>> happy father's day, daddy. i love you. >> that is sweet. i could hear lucy in the background making noises. >> now they don't have to buy a card. this is your favorite holiday now. >> no doubt. >> ran on the republican creed with who shook up the world of politics. dave brat, age 49, started his campaign six months ago and upsetting eric cantor now. who saw that coming? good morning. live here in "america's newsroom." >> what great day to be here. we are talking about eric cantor reportingly outraising his challenger 28-21 but dave brat

said people want someone that fights for them. >> the american people are interested in ideas and moving beyond the sound byte. my entire campaign was built along a stump speech that took 20 minutes or so with serious ideas >> eric cantor is the first sitting house majority to lose into primary since the position was created a hundred years ago. here is cantor with supporters in the brief address last night. >> i know there is a lot of long faces here tonight. it is disappointing, sure. but i believe in this country, i believe there is opportunity around the next corner for all of us. i look forward to continuing to fight with all of you for the

things we believe in for the conservative cause because those solutions of ours are the answer to the problems that so many people are facing today. >> and doug mcelway starts the coverage in richmond virginia. what happened last night? >> that is the question that eric cantor is asking. a lot of mainstream republicans are asking always. i think if he could do it again he would come out strongly against immigration reform and he was portrayed as being in favor of amnesty which isn't true. dollars do not vote said brat and he tapped into a discontent

with washington fueled by radio talk shows which are fueled in this state. speculation there was a small turnout on a rainy day and that turned out not to be true. 18,000 more people voted in this primary this year than did two years ago. and immigration reform is likely dead as a door nail in the house after this election result especially when you consider what is going in on border states with this influx of young immigrants, children and young adults, with no place to store them is pointing out things like brat and mark levin are pointing out, we are loosing the control of civil society if you look at the places where these people are being stored. >> live in richmond virginia,

thanks for that. what to we know about the guy behind the biggest political upset in recent memory? dave brat is a little known, litt little novice who has never held office. he is from detroit, a college economic professor who has been teaching at randolph macon college. >> house speaker john boehner saying eric cantor and i have been through a lot together. he is a great fourteened frepd and leader and someone i rely on. we may see the house speaker later this morning.

if that happens on the hill, we will go live. chris is live and how are you? i have four points. number one the comment he made. too much attention to wall street and not enough attention to main street. decided to run to congress after washington's reaction to the economic collapse in 2008-2009. stra strata. >> the $700 billion bail out of washington wasn't poplar but was deemed necessary. there is a strong since though that the deck is stacked against them. people in influential positions get rich. hilary clinton. and they have access into where

decisions are made and this goes against folks working hard to make it work. this relates to a sense of democracy where the people that have been disenfranchised wants back in. >> and point two, he told h hannity we ran on the republican lead and was quoting reagan. >> the republicans thought maybe this will be competitive. it won't. it is a plus 15 republican district. the republicans are going to be united. they had their unity moment. eric cantor is going to run as a write-in. brat's rival is a professor at the same college.

democrats hope that dave brat was going to show up carrying a musket and screaming at people. he's going to be an effective candidate. >> it sounds grassroots. the big tea party didn't put money in his campaign. and larry norvick said it was anybody but cantor on the surface there. people underestimated how big that movement was and it didn't show up in polling. >> he was surprised and they released an internal poll that showed the majority leader wildly ahead. it was wrong. turnout was higher than expected

and not just in the conservative prestincts. eric cantor lost it across the board. and brat may have gone to my rival college but this guy worked his tail off. he did a fantastic job and made it work. >> a lot more to analyze on this and we will over the next two hours. back in 1994, then house speaker tom foley loosing to george nethercut, a lawyer who had never run for office. it came as the republicans took the control for the trirs time

in fur decades. >> was eric cantor loosing in virginia and another member of the republican establishment destroying the position. lindsay graham had no problem defeating six lesser known challengers. he has been facing people talking about the bail out and other things. here he is. >> it is okay to believe conservative is the best way for younger people because there are. there are better days ahead. don't write our party off. make the other party earn your vote. give us a chance, folks. >> he is considered to win a third term against brad hutto in south carolina.

>> and we will have more on the cantor upset straight ahead. what does it mean for the coming midterm and republican party as whole? and what part did the tea party play here? are the reports of its demise exaggerated? >> and you can talk to us on twitter. fire up your thoughts and if you have questions we will try to get them to our great guest. >> sounds good. and a fox news news alert on another big story. we may finally get answers about the white house strategy behind the bergdahl swap. chuck hagel is set to testify at a house hearing in just under an hour from now. the big question is who exactly made the call for five taliban commanders in exchange for

captured american soldier bowe bergdahl. mike eeemmanual is hive on the hearing. what do we expect this morning? >> this is the first open on camera hearing looking at the swap. the house armed service committee is first to get a crack at an official in an open setting. there are questions about the events of getting bergdahl back into u.s. custody insist the secretary is upbeat about the hearing. >> he looks forward to explaining why this was the right thing and why it was in keeping in interest with the national people. >> but he is walking into a congress that is furious with them. >> it will be an interesting hearing. as we wait for that, new

information on the decision to swap bergdahl for five taliban leaders. what insiders said about the release before the deal was done. >> and hilary clinton admitting she kept private notes about benghazi and will they remain private? what she is saying about turning them over to the select committee. >> and unknown beating out a heavy political weight. what it might mean for the party in november. we will check it out >> our founding was built by political philosophers and we need to get back and to that away from the cheap rhetoric of right and left. right and left. female announcer ] the complete balanced nutrition of great-tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, and 9 grams of protein.

[ bottle ] ensure®. nutrition inharge™. that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve. at humana, we believe if healthcare changes, if it becomes simpler... if frustration and paperwork decrease...

if grandparents get to live at home instead of in a home... the gap begins to close. so let's simplify things. let's close the gap between people and care. ♪

ish

who made the call over the prisoner swap that killed five taliban commanders and who warned the administration about doing it? we are about to find out after chuck hagel testifies. there is a new report warning that two of the detainees would return to taliban fighting. they didn't support the claims of john kerry.

