>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, olympia snowe, former republican senator from maine, her new book is called "fighting for common ground." she looks at how we might move beyond gridlock in washington. >> the things that are most notable, charlie, people aren't sitting down and working through the issue. i think theyxpect inantaneous rests it's more about messaging messaging their political poogzs. it isn't about crafting policies. what's the right policy for the country? that's been lost in the legislative arena. >> rose: we conclude with jeh

johnson, one of the chief legal architects of president obama'ss counter-terrorism policies. >> in any counter-terrorism effort we have to be mindful of the impact of our policies in the communities in which al qaeda and these other terrorist organizatis recruit. because if you are-- if they're gaining in population faster than you can take them off the battlefield, then we've got a real problem. >> rose: olympia snowe and jeh johnson next.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: olympia snowe is here. she is a former republican matter from maine. she served in public office for 40 years, both in the maine legislature and then the united states house and the united states senate. while in office, she was an influential advocate of bipartisanship. in 2012, she announced her decision not to stand for reelection. her main reasons were the polarizationnd dysfunction she saw in washington. in her new book "fighting for common ground," she explains how

we can fix the stalemate in congress. i am pleased to have senator olympia snowe at this table for the first time. welcome. >> it's great to be here, charlie. thank you. >> rose: we want to know how we can fix it because the dysfunction in washington makes the american public angry, disappointed, and frustrated. >> well, i think the key is for people to place a premium value on bipaisanip, d as i say, to create a political reward at the ballot box for those who engage in it and a political penalty for those who don't. but in the meantime, what's really important is to engage the public in real time with elected officials in washington, not to allow this time to disappear without any pro-action on the part of congress about solving the key issues facing this country. and that's why i'm part of the bipartisan policy center where i'm a senior fellow. we have a link.

we decided, in conjunction with the rease the book, create a link so that people have a channel by which to not only communicate their frustration but to learn, you know, what are the options available to lawmakers on some of the big issues that are facing members of congress and what they can do about it to engage lawmakers who are interested in solving, you know, these problems, and also to put pressure on those who don't. >> rose: do you believe that the president is interested in bipartisanship? >> i think he is, but he hasn't invested in it, in the way that he shou. d obviously, from the outset in his first administration, one of the things that, you know, i recommended to him, in one of my first meetings with the president, to sort of embrace the-- president reagan's model of leadership. because president reagan wasn't, obviously, involved on a day-to-day basis with members of the congress but what he did was had a very disciplined team that

worked in the democratic house to build bridges and get it done. i think the president was reticent to get involved in the hopes that the speer at that time, speaker nancy pelosi, or majority leader reid would get involved and draft the legislation and he would weigh in towards the end. as you know, a president has to be fully and actively engaged in developing those relationships and working it through and having, you know, the ability to get members of congress at the white house, to work through some of the issues -- >> but having said that, do you believe that these-- moving fast to contemporary times in terms of this last three, four mths, he's had all of these dinners. he's played golf with others. two republicans i suspect you had some respect for. do you think it's done any good? >> i think it's helpful because it breaks down some of the

barriers that exist because, frankly, they don't know each other. for the most part, people, you know, really don't know the president, and he doesn't know many memberes of congress so that helps at one level. and then you have to take it to thnexteve which is th legislation in trying to go through specific pieces of an agenda and see how do we get this done? i mean, i've been at many occasions at the white house, including this president ohealth care. setting that aside i think he has not been, you know, active in reaching out to members of congress consistently over time to build that rapport you need for the difficult issues. including with members of his own party, not just with republicans, but even with democrats. you've heard a lot of complaints. >> rose: you do, it's not just republicans. >> it isn't. >> rose: how many timeses have you had private sessions with the president of the united states during his first four years in office? >> president obama? >> rose: yes. >> oh, i'd say about eight, nine

