>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, two important conversations. first, mike morell, former acting director and deputy director of the c.i.a., about our options in north korea. >> there is often talk in the media that north korea is developing this capability. there is talk in the media that it's going to be in 2020 or 2022 that they're going to have it. no, they have it now. we have to assume they have it now. the threat is now. >> rose: secondly, the actor mandy patinkin talks about his experience with refugees and what he believes must be done. >> the fact of the matter is the refugee community in the united states since 1975p3000000 refugees have come here, since 9/11 100 thowrks not a single terrorist incident has taken place by a refugee in the united

states. these are the safest people among us, and we must know that, and we must encourage our leaders, our members of congress, senate, our president, not just in america but all over the world, to know the truth and the facts, and what i gave you are the facts. >> rose: michael morell and mandy patinkin, when we return. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: we begin this evening with rising tensions overseas. the united states dropped an 11-ton bomb on an insurgent cave complex in afghanistan thursday. it was the first time the weapon had ever been used on the batt battlefield. though the mother of all bombs was delivered in afghanistan, it may have sent a message heard in north korea. we want to talk about north korea with michael morell, former acting director and deputy director of the c.i.a. he's been here many times and i'm pleased to welcome him back to this table. welcome. >> thank you. great to be here as always. >> rose: let's start with north korea and talk about the capabilities. what else it they have today? >> charlie, one of the most important things that you do as an intelligence analyst is make clear to the president what you know, what you don't know and what you think. so you separate it like that. this is one of those cases where that's very, very important to do. so what do we know?

we know what he has nuclear devices that work. he's done five tests before. we're talking about a sixth possibly this weekend. he's done five before. most of them -- four of them -- have been successful. so he has nuclear devices that work. so ewe know that. the second thing we know is he has short and medium-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching their targets in zeke, japan and the the region. >> rose: he could reach today? today. we also know that he has deployed an icbm capable of reaching the continental united states, the western part of the united states, not the whole thing but california, washington, oregon. >> rose: he has deployed an icbm that could deliver a

missile to california? >> he has deployed an icbm but never tested it. he's tested the short-range and medium-range missiles but he's never tested one of these icbms. he's deployed but hasn't test it. >> rose: why would he not test it if, in fact, he -- >> two reasons. great question. two reasons. one is, if he tests it and it doesn't work, then the threat is not as significant, right? we don't need to pay as much attention to him. if he tests it and it works, we might overreact. >> rose: right. so, actually, it's in his interests not to test this thing. but he's deployed it. so that's what we know. what we don't know is will these icbms that he's deployed but never tested, will they work or not? we don't know that. we also don't know whether for sure whether he can mate a

nuclear weapon, one of these nuclear devices to macle. we don't know that. >> rose: first thing would be to miniaturize it. >> miniaturize it so you could put it on top of a missile, then it has to be able to withstand the pressures from a missile launch and a missile reentry. so it has to work, right? and we don't know whether he's done that or not. so that's what we don't know. so then what do we think? all right, what we think is that he's had enough time to be able to mate a nuclear weapon to a missile, that they've had enough time and they have the technical capability to do that. so when you put together what we know, what we don't know and what we think, you have to assume that, today, he has the capability, the ability to put a nuclear weapon on the western united states. this is something that the former d.n.i. jim clapper said

publicly six, nine months ago and it's something the narnd of norad said in 2015. so there is often talk in the media that north korea is developing this capability. there is talk in the media it's going to be in 2020 or 2022 that they're going to have it. no. they have it now. we have to assume they have it now. the threat is now. one of the things that's happened over the past several years, since they started testing nuclear weapons and since they deployed this icbm, is the number of nuclear weapons has grown, their nuclear arsenal has grown in size. >> rose: to what? we don't know? >> we don't know for sure, and the estimates by the intelligence community are classified, but it's growing. >> rose: and that's important because if you want to overcome a defense system, the more missiles you have, the better off you have. >> and the more weapons you can

put on that, right? >> rose: right. so four weeks ago he est-- several weeks ago he tested four missiles at once. that message is we can launch more than one missile at a time. >> rose: is the message also you don't have defense systems good enough? because we have more than enough to overwhelm your defense system? >> so we are -- there's a high probability that if he fires one missile, we can deal with it. >> rose: right. every time he fires an additional one at the same time, the probability that we can get them all goes down. >> rose: but there's no magical number in terms of what it would take for one to slip through? >> no. so the number of nuclear weapons is growing. the sophistication of those weapons is growing, their size, and then the sophistication of the missiles are growing every time h he does a test, they get better and better.