>> we need discretion in the choice of word and don't have that with secretary of the state. they are going to recruit hundreds of thousands of people to pick up the rivals >> adam kingsler s here. good morning and welcome to "america's newsroom." what do you think about the warning of setting them free? who was listening to that and who cared to hear that opinion? >> obviously in the administration no one was listening to it because this change of five senior taliban is a bad thing for national defense. i hope it is the president who knew because i would hate to think the president was trying to blame someone else for the mistakes he made.

we need to get to the idea of who knew what. the idea it takes an intel report to go back and do recruiting for the taliban. the common sense says if they are jihadist willing to die for their cause they are going to be committed to the same cause and now go back with the status of legend because they survived quote unquote gitmo. >> hilary clinton was asked about this on nbc and let's take a moment if we could and listen to how she react and her prediction for the five men once they are back home. >> these five guys are not a threat to the united states. they are a threat to the safety and security of afghanistan and pakistan. it is up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. i think we maybe, kind of, missing the bigger picture. we want to get an american home.

whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk, pushed or jumped, we try to rescue everybody. >> these five guys are not a threat to the united states. they are a threat to the safety of pakistan and afghanistan. what do you think about that? >> bill, this is why the world is on fire. it is this kind of ignorance. the afghanistan people know the taliban is a threat to them. they have 350,000 soldiers trying to fight the taliban. there were no americans in afghanistan on september 10th, 2001. so this idea of what is going on over there doesn't affect us is just bad. >> i don't know what the reports are but they are suggesting

chuck hagel made the call and not the president. and then the commander and chief showed up in the rose garden as we saw ten days ago. what to make of all of this? >> i will probably not buy that but if it is true and the president was out playing golf or doing whatever that shows a lack of leadership. that is what happened in every mistake in this administration whether it was the irs or benghazi; the president didn't know about it. he needs to take a leadership role. we will find out the president knew and pulled the trigger and now he has to live with the consequences of five taliban members back in the hand with the enemy. don't try to pass the blame and buck. >> what do you want to know

about bergdahl right now? have you thought about that? >> i don't have a ton of compassion with him. i think it is obvious he was a deserter and whenever you leave men and women in combat. we were told your country will never leave you behind but there is a two-way street and you cannot leave yours behind. it is good he is home but i don't have a lot of sympathy for him. it is a nightmare situation in iraq. a major city is falling into hands of taliban now it is happening where americans sacrificed so much >> and a ruling that could make it easier to fire teachers. what this decisions means across the country. >> this is an attack on teachers

which is a way to attack students and school stability now. now. so i can reach ally bank 24/7 but there are no branches? 24/7 i'm sorry- i'm just really reluctant to try new things. really? what's wrong with trying new things? you feel that in your muscles? yeah...i do... drink water. it's a long story. well, not having branches lets us give you great rates and service. i'd like that. experience a new way to bank where no branches = great rates. ally bank. your money needs an ally. take it on the way you always have. live healthy and take one a day women's 50+. a complete multivitamin with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. age? who cares.

will you be a sound sleeper, or a mouth breather? a mouth breather! [ whimpers ] how do you sleep like that? well, put on a breathe right strip and shut your mouth. allergy medicines open your nose over time, but add a breathe right strip and pow! it instantly opens your nose up to 38% more. so you can breathe and do the one thing you want to do -- sleep.

add breathe right to your allergy medicine. shut your mouth and sleep right. breathe right.

>> major blow to the republican establishment a with political novice taking down one of the powerful people in washington. he was unknown, underfunded and a professor, dave brat defeating eric cantor. brat saying cantor left touch with conservative american principles. >> dollars don't vote, you do, and that is why we won this campaign. this campaign is about basic american values and virtues from the beginning and the major premise is we belong to the

people. >> eric cantor conceding dethe defeat de -- the defeat and saying it was painful. >> iraq's second city has fallen to islamic militants and now the fighters are from an al qaeda splinter group pushing further south into the an oil refinery town setting a police station and court house on fire and seizing a building. where are the militants heading next peter deucey is live. >> the fear is they are headed to the capital in baghdad and people there are stockpiling food and fuel just in case. the second largest city in iraq

was overwhelmed my the military with isil, an al qaeda splinter group. their assault triggered a 500,000 resident rush away from the fighting and main roads were jammed. but american-trained iraqi police fled the city and shed weapons who were scooped up by them. they took a 60-vehicle convoy south to take control of an oil town without firing a shot. the iraqi government is getting together to declare a state of emergency. >> what is the white house doing to help? >> they are only willing to give

pointers. there is no indication they are on their way back. >> this is the iraqi government to deal with. we are doing what we can. >> the white house is calling on the prime minister to do more to resolve issues among the iraqi people. >> peter deucey, thank you. okay. defense chuck hagel is in for grilling on capital hill and how will he explain? >> and wake up. a sleeper candidate knocks out one of the most powerful lawmakers in washington and what dave brat's victory means for the mid-term. >> i ran on free markets, rule of law, property rights,

immigration. i don't think those are right and left issues. they are free market, constitutional issues. constitutional issues. i think the numbers speak for themselves. i'm sold! a "selling machine!" ready for you alert, only at lq.com. seeing the world in reverse, and i loved every minute of it. but then you grow up and there's no going back. but it's okay, it's just a new kind of adventure. and really, who wants to look backwards when you can look forward?

♪ ♪ ♪ [ chainsaw buzzing ] humans. sometimes, life trips us up. sometimes, we trip ourselves up. and although the mistakes may seem to just keep coming at you, so do the solutions. like multi-policy discounts from liberty mutual insurance. save up to 10% just for combining your auto and home insurance. call liberty mutual insurance at...

to speak with an insurance expert and ask about all the personalized savings available for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage and savings -- all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call... and ask about all the ways you could save. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

are the largest targets in the world, for every hacker, crook and nuisance in the world. but systems policed by hp's cyber security team are constantly monitored for threats. outside and in. that's why hp reports and helps neutralize more intrusions than anyone... in the world. if hp security solutions can help keep the world's largest organizations safe, they can keep yours safe, too. make it matter. first you have to get your own house in order before you can help others and we are out of control. $17 trillion in debt and no leader is mentioning the bis est economic problems we have.