times. >> rose: one on one? >> yes, that's right -- >> did you have a special relationship? were you different than other people? >> no, but i think he was focusing on me because he knew i was interested in bipartisanship. >> rose: oh, i see. >> he did that in the first meeting with the president was in early february of '09 when he was attempting-- it was actuly prablyhe end of nuary-- en he was working on the stimulus. but see, at that point, the stimulus was already working its way-- it was on the house floor and it was working its way through the committees. i served on the finance committee. so he invited me down to see what he could do to work through some of the issues on stimulus. but at that point-- that was january. he should-- he had just been sworn in as president. he really should have been working, you know, with the leadership on both sidesnd trying to figure out what's going to be the best way to bring the majority of people

together to fashion a stimulus plan? >> rose: here's how you end up: >> rose: is it going to happen? do you think something has to be so severe that it makes people come to their senses that this is no way to run a country? >> i hope it doesn't come to

that. i hope that the realization sets in much sooner, and that's why, at least, you know, i tried to convey that message in this book and that's why the publication came out at this point because as you know, this is a critical juncture in the legislative timeline in and schedule. if anything is going to occur, the groundwork for it has to be laid out at this point because much later than thanksgiving, it becomes, obviously, infinitely harder to secure agreements on contentious and major issues. i hope we haven't lost the art of leglati. it is true that more than half, or at least half, in each of the bodies in the house of representatives and the united states senate, the membership is new. i mean, since 2008, less than six years of service in the house of representatives and the same is true in the united states senate, not even a full

term. so you're seeing a new membership that has not had the benefit of legislative experice or thisype of legislative environment, and they've known no other environment other than disharmony and bis function. you know, i've had former senators when i was serving in the senate, my former colleagues who would say, "what was it like?" because they would give examples -- i felt like a dinosaur in some way like a fossil. i had one colleague ask me, "well, would it make a difference in the amendment process?" and i said, "well, absolutely. of course it would because many great initiatives emanate emanam amendments to legislation, whether it was in the committee or on the floor, so, yes, i do worry about the art of legislating being totally lost, of ahat we get into so& political debating society in the united states senate with very little in terms of resolving the major questions.

>> rose: everybody speaking to reelection. you also would change somewhat the way we're elected. you would change certainly financing the campaigns. >> uh-huh. >> rose: you weren't happy with the court decision in "united." >> right, because-- well, it was my pvisionhat washe essence of the challenge, "citizens unite," part of the mccain-fine gold, which was based-- it was addressing issue advocacy ads because so many outside groups, you know, will run ads before an election and they will say, "tell senator snowe to vote x, z, and y." and it would be 60 days before an election in which i was up for reelection, or 30 days before a primary, and i said,n my provision, that that is designed to influence the outcome of an election. so you don't have to identify the person and then you would not have to make contributions

over disclose like a political action committee. but if you're going to identify, you know, that senator or that member of the house of representatives by name 60 days before an election, then you have to follow the restrictions of a political action committee. >> rose: i want to talk about your biography in a moment but i want to talk about current sues do you belve ts i.s. story? >> no, i think it's unfathomable. it's alarming usnow the breadth and dimensions of the powers of the internal revenue service. iit strikes fears in the heart f every american. what's shocking about it is that there would be individuals who would even think of looking at reforms in that fashion. and being selective and discriminatory to begin with. i mean, are they political types? you wouldn't, of that ordinalily now in the internal revenue service that they would,

you know, take this disposition towards tax records, for example. and you know that there had been a lot of speculation, a lot of concerns that had been raised about this targeting for the last couple of years. and the internal revenue service reneed it. >> rose: right. >> and even the former commissioner of the internal revenue service appeared before the ways and means committee and issued denials. that it went onhis longz terms of existing without acknowledging it is also stunning, in my estimation. i think they really tov to clean house because i don't know how else you're going to allay the fears of the american to know there are individuals in the internal revenue service looking at documents in this fashion. i don't know how you restore confidence in that respect without removing individuals. >> rose: turn just for a moment to benghazi.