so the number of weapons is growing and the sophistication of the weapons and the missiles are growing and that's what's changing -- >> rose: and, therefore, we have to assume he can deliver a warhead to the western coast of the united states. >> right. so to put it in clear terms, these icbms he's deployed are called the kno8, road-mobile missiles, so they're hard to track. here's the punch line of everything i just said, if we saw one of those with satellite imagery, we saw one of those kno8s on a road mobile launch pad and the president of the united states said to the director of the c.i.a. can you guarantee me that there is not a nuclear weapon on that missile and can you guarantee me that missile is not targeted at the united states and that that thing is going to work, can you guarantee me of all those things? the answer is, no, mr. president, i cannot. >> rose: so the president has to live with the fact that that

reality at that moment that they can hit us with a nuclear weapon if they want to. >> yes. >> rose: and, so, therefore, what are our options? >> well, let's just step back for a second and say, okay, given all of that, what are the threats here that we face? we have been talking about one, and that is the threat of use by kim jong un. the second is the threat that he might sell one of these nuclear weapons with or without a missile to somebody else. >> rose: perhaps a non-state actor? >> perhaps a state actor like iran, perhaps a non-state actor. he has, in the past, sold the technology to make fissile material for a nuclear weapon, he sold it to syria. syria started building the facilities necessary to produce that fissile material, and the israelis destroyed it. so he has demonstrated a willingness to sell at least the technology, at this point. it's a significant step. >> rose: was that him or his

father. >> that was his father, right, but north korea has demonstrated that willingness. it's a significant step to actually selling a weapon but we can't count it out. >> rose: use and sell. the third? >> the third is you've got all these nuclear weapons stored in places around north korea. what happens if the regime collapses? what happens to those nuclear weapons? who gets control over them? so the third risk is loose nuclear weapons, uncontrolled nuclear weapons in a chaos situation in the north and what happens to them. so those are the three threats we face. >> rose: who would likely be able to get their hands on loose nukes? >> you could have a situation in the north where we have a civil war, so one side in the civil war might have them, both sides might have them. somebody might grab one and want to make a sale, right, independent of the north korean state, somebody just might want to make a lot of money, as much

money as they can. >> rose: if you had loose nukes, the chinese would get very upset, would they not? >> yes, and this is part of the chinese thinking. >> rose: right. so what does kim jong un think aaout all this? it's really important, as you and i have talked about before, one of the jobs of an intelligence officer, which i did for a long time, was to explain the other guy's perspective. so what's kim jong un's perspective as he thinks about these weapons and missiles? he believes -- he truly believes, h he just doesn't say this -- he believes that the united states of america wants to overthrow him, that the united states of america wants to reunite the two koreas on south korea's terms, that we want north korea to go away and that we the united states and the c.i.a. in particular are working on a daily basis to bring that about.

so he sees nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent to us getting rid of him and his regime. that's why he thinks he needs nuclear weapons. >> rose: okay. so does that bring us to the question of what are our options? >> yes, yes. so ther there are no good optios here. every administration that has looked at this has come to that conclusion, and i believe the trump administration is going to come to that conclusion, too. >> rose: the first option is always to try to negotiate. >> the first option is negotiation. the clinton administration tried that, the bush administration tried that without success, and, in fact, it was worse than without success. we actually ended up giving them stuff for nothing in return. >> rose: the obama administration? >> the obama administration said we're not going to play that game anymore, we're just going to ignore this guy. what the clinton administration and the bush administration tried to do is, when he did one

of these provocations, when his father did one of these provocations, tested a nuclear weapon, tested a missile, did something against south korea, it was their intent to bring the united states to the negotiating table. their intent was not to negotiate a final deal. their intent was to get something for their bad behavior, and we often gave them something for their bad behavior, food aid, fuel aid, something that was irreversible, we gave them food or fuel. >> rose: do we know if he has a price? is there anything that the united states can give him? or is he simply, by even negotiating, biding for time? >> i believe and plenty of other people believe that he has absolutely no intent of ever giving up his nuclear weapons so that he would never come to a negotiation with an open mind about getting rid of them, ever. why? it goes back to what he