>> an unknown pulling off an upset in the primarys. dave brat beating out eric cantor. bringing enrich lowry and our other guest is here as well. good morning. $17 trillion in debt. it may not be in the headlines but it hasn't gone away. was this a local race or was this a reflection of what the county is? >> every race is a local race is what this shows. and eric cantor is a hard working politician but he is working on national things like running the house and raising money and he became disconnect today this district and that is just -- disconnected --

potentially deadly for anyone. but the sayings the tea party is dead this week and alive. the tea party is never going away. it is bedrock part of the party and everyone of the races depends on the candidates, circumstances and how they run their campaign. >> you don't have to be a tea party person and be upset with $17 trillion. you can call that irresponsible spending in government. >> that is right but they are most motivated by it. but the biggest thing in this election was immigration. the way to put a dagger in his heart about this was to kick out cantor. >> i know the polling is often wrong. ppd said overwhelming that

district wants immigration reform. cantor tried to have it both ways. six tea party members lost to lindsay graham. i think the general election could favor a democrat in a republican district. >> he didn't know on about the tea party or immigration. but he went on going door to door knocking and the american people know the country is headed in the wrong direction. that is a simple message. >> it is a general sense people are fed up and don't trust the national institution. this was a populus revolt. >> i think you are right. but the general election is

going to be different than the primary. there is great discontent with the republican leadership in this but with the general election it could be a different story. >> it is true that eric cantor was scene by many as the guy who was working on his next job could be or if he runs again speaker of the house. and the folks in his district recognized and picked up on that. i thought the turnout for a primary was extraordinary. the numbers far outpaced the numbers from last year. >> they say a low turnout helps the insurge candidate and you had a higher turnout and brat still won. >> in a primary election like this your base voters show up, turned out and in large numbers.

>> it isn't just he won. he won by 11 points which is huge. >> he is going to win the general. it is ten point plus republican district. he is not a crazy man and didn't commit many gaps >> no, but brat has said things like hitler could happen again. >> you need better than that. >> he said i ran the republican creed and was quoting reagan. >> and he said the government has a monopoly on violence because we have a military that can enforce laws. this is far right-ring stuff that could hurt him. >> the definition of government in a civil society is they should have a monopoly on violence. >> my initial purpose for running was the financial crisis back in 2008-2009 for that.

thank you, gentlemen. we will consider our analysis. and a news alert with the other big story of the morning. chuck hagel is about the take to hot seat on capital hill. a house armed service committee hearing set to get underway at the top of the hour and hagel will face tough questions about the bergdahl swap. mike thornberry is the vice chir man and thanks for being here. what is the most pressing question for hagel? >> one is who made the question. the president was happy to take the blame but now they are back pedaling and saying it whagel. and now we will ask about the danger of releasing the five

leaders who can go back into the fight. and we will ask about the notification issues not because it hurts our feelings but because of what happens in the intelligence community and military depends on congress getting timely, accurate information so we can do our job under the constitution. >> and there is talk that secretary hagel is the fall guy. did you believe he would risk his military reputation to fall on the sword of political pr pressuprec? >> i know this white house manages everything with shortterm interest. so they might have said we need you to fall on the sword and sign this paper. >> was the taliban/bergdahl swap the right move?

>> no, i don't think so. all of us are glad to have many american released and backed safely. but there as an enormous cost to be paid in negotiating with terrorist and releasing these five senior taliban commanders and ignoring the law that requires congress to be notified and consulted 30 days before any release occurs. >> we will look to whatever questions getting answered today but once all of the question are answered what might be the fall out, congressman? >> that is a good question. we will see what the answers are. a lot of what we do and the interaction between the intelligence and military community depends on trusting each other to get accurate

information and timely information. when you cannot trust that it is a different ball game. >> we appreciate your time this morning and we will be keeping an eye on all of the developments there. congressman, thornberry thank you. >> we have the advanced opening statement and we will not put them out but they are interested now. and we will see at at the top of the hour. hilary clinton defending her handling of the benghazi attack and how is that sitting with the families of the victims? >> and a major ruling that will make it easier to fire school teachers and could mean big changes for students across the nation. >> we finally have the opportunity to redefine our system to ones that will recognize the hard work put in my effective teachers and one

that quite frankly makes sense for our kids. for our kids. milo's kitchen. made in the usa with chicken or beef as the number one ingredient. the best treats come from the kitchen. and

former secretary of state hilary clinton continuing to defend her handling of the benghazi attack. in an interview with nbc news she makes his revelation about the investigation. >> you write in detail about what was happen in benghazi.

did you keep a diary? >> i kept a lot of notes. >> if they want your notes would you turn it over? >> they can read it in the book. i don't want to be part of something that politicizes or demeans the sacrifice we saw there. >> that sacrifice includes sean smith. his uncle is with us and has written for fox and been with us before. he is here now. the questions about benghazi continue to come out and what is our observation about how he handled answers and explained this? >> she is a failure in some ways. her arrogance shows how she

feels about this. she is like the greek myth eco where i can to a large degree she is in love with the sound of her own voice. it is time to take it serious ms. clinton. >> when asked as to whether or not she will testify on the hill. watch here. >> you have said repeatedly you take responsible for what happened in benghazi. >> well, i do. >> doesn't that include testifying before congress if they want you? >> we will see. whether they do or don't i am not going to prejudge it. >> what do you think of that? >> hilary clinton needs to be subpoenaed and she would be held in criminal content if she

doesn't reply. >> do you think she will turn over those notes? >> we will see. i suggest congressman goudy subpoena here. >> what do you think we would learn? >> i am not sure, to be honest, with you. but i think maybe the heart of darkness that exist within the concept of hilary clinton. >> the heart of darkness. >> i think hilary clinton is a serial liar to be honest. her entire career has been based on a consistent amount of lying and hiding the truth and i think that will be revealed in this. >> the uncle of sean smith and thank you. she will talk to brett and gretta as well this week. a summer camp with a

disturbing twist. children being learned in terror and learning military exercises including how to carry an ak-47. and >> and why teacher tenure could be under fire. be under fire. upgrade to the philips norelco shaver series 8000 be under fire. for the most advanced shaving experience. with gyroflex 3d technology, yocan get to those hard to reach places for the ultimate shave wet or dry. guaranteed. visit philips.com/fathersday now to save $50. where when you run a business, you can't settle for slow.

that's why i always choose the fastest intern. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi?

i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. i can't wait to get to mattress discounters because the tempur-pedic bonus event ends sunday. choose $300 in free gifts, and, get up to 48 months interest-free financing with any tempur-pedic mattress. ♪ mattress discounters

we are getting a look at what it is like inside a jihad camp for kids. thousands of children running up for the hamas camp. pictures showing courses for flames and barb wire, run in protest and forimation and also how to fire an ak-47.