people are saying, obviously, there was so-- johnccain said yesterday there was a cover-up. others say republicans are simply doing this because they want to strike at hillary clinton before she gets nominated. >> well, first of all, i don't think that-- you know, we should be looking at the political dimensions of this. issue -- >> do you think somebody did and there's some of seeds of this in politics? >> no, i worry that it becomes more about the politics of the issue rather than the issue itself and looking through that prism, i think there are some serious questions to be raised with respect toheaileo provide security measures at that post. >> rose: okay, but then the other side of it is whether they-- between the time that happened and sunday talk shows and how many memos were exchangeexchanged and how much contradiction was there between later explanation? >> well, i think that, that

needs-- you know, that story needs to be told. i mean i think the white house has a responsibility and the state department has a responsibility to lay itll our e american people. i think it's raised a number of questions, and especially, in my view, when you have the deputy chief of mission and the regional security officer of the embassy in libya willing to come before congress and to testify. that should get everybody's attention. >> rose: what does that say to you? >> well, that it's a serious matter. and the government has to respond to that because you've got so many men and women on the front lines in the diplomatic service. i coauthore legislation back in 1986, tt created the bureau of diplomatic security and the regional security officer. the state department had created on an ad hoc basis within the department and then-congressman dan miker and i, we were

responding to many of the embassy attacks, you know, americans were on the fro lines, and so many countries abroad and they were being attacked. we had more than 300 attacks up to that point, including the horrific events in beirut in 1983 with the mare barcks. doe introduced this legislation, creating the accountability review board that tom pickering and admiral mullen cochaired recently to analyze these events. but i think the very fact that the deputy chief of mission and the regional security officer responsible for the security at these-- at the embassy in these posts that should get everybody's attention because we really have to work through those anothers as to what transpired and where the failures were. i think it goeseyond-- they were sing th were askgfor security measured. they were downgraded. there were so many incidents that occurred that summer against various posts and

convoys of other countries that certainly should have been a forewarning about the high threat environment that existed at that point in time. >> rose: do you believe we need-- john mccain said over the weekend, an independent commission. >> it may well be. it depends. if they can't get all of the information through the numerous hearings that are going to be held in the house of presentatives anin the senate this should be bipartisan, charlie. i mean, republicans have to be concerned that they're not viewed as being overly political, right, to be political in this instance, or to view it through political terms -- >> do you think they've been too political so far? >> no, but i think it's being cast that way and i think it's very important with the ads and everything. this is too important for the country. we're talking about life-and-death matters. people put themselves at great risk oftentimes in the foreign service in these posts and they have to have the reassurance that they've got the strong suppt oftheirgovement and members of congress to figure it

out and to make sure it doesn't happen again. i think about how long ago i worked on these issues and we're back at that very same point again where, you kno something or some-- you know, something fell through the cracks and failed to measure up and put these people in a very tenuous position. and then, you know, of course i think that it's important. so, yes, i dough thin do think o follow through on these issues so we have all of the ansrs. the send part is democts have to be concerned about not being overly dismissive. i mean. >> rose: they're calling it politics. >> right, dan mica and i, he was a democrat, i was a republican, we worked on these issues for 10 years, worked affect. and there were a lot of charges and counter-charges at that time with all these attacks, but nevertheless, we proceeded on a bipartisan basis because it was so crucial to the country, and most especially for those who serve.

>> rose: so find out whether you can act bipartisanly and do somethg here if not andepdent commission may be the answer. >> right. >> rose: and have everybody come up and testify and firing out ever aspect of it whether it's security, cover-up, or whether it's something else. >> every time something continues to unravel and the issues were put to rest, ostensibly, but they weren't, then you really have to look at even more carefully, frankly, because all of this should have been out in the first place. i mean, its whole mess-- what happened with the talk points. i an, i

this represented. for the first time since 1979. it certainly was worthy of a much deeper explanation, and a more expeditious one than, obviously, the white house gave. to have 12 different edits of talking points i think is highly unusual in my view for something

of this magnitude when it was determined early on who perpetrated the event in the sense that it was a terrorist attack. if you look at the videos that were there, you get firsthand accounts almost readily, frankly, ithould have been fully disclosed to the american people muchooner. >> rose: all right, i want to is interesting.graphy, w i mean, you learned bipartisanship when you were a child, did you not? >> yes. >> rose: what was it your parents ran? >> a diner. >> rose: a diner? >> yes, right next to the state house. >> rose: so everybody came over there. they talked and had meals with each other so you understood there and deep in your experience-- >> it's absorbed. isn't that funny. i know, and this was just actually recently that somebody conveyed to me how th different people would be hold meeg and legislators holding me on their laps while my parents waited on their customers. so it was very informal and