believes. he believes we're trying to destroy him and he needs those weapons to deter us. there is a second reason why he'll never come to an agreement with the united states, and the second reason is that he needs the united states as an enemy, or he believes that his people will rise up against him. he asks of his people incredible sacrifice because the united states is an enemy. so he can't make a deal with the united states where the united states is no longer the enemy. >> rose: so it threatens his survival within his country. >> it threatens his very survival. so negotiation is not a possibility. >> rose: what's next? so what's next is a part of a negotiation, right, which is let's squeeze him as hard as we possibly can to see if we can get him to different mindset on negotiation. >> rose: he's already shown he's prepared to let his people

suffer in his pursuit of nuclear weapons. >> exactly. so what do we think about that? well, here's what we think about that is that, look, it makes sense when he does something bad to put sanctions on him, absolutely, just to send a signal to the rest of the world that you can't get away with this kind of behavior. but to really squeeze him -- and this is where china comes in -- to really squeeze him, you need china on your side. why? because 80% of his trade is with the chinese. so if you squeeze the other 20%, you're not going to have an impact. so you need china on your side here. >> rose: do they send him food, he sends them coal? >> so they provide minerals and some textiles in return for all of his energy, essentially. that's essentially the deal, and food. and food. so china is their lifeline. so how do we think about china i --china?

for china to make a difference here two, things have to be true. one is the chinese have to be willing to squeeze him. the other, is if they do squeeze him, they have to be able to change his behavior. so let's take the willingness piece first. the chinese have never been -- and i don't believe they will change their behavior just because president trump is pressuring them -- the chinese have never been willing to squeeze the north koreans. why? because the chinese fear an unstable nuclear armed north korea more than a nuclear armed north korea. they don't want to squeeze him so much that it brings about instability in the north. >> rose: so you were saying that the chinese, at this moment, so far, are prepared to see the north koreans with nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them regardless of

how that affects the united states? >> they don't want the loose nukes that we talked about earlier, and they don't want the hundreds of thousands of refugees that they believe would flow north into china if the north korean regime collapsed because they squeezed it. >> rose: is it possible that the united states can change the mind of the chinese? >> no, i don't believe so because this is a fundamental -- >> rose: all the stuff that took place in palm beach. >> it's a fundamental strategic belief of the chinese and the foreign minister officials have said this in the last couple of days. i believe the chinese are trying to play a game with the united states which is we'll squeeze them a little bit -- we'll do a little bit on coal and here -- but fundamentally, we're not going to strangle him, okay. the second issue is what if we did convince the chinese to actually squeeze really hard? there is an assumption that everybody makes that that would lead to a change in kim jong

un's behavior. if the chinese only played ball, that would lead to a change in kim jong un's behavior. i don't believe that for all the reasons we just talked about. so i think it's a false assumption. so i don't think china is the answer to this either. >> rose: so what's the answer? so then you come to the military piece of this, right. and that is absolutely not the answer. why? the guy's got nuclear weapons. you can't -- >> rose: it doesn't mean he can retaliate by necessarily reaching us, but he certainly has other targets that we would be -- >> so if if we conducted a military strike on north korea, it could lead to conventional war in south korea with hundreds of thousands of people in and around seoul dying from the conventional fight. it would be a horrible, horrible war, and it could lead him, if he believes that we're actually coming after him and this is the end, it could lead him to use

nuclear weapons. so, you know, the reason you have nuclear weapons, and certainly in his mind, is so somebody won't attack you. and when somebody has nuclear weapons you can attack them. >> rose: which is the reason the israelis didn't want them to have the capability. >> right. >> rose: what do we know about him? is he stable, rational? will he act in his own self-interest? >> i think he acts in his h h own self-interests. i think he's rational from that perspective. i don't think he's inherently unstable. i don't believe he would actually use nuclear weapons unless he thought it was the end add he needed them to stave off the end of his regime. i think he knows if he used them that the weight of the world would literally come down on him, so i think he's rational in that way. i think h he's deeply concerned

about his political position at home. that's why he has been so active in purging people from his elite. >> rose: eliminating them. eliminating them in some pretty go desk ways -- grotesque ways -- wild dogs, rpgs, anti-tank weapons and all kinds of stuff to send a message. i think he feels vulnerable at home and that's why he's doing these purges. but he's a rational actor. >> rose: is he intelligent? is he shrewd, savvy? what is the profile that we have? >> i think he is nowhere near as savvy as his grandfather and his father. >> rose: right. he took over at a much younger age than his father did. >> rose: and didn't have the advantage of his father with his father trained by his grandfather. >> correct. and didn't have the experience. his father had a lot of experience running the government before he became the head of the government. >> rose: and he didn't even