a major court ruling is sparking debate that protects teachers from being fired. a state judge struck down tenure and teacher unions are vowing appeal. will car is with us. will theys this have a ripple effect? >> think about how many people have had a tenure teacher. this lawsuit was brought by nine students who claim this violates constitutional rights and a superior judge agreeed saying quote they take away from the

fundamental right to education. david welch is behind this and says he only has a gripe with imcompitant teachers. >> the six million children and their families depending on us i ask you seize the moment to make public education such as it serves our children. >> the judge placed a junction on the rule and a stay. >> teachers unions are saying they will appeal this. do we have information about the appeal? >> that is right. they say they are highly disappoi disappointed with the ruling and they will appeal. >> when you attack teacher's right to a hearing, due process,

you ask for a teacher turn over factory and that is affects the students in a dramatic way. >> but the other sides it effects them by having in comp tent teachers that can't be fired. lawmakers get a crack at chuck hagel as to why we did the bergdahl deal. we will listen about bergdahl's health, the commanders and what might they do in the future. >> and what an underdog over a republican power player could mean for the future of the parties leadership and the

agenda. book any flight or hotel and if you find it for less, we'll match it and give you 50 dollars off your next trip expedia, find yours marge: you know, there's a more enjoyable way to get your fiber. try phillips fiber good gummies. they're delicious, and an excellent source of fiber to help support regularity. wife: mmmm husband: these are good! marge: the tasty side of fiber. from phillips.

how can a tablet replace your laptop? start with the best writing experience. make it incredibly thin. add an adjustable kickstand, a keyboard, a usb port, and the freedom of touch. and, of course, make it run microsoft office, with the power and speed to do real work. introducing surface pro 3. the tablet that can replace your laptop. so i can reach ally bank 24/7 but there are24/7branches? i'm sorry- i'm just really reluctant to try new things. really? what's wrong with trying new things? you feel that in your muscles? yeah...i do... drink water. it's a long story. well, not having branches lets us give you great rates and service. i'd like that. experience a new way to bank where no branches = great rates. ally bank. your money needs an ally. ♪

save your coffee from the artificial stuff. ♪ switch to truvia. great tasting, zero-calorie sweetness... ...from the stevia leaf.

jon: 10:00 in washington. moments away addressing defense secretary chuck hagel about the case of major grilling. lawmakers want to know about the deal of the release of five taliban leaders in the exchange for bowe bergdahl. pointing questions of who was responsible for making the final call. about to hold the first open hearing since the deal went down, and there has been a lot of attention on this story, and rightfully so ever since. it will be an interesting hour. welcoming you to "happening now." >> lawmakers want to know who made the call. the white house saying it was the secretary the signed off on it while hagel's of the ultimate decision was president obama's. bill: oklahoma senator ranking

republican, good morning, sir. thank you for your time. he may have been drugs depending on what happens with the chuck hagel hearing. what did you hear last night that change your mind or commenced to otherwise that may be the deal with a good deal after all? anything? >> no, of course not. anytime i hear something new, bill, it is a worse deal. yesterday i found out the two major generals were not even aware it was taking place until after they were released. all these things are coming out now. i think what we are going to hear from the hearing this morning is if you will remember in the rose garden the president took credit for all of the great things, bringing this boy home and all that. when america found out they released the most heinous terrorists in order to do that, people who killed americans, all

of a sudden it became unpopular and all of a sudden it was hagel and not the president. what i would like to see this morning is hagel and opened up and say the same thing i said. i am not expecting it. bill: general austin is the head of commands and the gentleman you mentioned is the commanding general in afghanistan. you say neither man knew the swap was happening? >> that is right. they did not find out until after it was over. the president tried to say we talked about this several months ago. that is meaningless. bill: why would you find that so offensive or so he greeted? >> these guys are outside fighting in charge of all the troops losing lives, over 2000 of them.

and yet all they have been doing, all the effort they went through to get these 5 liters in the taliban is for nothing because they are losing it. you heard the quote of what they're doing in afghanistan right now, so how is it conceivable a decision would be made like this and not tell the generals in command who would have the responsibility that it is happening. i have never seen anything like this in my years in politics. bill: do you see this as more of a shell game of responsibility? >> i am not even sure hagel was aware of it. everybody assumes he is the fall guy to make the president survived this thing. until all of a sudden it fell apart. bill: to be a little bit more poignant on that, can chuck

hagel explained that away? >> i would like to see chuck hagel say i hate to do this to be commander-in-chief, but he is in these hearings like i sat through yesterday, a lot of stuff should not be classified and all six of them, they had one job, not to disagree with each other, all support the president. that is the message we got like the one last week. bill: what is the extent of knowledge you have right now about his mental state, physical state, what he is asking about. where are you on that? >> there is something strange going on because he is not making a contact h you would expect him to make with his father that has been kind of out in front. i don't know what his current mental state is.

i suspect the pictures we saw of him were somewhat staged to get the sympathy of the american people behind him. bill: sorry, which pictures were staged? >> there were some pictures shown in these sessions of him making him look really sick, really bad. i just didn't believe it when i saw it. now they say he is getting better and all of this. they're trying to focus on bergdahl. if this had been one of the real heroes over there, it would not make that much difference because it is distracting from the real problem. the real problem is a president who turned loose five terrorists that ultimately will be back in afghanistan. bill: i am out of time, but i want to be clear on this. you say the pictures they showed you that have not been shown to the public were staged? >> no, they appeared to be

staged to me. bill: the ones you saw, not the ones we have seen. >> that is correct. bill: we're watching that hearing. when chuck hagel starts his statement, we will bring that to you live in a matter of moments. ♪ arthel: meanwhile a fox news alert and a political earthquake in virginia. defeating eric cantor in the republican primary. 56-54%. becoming the first sitting majoritmajority leader in amerin history. losing in a primary bid. the stunning victory comes despite being outspent 50-1 by the campaign raising new questions about who will take cantor's spot in leadership. >> what we should do is call on one another.

i did not run against eric cantor and the person. he is a good man, as a person i ran against a set of sensible. >> the principles i said were always about his we want to create a virginia in america that works for everybody. and we need to focus our efforts as conservatives, as republicans, i'm putting forth our conservative solutions so that they can help solve the problems are so many working middle-class families. arthel: editor at large of national review and a fox news contributor. we are waiting to from chuck hagel. when he takes the floor we will have to interrupt but in the meantime we will start the discussion here. immigration reform, amnesty, semantics, is it now taboo language? >> whether the language is taboo or not i am not so sure, but any

comprehensive legislation have a stake driven through the heart, it is dead and it is not coming anytime. the message out of this in the virginia seventh district for the d.c. establishment, the only way to be more apocalyptic for them is if it turned to blood and frogs rain from the sky. there is a clear message to the d.c. establishment and republicans that their messaging simply isn't working and there is a grassroots focal point. arthel: i just had images of "vanilla sky" with that description. there is a very serious crisis at hand right now. you know about the flood of undocumented immigrants, mostly children, spilling across the borders. is the president hand forced to make executive authority to act