casual. and it was truly just down from the state house and we lived across the street. so it was sort of absorbed in my conscience early. >> rose: your parent were immigrants? >> my father was. and my mother was first generation. her brother and sister were born in sparta. she wasorn in lewiston. she was first generation. my aunt and uncle, her brother and my aunt, were both born in greece. >> rose: you count aunt mary as-- who took over after the death of your parents, right? >> yes. >> rose: you were how old? >> my mother died when i was eight and my father died when i was nine. >> rose: so at nine years old, you wering living with aunt mary. >> my father sent me to a greek school in new york, in garrin, ne yk, between my mother's

death and his death. he decided, almost through my third grade in maine, he remove me and sent me to new york. and i came back that that summer -- >> because he wanted you to-- >> well, i think he was-- he-- my sense is he wasn't feel well and he also had my brother, and it became all too much. so he decided to send me to this greek school thinking it would be better for me, and then he died want-- that fall. so it was-- and as i said in the book, it was the a gift. >> rose: aunt mary was a gift. >> sending me to school was a gift in a way because it gave me the independence. >> rose: right, right. >> and it made me realize that i could stand on my own two feet, make decisions for mierksz even though i had a significant support at school and, of course, with my aunt and uncle

and cousins. but nevertheless, the very fact that you would go away to school at the age of 79, you sort of feel like you're on your own, even if you aren't. >> rose: you lost your first cousin peter. >> yes. >> rose: he was young, wasn't me, three years into the marriage. >> he was 30 and i was 26 at the time. >> rose: and you took over his seat in the state legislature. >> yes, and so i ran for his seat in a special election. i was then sebbing on the board of voter registration in the city of auburn and working for congressman bill cohen. >> rose: at 14 yea old or something. >> yes, he was very young. and so i was working in his district office, setting it up and everything, so between that and my board of voter registration i was sort of working full time. but i had majored in political science and i describe in my book about the fact when peter was sworn into the state legislature that day, the

opening day, we were debate be who would sit in his seat so that the photographer of a local newspaper could take our picture. and i said, no, y shld sit inhe st because you're the one who got elected. and he said, no, you sit in the seat. we went back and forth. and timely i did sit in the street. >> rose: you're now marryatoida former governor and former legislator as well. >> yes. >> rose: so what's the talk at home? >> it was certainly all politics for the most part. we used to say our quality time together was listening to one another speak. that was about right. sometimes we would find ourselves, charlie, in places that we didn't realize we were schedulein t same location on the same night. >> rose: that was a nice discovery, wasn't it? >exabtly. any time we could be put together for any event it helped. between us we served 56 years in

public office. >> rose: one thing you have seen is changes with respect to women. the question is have there been enough and have they been fast enough? >> probably not fast enough, that's for shoe. when i arrived in the house of representatives in 1979 ere were 16 of us out of 435. >> rose: how many today, do you think? >> it could be 78, 77. and there was one in the senate, nancy casselbalm. >> rose: then married howard baker. there's a political marriage, huh? they're great people, wonderful. >> rose: do they-- you howard baker, represent a different breed of republican than we see today? are you guys--n and i think or endangered species? >> one of my colleagues called me a dinosaur. i said, oh, that's interesting

( laughter ) it was like the "new york times" cartoon shows me going the way, the progressive democrat and the dodo. it's a sam commentary, isn't it? the sense that you don't have people on both sides of the political aisle that are more moderate or centrist. you have some on each side but not enough. if you look at the last few elections who have lost, who are retired, have been those who have been more of moderate, accept the rift-based senators and members of the house. it's a diminishing breed for sure politically. that's the point. you don't have people working what i used to call the sensible center. that's where you have to legislator in order to get anything done. i always tell people, listen, you have to talk with people with whom you disagree you're not goingo get erytng y want.