realize he would be chosen and was chosen at the last minute. >> exactly, and he didn't have tex persons. lacks experience and doesn't have the savvy of his father, dangerous combination. to the extent he feels vulnerable at home, he might want to create a crisis to bring people together domestically. so you have that mix as well. then we come back to what you think we should do about this. there's a question that i think we have to answer before which is why are we in this crisis that we're in today, if he's had this capability for the last several years? why are we in this crisis? >> rose: well, first of all, we had an administration that wanted to ignore him. >> right. >> rose: so there was nothing going on there. >> right. >> rose: yet, at the same time, we know that president obama -- because i think he has said and i think president trump has acknowledged it -- said to him, your biggest challenge is going to be north korea, i'm just telling you right now as you leave this white house. it's not i.s.i.s., it's north korea.

right? >> yes, absolutely. and i think, i don't know -- you know, i wasn't inside president obama's mind, but here's why i think he said that and we're in the crisis we're in. the growing capabilities, i talked about, the growing number of growing capabilities, that's one thing. the second thing to donald trump is we have a new pt president and why is that an issue here? because obama ignored kim jong un and north korea for essentially eight years, didn't come running to the negotiating table every time he did a provocation, what kim jong un wants to do is to see if he can get the united states back to the negotiating table and get us to give him things for being bad. so that's why there is been a wave of provocation since donald trump came to office. >> rose: one test after another. >> one test after another. >> rose: i still want to go back to the point, does donald

trump have anything at all in the resources of the united states that he can give him other than the fact that, you know, you've got to believe me, we're not going to attack you, that's not our intent? >> and he's simply not going to believe that. so we're where we are, and you raised a really good point. we're where we are because kim jong un started this, right, by doing a number of these provocations to get our attention to bring us to the negotiating table. >> rose: right. we're also where we are because of the way the united states has reacted. so we have reacted not the way president obama did by ignoring, by being quiet, by quietly putting additional sanctions on. we've reacted by harsh rhetoric. we've reacted by sending an aircraft carrier battle group near north korea. we've reacted in a pretty significant way from kim jong un's perspective. >> rose: are you suggesting that was the wrong thing to do

strategically because his reaction may be, see, i told you they were going to attack me? >> i'm not just suggesting, i'm saying that we're doing the wrong thing. >> rose: right. we're doing two things. we're feeding his view that we're coming after him and, therefore, his need for weapons, and we're helping to create a crisis that could possibly get out of control. i'm not saying it's going to, but it could possibly get out of control. >> rose: so he could do something irrational? >> so you've got -- let's just be honest here, you've got two egos, one on each side. when you have two egos, one on each side, and you start up an escalation ladder, right, sometimes you feel you need to do something just so you sound strong. >> rose: let me just put in two things. number one, president obama could have believed that it was not smart to negotiate with him because it never went anywhere, but, at the same time, was carefully measuring the threat of north korea. >> yes. >> rose: and, therefore, he

says to donald trump -- >> and slowly putting sanctions on. >> rose: and as he said to me in an interview in germany, every time they fail, they learn something, so they're getting better and better. >> right. >> rose: it was simply a look at what the best strategy was. >> right. so what do we do? >> rose: exactly. so i believe -- and i'm not the only one who believes this, there is a number of other people who believe it -- that our focus needs to be on three things, but two things to deter use and sale, two things to deal with the threat of use and sale. one is we have to focus on deterrents, just like we focused on deterrents with the soviet union. we deterred the soviet union by the fact that we could destroy them, right, if they attempted to destroy us. >> rose: but are you saying -- mutually assured destruction. >> rose: but are you saying, listen, america, we have to recognize that we have no option

that will prevent him from getting nuclear weapons, we have to live with that. we have lived with the fact that other enemies or people that have wished us not well or competitors of us, we've lived with them having nuclear weapons so we're going to have to live with north korea having nuclear weapons. >> yes, so we have to do two things. yes, absolutely. and we've got to do two things as a result of that. one is we have to deter him. we have to be very ex plies wit him that, if you ever use nuclear weapons, we will annihilate you, we will annihilate north korea. and, two, if uh you are -- if you ever sell a nuclear weapon, we will do something. i don't know what that is. we'll have to think that through. it could be a total embargo of the country, but we have to es one of those things, it is the end of his regime. so that's deterrence, and that message has to be public, and that message has to be private, and it has to be done over and over and over again.