on deportation? >> it may well be. the images we have seen from the border are one of the reasons why, maybe not the only reason why, but one of the factors that plays into victory. the argument from components of amnesty or comprehension of immigration reform is that such policies create anncentive for more illegal immigrants to come. the illegal immigrants on the border who i am very sympathetic to these kids, but they are here in no small part because they got this message kids are welcome here, they'r they are gn lawyers once across the border. so that sort of clear-cut message he is providing that this sort of cycle has to stop is something that helped him. conversely what will have to happen now is in the short term unless congress can get something very focused and targeted that has broad appeal,

obama will do anything about fixing the problem on the border, he will have to do it unilaterally. arthel: i'm going to close with this one on the midterm elections. jonah, you handed this would change the outcome or at least the approach to it. does it put a party at an advantage? and does this dilutes the latino vote? >> i don't know you can take too much away about the latino vote of broadly. people exaggerate how much of the hispanic vote vote simply on immigration issues. i don't believe this is necessarily bad for the republican party in the coming midterms. it will have more effect on the primaries but there is real intensity on the republican side and i think that is something that is actually going to benefit republicans going into

the midterms. arthel: which is not to imply it is the only thing on the top of the agenda for the hispanic vote, just want to clarify that. jonah goldberg, thank you very much. bill: blood in the potomac. money apparently not a factor. eric cantor spent more than $5 million. according to one report, they shelled out $168,000 at stake houses as of the third week of may. that is more than what brett spent on entire campaign. send us a tweet. arthel: we want to hear from you. bill: in the meantime, some breaking news from washington live on the hill. chuck hagel has about a 10 minutes prepared statement.

there is a multitude of questions here. did he make the call, did president obama make the call. what is the health of bowe bergdahl? what kind of information did they have? where are the taliban five, and what is their state and future? plus this. arthel: one of the largest cities in iraq fallen into the hands of al qaeda. why critics say president obama's policies are to blame. >> david patraeus end of the war in iraq. obama threw away the war. talk to your doctor about viagra. ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain. it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away

if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. if your doctor decides viagra is right for you, you can fill your prescription at your pharmacy. or, check out viagra home delivery, a convenient place to fill your prescription online and have it shipped at no additional cost straight to your door. viagra home delivery. get started at viagra.com.

you know that dream... on my count. the one where you step up and save the day? make it happen. (crowd) oh no... introducing verizon xlte. hey guys, i got it right here! we've doubled our 4g lte bandwidth in cities coast to coast. so take on more. with xlte. for best results, use verizon.

bill: keeping a close eye on this because at any moment now chuck hagel will give his statement. we have seen a copy of it, addresses like this or even presidential address, he will say, he will talk about the deal, why it happened when it did. arthel: who called the shots be at bill: who call the shots. and we will get a sense from lawmakers and ask questions why it was necessary to do it now. the part of this is the health of bowe bergdahl. from the very beginning we have been told they were worried about his life, thought his life was in danger, his health was deteriorating in a way that would not keep him healthy enough to keep him alive much

longer. as many doctors would tell you, you cannot assess that unless you analyze individual. obviously that did not happen. we got the exchange, the taliban five are living in cutter with a deal that keeps them there for one year. after that, what then? arthel: that is the question a lot of people's minds. some have very little faith those five taliban leaders can be contained even in a year. bill: opening statements, the republican went first, the democrat is going now. we thought it would begin, but it does not appear just yet. so let's pump off of this and get you to the other big story today. 16 after the hour. from the night last night, no reaction from conservatives after an economics professor defeating 7-term incumbent eric

cantor in the virginia primary. dave brat saying the republican establishment has forgotten about the "republican feed." >> our funding was built by political philosophers and we need to get back to that away from this cheap political rhetoric of right and left. i ran on rule of law, property rights, i ran on immigration. i don't think those are right and left issues. they are free-market constitutional issues. bill: a fox news contributor, good morning to you. one of the first things you say is this, the media will play up cantor's laws saying it was about immigration. they will be wrong. explain. >> immigration was the final piece of the defeat when over the last couple of years a lot of conservative groups in washington and virginia have felt eric cantor isn't an honest

broker with them. they didn't trust eric cantor, so when immigration issue came up it was easy to say look at all of these other issues where we did not think they could trust cantor, and we were right. a series of things were he wanted to be republican majority leader and not coming in from virginia. bill: he is running for speaker of the house while of the constituents wanted a congressman. suggesting he was not a good service for that district. >> it is one of those positions of being in leadership in his position. there was a lot of talk of him trying to lay the groundwork to be the acceptable guy to play the lobbyist of the chamber of commerce and others and he neglected his district.

bill: eric erickson, thank you very much. >> throughout this process, on behalf of the united states the memorandum of understanding between the governments of cutter and the united states. also here presented a joint chief of staff stay behind me is brigadier pat white who was the joint staff pakistan afghanistan cell. he helped coordinate the bergdahl recovery. vice chairman of the joint chiefs and the chairman has noted will join us later this morning in the classified close portion of the hearing. as you know, they played critical roles in meetings with the national security council leading up to sergeant

bergdahl's release and supported decision to move forward with this prisoner exchange. in my statement today i will address the issue of chairman mccann, mr. smith, the issues they raise. the chairman asked me to testify. and explain why it was so urgent to pursue sergeant bergdahl's release. why we decided to move forward with the detainee transfer, and why it was fully consistent with u.s. law, our nation's interest and military's core values. mr. chairman, members of this committee, i want to make one fundamental point. i would never sign any document or make any agreement, agree to any decision if i did not feel they were in the best interest of this country. nor would the president of the united states made the final decision with the full support

of his national security team. i recognize that the speed at which we moved in this case has caused great frustration. legitimate questions and concern. we could have done a better job, could have done a better job of keeping you informed. but i urge you to remember two things. this was an extraordinary situation. first we weren't certain that we would transfer those detainees out of guantánamo until we had sergeant bergdahl in hand. second, we had sergeant bergdahl in hand only a few hours after making the final arrangements. there are legitimate questions about this prisoner exchange and congress obviously has an important constitutional role and right and responsibility to play in all of our military intelligence matters. as a former member of the

chairman of there it and foreign relations, i appreciate the vital role congress plays in our national security. and i'll present to this committee within the limits of an open, unclassified hearing, and a more detailed in the classified hearing everything i can to answer your questions and assure you, this committee, the american people, that this prisoner exchange was done legally, it was substantial mitigation of risk to our country, and in the national interest of this country. let's start with sergeant bergdahl's membe statua member of the u.s. army. he was held captive by the taliban for almost five years. he was originally listed as missing-captured. no charges were ever brought against sergeant bergdahl. and there are no charges pending now.

