really rough. i worked 16 hour shifts and i was in the army national guard. we were stuck at fort hamilton and they would pack 25 people in a room. we did not have time to take showers, we were so exhausted. it was a sad day for the people that died. i was stationed at the morgue also and i worked the pile. the body parts totaled in the tens of thousands. there are three things i would like to see happen. one, i would like to see saudi arabia who financed all of this pay up to the victims and the first response was --

responders. number two, i would like the airline companies to meet their right and they walked scot-free away from any lawsuits. they were given a blind pardon. and the third thing i would like to happen is i would like to see all the federal funding that has been given out, to stop giving it all to the lawyers and doctors and actually give it to the responders. and i worked at homeland security after that. i have plenty of briefings, i understand that the world trade center is actually a financial center that did not belong to the united states, that's why it was part of port authority. i understand they moved it to singapore and is the society of economic structures but saudi arabia has not then our friend. they have been cutting gas prices and cutting production with us -- with russia to hurt us. they need to start paying these families. that's what i feel. host: what do you think of that, dan?

guest: so let me begin i saying thank you. one thing that i think all americans learned or relearned was how much we rely on our first responder community for so many things. and to see the heroism of people like you and many people you worked with even many years later is still incredibly moving to me. and to me, one of the outrages of post-9/11 that has been invoked again and again this terrible attack. but many of the people who did the most to respond to the immediate aftermath of the tragedy are suffering health effects, psychological effects and they are not getting the support they need. when we talk about heroes, they are often invoked in rhetoric but in practice we need to do , more. on saudi arabia i do have a slightly different view than the caller. the saudi situation is quite complex. the saudi arabia government did

not finance the 9/11 attacks and repeated investigations have shown that. however, al qaeda itself got considerable support from wealthy citizens in saudi arabia and other gulf states. so, it might be what saudi arabia failed to do was cracked -- was cracked down on the known danger. and there is good news here where in post-9/11, especially after 2003, when there begin to be attacks on the kingdom itself, saudi arabia became more aggressive about terrorism financing but it still has a long way to go. we saw that when the islamic state emerged where there was funding from a number of gulf states. this is outrageous. again it wasn't from , governments, it was from people. from the responsibilities of government is to ensure that people under their jurisdiction are behaving properly. and so, in my view, the proper

response is u.s. pressure on saudi arabia to stop terrorism financing, and there has been some good effort. i will stress that is across demonstration so not republican or democrat thing but more needs to be done. i do think it's important to recognize that saudi arabia is both an important partner, but also has many differences with united states and we have seen this on human rights, russia. we need to recognize that the u.s.-saudi relationship is going to be complicated. in my view it's necessary, but , it's also that we should recognize their arsenic and princes and the united states and saudi arabia will often be on different sides on important issues. host: john is in germantown, maryland. go ahead, john. caller: i think the best thing that ever happened with the whole situation in the middle east was when president trump started drilling for oil and drill, drill, drill, and took us off this saudi oil.

and i do think the saudi's were involved in 9/11. in fact, the prints -- prince was the bad man that gave the money to the pilots who flew into the buildings. now i believe he is the king of saudi arabia. and the families who tried to sue to get information about 9/11, the victims here have been rebuffed by our own government. now the saudi's wanted take the world off the petro dollar, which is the u.s. dollar and go to some other currency. so guess what? we find a lot of wars to try to prevent that. host: sorry to interrupt, but we are running very low on time. can you give a brief response, dan? guest: again i will stress the saudi government was not funding

9/11. individual saudi's lady said of control but the saudi government did not. more broadly, i do think that the united states needs to recognize that the energy market overall is something that has tremendous national security vulnerabilities. and i think president biden's efforts to encourage a wide range of alternative energy is one of the best things we can do, not just for the environment but for national security. host: all right, daniel byman the former 9/11 commission staff member. he is also at the center for strategic and international studies, transnational threat project, senior fellow. dan, thank you so much for joining us. guest: my pleasure. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal. coming up tuesday morning we will discuss the houses returned from august recess and pending september 30 deadline to fund

the government with politicos anthony and dragnet. university of maryland law professor talks about lawsuits being filed in several states, seeking to disqualify former president trump from the presidency based on the 14 them emmett instruction because. and then delagarza, president of the libre initiative discussed campaign 2024 and recent polling among latino voters. c-span's "washington journal. joining the conversation live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> coming up tuesday, live on the c-span network. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span ahead of the securits d exchange commission, gary gensr stifies on s policies before the senate banking committee. at noon, house lawmakers return from their recess to work on several bills includin legislation that will put

sanctions on arod for the missile and drum program. on c-span two, theene is back at 10:00 a.m. to consider mo of president biden's executiveudial nominations. in afternoon centers will vote to advance a 2020 forced pending bill -- spending bl ead of the deadline to fund the government. at 10:00.m easternhe secretary of state testifies on the ilno state entire book and lobby for theene judiciary committee. at 2:30 p.m., a hearing on setting a framework for relating the usofrtificial intelligence. these events also stream life on the c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> on capitol hill, deputy energy secretary david turk testified an application of ai on the department of energy's work in science technology. this hearing is about two hours.