the second thing we have to do swef to build -- is we have to build our missiles and continue to enhance them both in the region so we can go after missiles as they're launched and in the united states so we can deal with missiles that are in their terminal phase of their flight. we have to build our missile defense to protect us and to protect south korea and japan. those are the two things we have to focus on. in terms of the loosely nukes -- the loose nukes -- and i think of all the threats, charlie, that's the most likely, of the three threats i talked about, the most likely is loose nukes in a failed regime scenario. why? at some point this regime will fall. it can't survive. >> rose: it doesn't have an economy. >> they don't have an economy. you know, the people ares malnourished, undernor you should -- undernourished.

the size of your north korea is 6, 8, 9 inches shorter than your average south korean. they're not healthy. at some point this regime collapses. >> one thing we haven't talked about, i want to put it in now rather than -- you said he needs to fear that we will annihilate him. should he fear that we're going to assassinate him, that simply try because of our abilities to get to him? then there is the question of whether it's legal to do that and you know more about that than i do. >> right. >> rose: but there is no question we would do that with respect to the leader of i.s.i.s. if we could do it today. >> so, so, so - when we kill a terrorist on the battlefield, it's legally not an assassination. it is self-defense because there is a legal view that that person poses an imminent threat to the united states of america. >> rose: a man with nuclear weapons who doesn't like us and

fears us doesn't impose a threat? >> the question "imminent" is really important. that "imminent" part is really, really important. but let's say, for sake of argument, that you could get there really. >> rose: okay. how would you do it, is a really hard question. this would not be easy, right? >> rose: because it's a closed society. >> it's an incredibly closed society. two, and even more important than that is you better know what comes after him if you were able to get rid of him, right. maybe you bring about the failed regime scenario if he were to be assassinated, right? >> rose: same question has been raised about assad, by the way. >> absolutely, but ever more in north korea where there is only one man, right, and there are nuclear weapons. so i'm not sure it would be a wise idea. >> rose: so you don't think it's operational? >> no. >> rose: you don't? i don't. so how do we deal with these

nuclear weapons in a failed regime scenario? i think we need to work with the chinese. here's where we need to work with the chinese, and here's where i think the chinese would work with us, so that we do two things -- that we work with them on an intelligence basis to figure out where all these nuclear weapons are at any moment in time, and then we work with them from an operational planning perspective on, if this regime were to collapse, you would get these weapons in the northern part of the country and we would go in and grab these weapons in the southern part of the country so that nobody else would get their hands on them. there is reason for both the united states and china to work together here. >> rose: but have they done this on such a serious issue before? >> no. >> rose: we'll take care of the north and you will take care of the south? >> no, no. we've not worked with the chinese like that before, but i think there is room to do that going forward. >> rose: as things change in

china and the president solidifies his own power. so we have to go to the chinese. >> and talk about that, yes, behind closed doors. that's a conversation that needs to be private and needs not to be in the public domain. >> rose: do you sense the fact that president trump because of what he's said, because of the emphasis he's put on this, because he's said we'll be easier on trade if you help us on north korea, that president trump recognizes this and this is part of the reason he's so anxious to have a relationship with xi jinping? >> so i -- i don't know. i actually believe they're probably separate issues. i believe the president's new approach to china is based more on his economic advisors and his foreign policy advisors saying to him, look, we need to have a relationship with china. >> rose: right. we can't beat the crap out of

these guys, with we can't trade war with them. that would be devastating to our economy. >> rose: because we need them. because we need them, right. and we don't want china to be an adversary for the next 50 years. we want a good relationship with china. this is an incredibly important relationship to be managed, so i think that's why he took a different approach. i think north korea might be a small part of it but i think the broader chinese-u.s. strategic relationship is more important. >> rose: talk about the president. the president clearly in terms of the syrian strike relied heavily on mcmasters, mattis, the national security apparatus and, i assume, information and a working relationship with the c.i.a. >> yeah. >> rose: has that changed because there were moments in the campaign and during the transition in which that relationship got very, very difficult, and the question raised was the question that we face now, something comes in terms of a national challenge, a

national security challenge. is the relationship going to be good enough so the president will trust what they tell him and they will want to tell him the truth -- or not tell him everything they know? >> this is a great question. so, as you know, c.i.a. director mike pompeo gave his first public speech yesterday. >> rose: right. and everybody covered -- everybody in the media covered the fact that he had some not so kind words to say about wikileaks. that's where the focus was. i think he said -- >> rose: about the united states. >> yes. i think he said something much more interesting than what he h said about wikileaks, which is he said that president trump is now a consumer of intelligence, a good consumer of intelligence, that he's listening, that he's giving it time, that he's asking good