our international security operation, the intelligence committee and states department pursued every avenue to recover sergeant bergdahl just as the american people and this congress and the congresses before you expected us to do. in fact, this committee, this committee knows there were a number of congressional resolutions introduced and referred to this committee directing the president of the united states to do anything he could to get sergeant bergdahl released from captivity. we never stopped trying to get him back. congress knows that. because he's a soldier in the united states army. questions about sergeant bergdahl's capture rs mr. smith noted and you, mr. chairman, are separate from our effort to recover him. because we do whatever it takes to recover any and every u.s. service member held in captivity. this pledge is woven into the fabric of our nation and our military. as former central commander

marine general recently put it, bottom line, "the bottom line is we don't leave people behind. that is the beginning, and that is the end of what we stand for. we keep faith with the guys that sign on, and that is all there is to it." as for the circumstances surrounding his captivity as secretary of the army and army chief of staff will review later, and they said clearly last week that the army will review, they will review this exchange, circumstance captivity of sergeant bergdahl in a comprehensive, coordinated effort that will include speaking with sergeant bergdahl. and i think i need not remind anybody on this committee, like any american sergeant bergdahl has rights.

and his conduct will be judged on the facts, not political hearsay, posturing charges or innuendos. we do owe that to any american and especially those who are members of our military and families. like most americans, i've been offended and disappointed in how the bergdahl family has been treated by some in this country. no family deserves this. i hope there will be some sober reflection on people's conduct regarding this issue and how it relates to bergdahl's family. in 2011 the obama administration conducted talks with the taliban in a detainee exchange involving the same five taliban detainees that were ultimately transferred after the release of sergeant bergdahl. 2011. these talks, which congress was briefed on, some of you in this room were in those briefings that understand. which congress was briefed on in 2011 and january of 2012.

were broken off by the taliban in march of 2012. we have not had direct talks with the taliban since this time. in september of 2013, the government of qatar offered to serve as an intermediary. in november of last year requested the taliban provide a new proof of life video of sergeant bergdahl. in january of this year, we have seen that video and it was disturbing. some of you may have seen the video. it showed a deterioration in his physical appearance and mental state compared to previous our entire intelligence community carefully analyzed every part of it and concluded sergeant bergdahl's health was poor and possibly declining. this gave us gro growing urgenco act. in april of this year after briefly suspending engagements with this, the taliban again

signaled interest in indirect talks on an exchange. at that point, we intensified our discussions with the qatar government of security assistances and assurance. particularly security assuranc assurances. on may 12 we signed a memorandum of understanding with qatar detail the specific security measures that would be undertaken and enforced, and enforced by them if any taliban detainees were transferred to their custody. steve preston, who i noted earlier, signed that memorandum of understanding on behalf of the united states government. and was included in those negotiations. included in this was risk mitigation measures and commitments from the government of qatar like travel restrictions, monitoring information sharing and limitations on activities as well as other significant

measures, which we will detail in the closing portion of this hearing. they will describe, as you know mr. chairman, in the classified documentation and notification letter i sent to this committee last week. that memorandum is understanding and has been sent to the congress, to be leadership and to the committees and every member of congress has an opportunity to review that memorandum of understanding in a closed setting. u.s. officials received a warning. we received a warning from the qatar intermediaries that as we proceeded, time was not on our side and we will go into more detailed in a classified hearing on those warnings. this indicated the risk to sergeant bergdahl safety work rolling. we move forward with indirect

negotiations on how to carry out that exchange. the exchange of five detainees. and agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of may 27 following three days of intensive talks. that same day, president obama received a personal commitment and a personal telephone call from qatar to uphold and enforce the security arrangements in the final decision was made to move forward with that exchange on that day. as the opportunity to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release became clear, we grew increasingly concerned that any delay or any leaks that would derail the deal and further endanger sergeant bergdahl. we were told by qatar that a leak, any kind of a leak would end the negotiation for bergdahl's release. we also knew he would be

extremely vulnerable during any movement and our military personnel conducting the handoff would be exposed to the possible ambush or other deadly scenarios iand very dangerous territory that we did not control. and we had been given no information on where the handoff would occur. for all these reasons and more, the exchange needed to take place quickly, efficiently and quietly. we believe this exchange was our last, best opportunity to free him. after the exchange was set in motion, only 96 hours passed before sergeant bergdahl was in our hands. throughout this period there was great uncertainty, great uncertainty about whether the deal would go forward. we did not know the general area of the handoff until 24 hours before. we did not know the precise

location until one hour before. and we did not know until the moment sergeant bergdahl was handed over safely to u.s. special operations forces that the taliban would hold up their end of the deal. it wasn't until we recovered sergeant bergdahl on may 31 that we moved ahead with the transfer of the five guantanamo bay detainees. the decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees with a tough call. i supported it, i stand by it. as thick terry of defense i have the authority and responsibility as has been noted here to determine whether detainees, any detainees, but these specific detainees of guantanamo bay to be the transfer of another country, take that responsibility, mr. chairman, members of this committee, damn seriously. damn seriously. as they do a responsibility i

have in this job. neither i nor any member of the presidents security council under any illusions of these five detainees. they were members of the taliban, which controlled much of afghanistan prior all the territory to americans envision an overthrow that regina. their enemy belligerence detained under the law of war and taken to guantánamo in 2001, 2002. i have been in u.s. custody since then. 12, 13 years. but they have not been implicated in any attacks against the united states, and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission. it was appropriate to continue to consider them for an exchange as we had been over the last few years as congress had been told that we were. if any of these detainees try to

rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril. there is also always some risk associated with the transfer of detainees from guantanamo bay this is not a risk-free business. we get that. the u.s. government has transferred 620 detainees, 620 detainees from guantánamo since may 2002. with 532 transfers occurring during the bush administration, and idiots transfers occurring during the obama administration. the case of these five detainees, the communications qatar put in place led me to determine consistently with the national defense authorization act the risk they pose to the united states, our citizens and our interest were substantially mitigated. i consulted with all of the

members of the president's national security team and asked them as they reviewed all of the details, they reviewed the draft of my notification letter, specific line by line, word by word details of that p had i asked for their complete reviews, the risk associated, and i asked either to concur or object to the transfer. the secretary of state, attorney general, secretary of homeland security, director of national intelligence, and the chairman of the joint chief of staff all supported this transfer. all put their names on it. there was complete i unanimity n this decision, the president and i would not have moved forward if wunless we had understandingt we were acting lawfully.