questions, that mike pompeo is in the room for those briefings along with a briefer, and it's almost every day. that was -- and that's consistent with what i'm hearing, right, from kind of the people i talk to. that is very, very important and very, very positive, right, that he's going to listen to what the intelligence community has to say about these incredibly complicated issues. i think that's important and positive. >> rose: in terms of this president and foreign policy, are you impressed as some are with the fact that the syrian airstrikes was handled the way it was and that the president has underlined the fact that he was list ening to mcmasters and listening to mattis and listening to people who made a difference and, in a sense, within the councils that advise him, people that have the respect of a range of people seem to have his ear more than

others who were opposed to the syrian strike and who may be wanting to do something more drastic with respect to the chinese? >> so i think things are heading in the right direction. >> rose: right. my sense is that they're heading in the right direction because the people who have the right views -- the views that i share -- the people who have those views, mcmaster, mattis, tillerson, pom wayo, coates -- pompeo, coates, john kelly -- that all those people are rising to the top in terms of who he's listening to. >> rose: this is crucial who he's listening to because it suggests he's not only listening but taking their advice. >> yes, so think that's a very good thing. now, the syria issue, as you know, i believe that he did the right thing in striking that air base, but it was a first step,

and it needs to be embedded in a much larger strategy which we haven't seen yet. so he listened to them on that piece of it, but he hasn't -- but there is actually dissidents, right, among his key advisors about how far we should go with the syria strategy, so that's not worked out yet. but, yeah, i think, charlie, we're heading in the right direction. >> rose: thank you for coming. it's always great to be here. >> rose: thank you very much. michael morell. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: mandy patinkin is here, as an actor you know him for his roles in the princess bride and the series homeland. he is often seen on concert stages and in the theater here in new york. what you may not know is after production wrapped on the fifth and sixth season of homeland, he traveled to the refugee route in europe to help the international rescue committee with the ongoing humanitarian crisis there. this year he and his wife kathryn visited lesbos, greece

around serbia in refugees camps. he connected with a family he first met in 2015 after they escaped their native syria. here's a look at their reunion. >> how long have you been here? two days. and when do you plan to get on the boat to go to athens? >> we're waiting for someone to help us. we lose our small bag with all our money in it. we're waiting for someone to help us. >> do we take our shoes off? yes. how are you? mandy! good to see you! oh, hello. hi. how are you?

abdella. >> so good to see you! he said that in the first months, it was difficult here, but now it's getting better. >> the gift of your example, of your courage, of your determination to care for your children and give them a better life, like you said, mandy quotes you all the time, i saw death behind me and life ahead of me, and i go. >> he said also in syria, even in our country, we don't have this opportunity, actually, to have a stable life or to have an apartment and to even -- to have human rights. but here, he feels like he's human. >> okay. great. thank you. >> we just went back a few days ago and we went to serbia, to

camps in serbia and we saw so many families just like yours that are looking to have this beautiful home and a new life, and to see you have this is so wonderful! and the whole world should make sure that every family has this! >> rose: i'm pleased to have mandy patinkin back at this table to talk about this issue. just talk about what we just saw. >> all right. such a beautiful family. there they were. they got off the boat in lesbos, they lost everything in the water, and didn't know what to do, they were stranded. i was able to help them get on the ferry and get to the train to go on the route and come to germany and have this beautiful home. their boys are in school and right next to their house, i said, is this the school, to

hadar is the father and safe is the mother, spelled s-a-f-e. they said, no, it's not a school. it's an old-age home. toward the end of our visit, i said to haider, because in germany, they let you study german for two years the grownups before they require you to get a job. here it's a little different. he said, no, it's not a school, it's an old-age home. and ehe's a decorator, so he did his kitchen. he made that whole house so baffle. i said, haider -- so beautiful. i said when you get ready to get in the workforce, are you going to be a decorator, an architect? no, i want to work for the elderly, to take care of the elderly, that is my dream. >> rose: that says who he is. that's what i did for my father, he said. that's who these people are. they're extraordinary. >> rose: in the same vein, mandy patinkin, everybody would

like to have him on their side. why refugees? what was it about these people that caused you to, every time you finished homeland, to take the first flight out to go visit? >> yeah. it's my family. these are my -- it's my grandpa max, my grandma celia, kathryn's grandma masha. >> rose: they were refugees? eyes-- yes, they left poland, america opened their arms and welcomed them. you're here because your ancestors were welcomed. all this country is the result of being welcomed except for native americans and african-americans, which is a different story. but we're here because people were kind, generous and empathetic to the suffering that

our ancestors experienced and the suffering these people are experiencing all over the world. the six-year war in syria is overwhelming. it's, you know, to be awakened by the horrible images that we've all seen in this past week with the gas attack. i'm grateful people are awakened, but why isn't it just as awakening to see children washing up on the beach who thousands have drowned in trying to get from turkey to lesbos greece and trying to get through their journey? why isn't it enough of a -- if you're so concerned for the children, which you well should be, then we need to find legal options for these most vulnerable among us, these refugees who are fleeing this war, trying to find sanctuary in a third country? we need to give them legal options and we have to stop these bands.

these bands create havoc on the emotional landscape of their lives. 11,000 refugees, right now, are waiting to come to america, who have already been through the most rigorous vetting process imaginable. the united states of america is -- and i have studied this -- is the gold standard of vetting. it is an 18-month to two-year process. you do not even get in the door to be vetted unless the united nations high commission of refugees feels that you as an individual or family can make it through this 18-month to two-year process, only then do you beginning, and then it never ends. you are vetted when you get on the plane, when you get off, later for your green card, five years later for citizenship and the rest of your life. so the fact of the matter is, the refugee community in united states since 1975, 3 million refugees have come here, since 9/11 900,000, not a single

terrorist incident has taken place by a refugee in the united states. these are the safest people among us, and we must know that, and ewe must encourage our leaders, our members of congress, our president, not just in america but all over the world, to know the truth and the facts, and what i gave you are the facts, and that they are not dangerous and of course you can improve the vetting process for the rest of time. >> rose: how do you inform the political process so political decisions are not made that make it more difficult especially if you come from six designated countries? >> it's up to the voter and the citizenship. you have to understand the power you have to influence your congressman, senator , your president. you make calls to your representatives. you tell them that you want the foreign aid and the domestic aid

not to be cut as the new budget proposeds, that that aid being cut will cut the opportunities to resettle these people in america and the opportunity just to keep them alive right now in these other countries. you need to know that this is trumped-up fear to get your vote. it's the oldest trick in the book. if i tell you who to be afraid of and i vilify a people -- and in this case it's the muslim population, a population that has made a world contribution over time that is monumental, and, yet, we have vilified them to make people terrified, and if i have you frightened enough of them and i tell you, you vote for me, i'll keep you safe -- and i've just given you the facts that they are the most vetted people. before president trump was inaugurated, obama asked for 110,000 refugees to come in, and that's worldwide. that's not just syria. worldwide refugees.

kicked it up to 110,000. trump was inaugurated, they brought it down to 50,000. i asked the administration to reconsider that since they're now awakened, thank god, about the necessity and attention these concern and families need. >> rose: because to have the photographs they saw this week? >> because to have the photographs they saw this week and relook at these other photographs. and i have said a number of times, before president trump was a new yorker and gone to military school or whatever school he went to, a businessman, a billionaire, a politician, and now president, he's a human being. >> rose: with children. with children, and i am certain that that humanity which was ignited by those photographs the other day, that if he saw or came with us to these camps and met these children i have met and talked to and been with, his heart would be overwhelmed with compassion and empathy. it's impossible to have a live, breathing human being and not have that happen. he had that happen to him. as i talked to my colleagues at the international rescue

committee, now that the door has been opened, it is necessary for diplomacy to just explode everywhere. that effort has to be redoubled over and over and over again. >> rose: and your mission is? so stop the conflict. that's the key. stop the conflict. stop the killing, but first bring aid and help to these people. create legal options. let the united states be the guide and teacher to the countries in europe. germany is doing far more than their share, but countries in the european union like greece are so overwhelmed economically and they're doing the lion's share of the work. serbia who's not even in the european union. >> rose: and with some political opposition, as you know. >> a great deal. a great deal. but we need to work together to help the european community improve their vetting process. germany has a decent process, they're doing their best. that process can always be made better, but don't say that american citizens are in change