the operation to save sergeant bergdahl's life was fully consistent with u.s. laws and our national security interest in at least five ways. first, we complied with the national defense authorization act of 2014 by determining that the risk of detainees posed to the end of states, american and our interest was substantially mitigated. the transfer was in the national security interest of the united states. second, we fulfilled our commitments to maintain all military personnel held captive. third, we followed the president of past wartime prisoner exchanges, a practice in our country that dates back to the revolutionary war. it has occurred in most wars that we've fought. fourth, because the sergeant bergdahl was a detained combatant being held by an enemy force and not a hostage, it was fully consistent with our long-standing policy not to

offer concessions to hostages. the taliban is our enemy and we are engaged in an armed conflict with them. fifth, we did what was consistent with previous congressional briefings. this administration provided, as i have already noted, in late 2011 and early 2012, reflecting our content to transfer these five individuals. mr. chairman, i fully understand and appreciate the concerns, the questions about our decision to transfer these five detainees to qatar without providing 30 days notice to congress. but under these exceptional circumstances, a fleeting opportunity to protect the life of an american servicemember held captive and endangered for almost five years, the national security team and the president of the united states agreed we needed to act swiftly. we were mindful that this was

not simply a detainee transfer. but a military operation with very high and complicated risks in a very short window of opportunity that we didn't want to jeopardize. both for the sake of sergeant bergdahl and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return. in consultation with the department of justice, it administration concluded the transfer of the five. the options available to us to recover sergeant bergdahl were very few. and far from perfect. they often are in wartime, mr. chairman. especially in a comic and more like we have been fighting in afghanistan for 13 years. wars are messy. and they're full of imperfect choices. i saw this first hand in my service in vietnam in 1968.

1968 this committee may recall was sent home nearly 17,000 of our war dead in one year. i see it as a secretary of defense. a few of you on this committee, if you if you on this committee have experienced war, and you've seen it up close. you know there's always something. there is no glory in war. war is always about human beings, not about machines. wars a dirty business. we don't like to deal with those realities. but realities they are. and we must deal with them. those of us charged with protecting the national security interest of this country are called upon everyday to make the hard, tough, imperfect and sometimes unpleasant choices based on the best information we have and within the limits of our laws. and always based on americans interest. war, every part of war like prisoner exchanges, is not some

extraction or theoretical exercise. the hard choice and options don't fit neatly into clearly defined instructions in how-to manuals. all of these are part of the brutal and imperfect realities we deal with in war. in the decision to rescue sergeant bergdahl, we complied with the law. and we did what we believe was the best interest for our country, our military and sergeant bergdahl. the president has constitutional responsibilities and constitutional authorities to protect american citizens and members of our armed forces. that's what he did. america does not leave its soldiers behind. we made the right decision and we did it for the right reason, to bring home one of our own people. as all of you know, i value the defense department's partnership with this congress. and the trust we developed over the years. i know that trust has been

broken, i know you have questions about that. but i tell you something else, i've always been straightforwa straightforward, completely transparent with this committee since i've been secretary of defense. i'll continue to do that. i'll do that always in all my relationships, associations and responsibilities to congress. that's what i always demanded, mr. chairman. of any administration. when i was a member of the united states senate. i have been on your side of this equation, i understand. that's what i've done this morning. with the statement i made, i made the decision i did, i've explained that in general terms. the circumstances surrounding my decisions were imperfect, and these decisions had to lead to

some kind of judgment always are. the president is in the same position. but you have to make it twice, you have to make a decision. the day after the bergdahl operation, i met with a team of special operators who recovered sergeant bergdahl. they are the best of the best. people who didn't hesitate to put themselves at incredible personal risk to recover one of their own. and i know that we all thank them, i know this committee thanks them. we appreciate everything they do. and we thank all of our men and women in afghanistan who make the difficult also sacrificed y day for this committee. earlier this week we were reminded of the heavy cost of war. the heavy cost of war when we lost five american servicemen in afghanistan. i know our thoughts and our

prayers are with their families. grateful for their service. we are grateful for the service of all our men and women in uniform around the world. as i conclude, mr. chairman, i want to again thank this committee, this committee for what you do every day to support our men and women around the world. mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to make this statement and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. in your statement you indicated that the president had made the final decision on this operation, i appreciate you clarifying that. we had a briefing just a couple of days ago, and the last question asked by a member of congress was who made the final decision, and one of the pre-first stated that you had made the final decision. i think all of us understand how this plays works, and a decision

of this nature is always made by the commander in chief and i think you'vthink you clarify thi appreciated that. mr. secretary, one of the things that has bothered me the most about this is the fact that we did pass a law last year that stated that congress should be notified 30 days before any transfer of detainees from guantánamo. just a little history, we were priests some of us, some of the leadership on this committee and other pertinent committees in congress starting in november of '11 that there was negotiations we were entering into negotiations with the taliban looking toward reconciliation at some point. along with that, in that meeting

there was also mention about a potential transfer of detainees as he mentioned for the release of sergeant bergdahl. that was followed up with another briefing in january, and then the taliban set up a headquarters in qatar. everything hit the fan and we were briefed again saying all of those negotiations have come to a halt. if we start those negotiations again, we will inform you. we never heard another briefing on that matter. we passed that , we felt we did it for a good reason.

the law didn't just state that we would be given a notice, it requires the department provide numerous pieces of critical information including how the risk posed by the detainee had been substantially mitigated, how the transfers in the national security interests of the united states and assessment of the capacity, willingness and past practices of the receiving country along with the notice, along with several other pieces of information and previous had also required that same thing. the loss we passed through this body was soft and some by language from the senate that we worked out in conference which was final language passed last year. you know, mr. secretary, i think you've just made a very strong case for the position taken by the president and the administration. you just left one thing out,

these negotiations as we were told in a briefing last week started in january of this year with the tape and with the other things that went forth, and i've been told in a couple of different briefings now that somewhere i think the final number given to us a couple of days ago was somewhere between 80-90 people in the department of justice, the state department, the homeland security i guess was one of them, and the department of defense knew about this. 8290 people. the only one i knew of that was elected was the president perhaps the vice president. we don't know who those 80-90 people were. a call leadership according to

the constitution with the president of the united states was not informed, not told of any of this. if you had or somebody, i think you have the most credibility, but if you had been able to meet with the responsible people in the congress and give them the same story you just now gave us, the law would have been complied with, we didn't need to know the operational details, we didn't need to know any of that other than the things i had mentioned that the law states in full compliance with the law would have been met. i don't think we would have pushed back at all. and yet when the law is ignored, and we all feel keenly the responsibilities that we have, sometimes more than others. this is one of those times where this is a very important principle, and i wish you or