danger. i have a dear friend who is one of the highest people in the evangelical community who says he meets his constituents in oklahoma who cry, weeping, grownups weeping, terrified that my head's going to be cut off. that's what they think, and it's not true. it's fake, false information. it is trumped up to make you terrified so that you get my vote. it happens through history all the time. learn that and learn the facts, and then call your representatives and say, i want these people taken care of, i want the walls to come down in our cities, i want to wedge these families to -- i want to welcome these families to our country. as individuals, what else can you do in america? there are 28 centers for refugees resettlement the country. call one of them, invite this family to your community, your house, your church, your synagogue, your mosque, your temple. invite them to your school,

p.t.a., have them for dinner, a play date with your kids. can you imagine how they'll feel when you listen to their story and listen to them? whatever the language barrier is, have some understanding how hard they're working. these people are -- they're not just, you know, people who are struggling so hard. some of them are great scientists and students and doctors and lawyers and their careers have been wiped out from under them. >> rose: we got pictures in. i wanted for the audience just to see them and the faces of the refugee world. what's this? >> that is a 10-year-old extraordinarily naturally gifted artist who's never had a single lesson in his life and i took him outside on a bench in belgrade and we did a facebook interview because i never have been on social media because my kids said if you want to get the word out you have to get on here, so go to mandy patinkin on

facebook and instagram and meet these people. i said to him at the end, hopefully people will have this conversation we're having, is there something you want them to hear? and fatah said, yes, i would like them to know kindness, not just for me, he said, but for refugees everywhere. we need kindness. from the mouths of babes. >> rose: second picture? that's my wife kathryn and i in cayta tepee. when i went there before, it was dirt roads and tents. it has improved because unfortunately that's as good a refugee reresetlement camp you might find in the world, but it needs to be put out of business. it has improved because it's no longer a transfer station for 5,000 or 9,000 people a day on the journey, it's possible --

>> rose: you want them resettled as soon as possible. >> they might have to be there for god knows how long. so they need funding. ask how to donate to these organizations because they may now have to set up education programs, women's programs, human rights, lgbtq and all down the list. >> rose: continuing. this is a 13-year-old who learned impeccable english in ten months. my wife said to him after he told us his story and went through the woods and the jnngle in the night and i said to him, were you afraid when you were getting to the turkish border? he said of animals and things in the dark? no, only the police that they would pull them back. my wife gave him a journal because she said when he finished talking, she said you will be a statesman, the way you articulate your people's journey and life you need to write the story down so i'm going to get you a journal so you can begin

writing. he said to me later in the day, i like what your wife said to me, i'm going to do that. >> rose: this one? that is faraz, a beautiful 18-year-old woman who has a 3-month-old baby, and she we want speaking to my wife and myself, fought to talk to us. she taught farad. she is farad's english teacher and found us later with a camera and said i want to tell my story and she talked about how people had violated her along her journey but she was very careful to say but there are good people here, too. and in choking out her words, she said, a all i want is an education for myself and my children, can you please do that? and my wife and i because there are no legal options, we looked at each other and didn't want to give her false hope, we say to her, if you are here, you have a kind of strength and resistance that is something we're not even

familiar with where i come from, and that strength has brought you to this moment and i'm sure you will find a way to survive this and have the life you desire, but that life depends on the world community listening and helping these people. i went there to accumulate their stories, film them, put them down on my notes with photographs so i could share their stories with the world. so people will have them. >> rose: two more photographs. these are two in caratepe in their container. these two girls, nine, eleven. one wants to be a pediatrician, the other one wants to be a teacher, and they both said to me, we went through the iranian mountains to get to where we were going at night, and we had snow up to our necks. >> rose: and the final slide? that is abed who grabbed my beard on the street near the

serbian border and said you are grandpa. and he brought us to meet his family. he said, i want to be a doctor, a lawyer, i want to help children and help people hurt in the war. i look at my wife. there's one of the videos on our site. i said, you know, honey, this has been overwhelming hearing all these stories and listening to people, hoping that we can do something by sharing their stories, i said, but, you know, i said you know what i'm thinking? she says, i know what you're thinking. i said, this has been one of the great days of my life. she says, i know why. i said, he made me a grand pennsylvania i had to come to a refugee camp in syria to be made a grandpa. >> rose: thank you, my friend, for all the people you're trying to help to try to tell the story. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and

charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

the following kqed production was produced in high definition. >> and their buns are something i had yet to find anywhere else. >> and you can come to my house to dinner. >> breaded, fried, gooey, lovely. >> in the words of arnold schwarzenegger, i'll be back. >> you've heard of a connoisseur, i'm a common sewer. >> i may have to ward off some