somebody had sat down with the leadership of the congress, including the senate, and told us the same things you just told us in our briefing here, i think it would have gone, would have been very helpful in reestablishing or establishing or keeping the trust that we should have between congress, the president of the united states, the supreme court, all of us trying to work together for the satisfaction of the constitution and the american people that we are all sent here to serve. let me just ask one question, secretary hagel, will the department fully cooperate with this committee's inquiry going forward with the detainee

exchange including the recent request that i sent a couple of days ago for documents? >> absolutely. yes. >> thank you very much, and thank you for your service in the military in uniform and in the senate and now in this very tough job you hold. mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. two very important parts to th this, but the first is this whole notion that we've somehow broken precedents. this negotiation we negotiated with terrorists and it went against the long-standing u.s. policy. that has been the central criticism from the speaker yesterday and i think it is absolutely wrong given the situation that we were in, as you described it. we went to war in afghanistan. sergeant bergdahl was fighting in that war. we were fighting directly against the taliban. for the first couple of months

we were the government. they were knocked out and kept fighting as an insurgent force. could you walk us through, maybe as a lawyer you can get into this, how you view this and whether or not this is unprecedented. because it doesn't seem to be. there are exchanges and just about everywhere we have fought with prisoners. whatever one may think of the caliban, we were fighting a war with them, it was in a battle zone, it was not with diplomat or civilian. number of armed forces captured in that battle. do you think we have set some president here for negotiating with terrorists, or is it as clearly as it is in my mind in a different legal category? >> , rissman smith, thank you. i, as you noted, i alluded to some of this in my statement. two general comments to respond

and then i will ask mr. president you suggested his thoughts. one, this was an extraordinary situation for reasons i've mentioned i think in the classified briefings that some of you have attended or heard will get more into the extraordinary dynamics when we close this hearing down and going to classified. it was a unique set of circumstances we were dealing with, number one. in the president's side of this, i am not a legal person here, but i do occasionally read. i don't think there were any precedents set by this. in past wars and how it always gotten our prisoners back or tended to get them back time of war or active for, we can get

into all of the appropriate categorizations of who are combatants and who we are at war with and who are terrorists and we have legal definitions for all of those, but i said something at the beginning of my testimony here. i know it is imperfect, but i do think it plays into the larger scope of what we are dealing with. we are still dealing with and will be dealing with not only in afghanistan, but you look at yemen, what is going on all over the world, what is unprecedented today is the threat and what we are up against around the world. organized, sophisticated terrorist groups. have we declared war on any of them or how have we defined them other than some as terrorist groups, but these are different

dynamics and unprecedented situations this country has never had to deal with before. i will make one last comment and then ask mr. president for his legal opinion on your question. you all have major responsibilities. i had a responsibility of getting up every morning, i have one response ability, that is the security of this country, that is what i am charged with. that is what the president asked me to do, i agreed to do it, took an oath of office. that is the constitution security of this country. that is my primary focus every day. you all have your focus. no too dissimilar from mine also. i just happen to have a more narrow gauge of what i do. the president of the united states has the ultimate responsibility, which is the

security of this country. it is imperfect, and it may sound like an excuse, but it is reality. i will ask mr. president. thank you. >> thank you. there is of course a great deal of detail, technical legal detailing what constitutes a pow versus a detained combatant or privileged or unprivileged, i don't think we need to get into that to answer your question what we had here were detained combatants held by opposing forces in the same armed conflict. and as such, this exchange falls within the tradition of prisoner exchanges between opposing forces in time of war. now it is true the taliban is not the conventional nationstate that has been party to conventional armed conflict in

the past, but it is not the character of the holding party, it is a character of the detainee that inspires and motivates our commitment to the recovery of servicemembers held abroad. we don't see this as setting a particular precendence vote because it does fall within that prisoner exchanges and that have been in the past locations where the united states has dealt with nonstate actors were holding servicemembers in order to achieve the recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> the one example i am aware of helicopter pilot michael durrant in somalia who was held captive by the warlord, and there was a quiet arraignment in with yo interstates regained durrant's freedom and functionally and

exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> any characterization of this is to go shooting with terrorists misses the fact we were and are at war. he is a member of our military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion at the end 2014, we consider that the end of facilities because we will still have 10,000 troops there, but there was hostilities, these five would have had to be released as the end of hostilities. was that the department's opinion, do they feel the opposite? >> sir, the way i would answer that is we believe we have under domestic law specifically the a mof and under and nest all of the law of armed conflict we have authority to hold and had

the authority to hold these five at guantanamo bay as enemy which rents. there will come a point in time where the armed conflicts we are engaged with with the taliban and al qaeda and their associates come to an end. at that point the law of war rationale for continuing to hold these unprivileged belligerents would end unless there were some other basis for continuing to hold them such as prosecution. >> not just the war in afghanistan, but the broader balance defined. >> a further point i would make is i'm not aware of any determination as yet that with the sensation of the current combat mission that the end of this year the armed conflicts are determined to be over such it would trigger the

consequences we have discussed. >> thank you. the last thing i would say, i would reemphasize a point the chairman made and the point i made in my opening statement, it would be oh so more helpful, the department has been very good about consulting with us and about working with this body, so it is not really about that. the white house on the other hand has not been very good about keeping in touch with congress, working with us, consulting with us on major policy issues. it is sort of hit or miss. if we could do better about that, it would make my job a whole lot easier if we could just trust congress a little bit and have those consultations before policy decisions are finalized. i think it would make this entire town work better than it is right now. i yield back. >> there are two things i need clarified. did you, mr. president, say at

some point conflict would end and we would have to release them, no point to hold them? and if the conflict is ending in december of this year? >> sir, we point was when the armed conflict an ends, the abiy to hold on the basis of their -- >> you have to point out which armed conflict you are talking about. her answer was not the armed conflict in afghanistan, it was one that was defined, as long as we're fighting al qaeda, as long as we are fighting their associated forces, that is the end conflict you're talking but being over, not afghanistan. that was a point of the chairman's question. >> the point is we are currently in armed conflict with the taliban and al qaeda.

when it's ends, and at that point, for those detainees being held as enemy belligerents against our enemy, the taliban, unless there is an additional basis for holding them, then we would no longer have that international law basis for holding them. now it's been suggested taliban may also be candidates to be held as associates of al qaeda as the conflict with al qaeda continues. >> the point that mr. smith ma made, this conflict may not end in december just because majority of our troops are pulled out. >> that is my understanding as well, sir. >> we felt the conflict was over in iraq, but we see it is not. it continues to go on