d th're refusing to do that today. it's sort of become the all-or-nothing proposition that ultimately leaves everything unresolved. >> rabin used to say you negotiate with your enemies and try to find common solution. >> it was never as if we didn't have differences and fierce debates in the past. we did. i mean there was wide differences between republicans and democrats oftentimes, or speaker o'neill and present agan but the end of the day they solved the problems. there wasn't a question of were we going to solve the problems? the question was how. today it is all with not solving it so they can take it to the next election. it's about leveraging your political poks, and disadvantage ago. >> rose: and that's the reason you didn't choose to stay? >> i'm a fighter by nature and i never give up so i just decide to take my fight outside the

senate. >> rose: you think you can change more from the outside? >> i do, and encouraging people too that. otherwise we will have this entrenched culture, you know, of political division and polarization. >> rose: what do you want the people to do? you want them to understand-- you want to lead the people to change by understanding they should only vote for people who believe in fighting for common ground. >> right, temannedding it. why aren't you solving the problems. did you notice how they responded to the air traffic controllers when there was a furlghing the air traffic controllers recently. they didn't want to face the wrath of their constituents sitting on the planes idling on a tarmac. the week before they were going out for their own recess. the point is, it was the the wrath of the public that got their attention. they responded -- >> did they respond to that or

that they realized they would have to sit there-- >> yes but they'll be sitting in an enclosed compartment with their constituent >> rose:mayb that's part of the problem, too much privilege among members of congress. >> you know, that's interesting. there is a detachment from the real world. i used to say, "who do you go home and talk to?" there are a lot of good people serving in the house and senate to be sure. it may well be because people are representing more homogeneous districts or states so they only hear one voice. i used t say i hear many voices because my political constituency was diverse and broad. i heard multiple voices on different issues, different views. and i had to process that.

oftentimes a moderate has to do a lot of the hard work. you can't simply instantaneously respond to the party line because that's all who you represent but you have to think through the republicans' ideas and the democrats. a moderateshy,to the contrary, doing the hard work of sorting through the differences and making a decision. and there are fewer and fewer people -- >> ... expect moderation more, too. you have to look at all sides of the question and that's not happening. you instantly respond to a republican view or democrat view. the senate has become like a parliamentary system where each side is voting in blocs based on party positions. when both sides fail theyon bother to sort through the differences and reconcile them but rather they take them to the next celtics. >> rose: do you think they'll

be successful? >> yes, i do. the response in talking to people all across this country which i have been doing, especially on college campuses. they understand they have a stake in the future of this country. and that will be determined pie what happens in congress or what doesn't happen and certainly when it comes to the growth of the debt to the extent we're experiencing, we're in uchartered waters, frankly, and young people understand it will have enormous implications on their future. and the quality of jobs. why should we be settling if for this. we don't have to settle for this? we can do better as a country. i also want to convey hope and optimism about that to make sure the people elected are prepared to do it and to sit down and

work out those differences. this is correctable wurkt we have to demand it as a public. that's i didn' i didn't mean i', many groups have been established, and we want an avenue to than not only the frustration but to do something about it >> rose: would you rather be called a moderate or independent? >> oh, well it doesn't matter. i'm independent and i'm a moderate. you know. i mean -- >> you'd rather, called both. >> right. when people in my state expected me to d what i thought was right for my country, for the state and party in that order. that's what was critical to them and we're independent thinkers. that means evaluating the facts, the issue, what's the problem and how can we solve this problem. i also woke up every day thinking. how can i solve this problem? i didn't wake up thinking this is another can't-do day.

that is the issue now. >> rose: the book is called "fighting for common ground." olympia snowe, back in a momt. stay with us. >> rose: jeh johnson is here. he is the former general counsel of the tent of defense. he is considered one of the legal architects of president obama's counter-terrorism policies. johnson said there will be a tipping point in the war against al qaeda. his comment sparked a it be about the possible end of war on terror. he was also instrumental in the repeal of don't ask/don't tell. i'm pleased to have him here at the table for the first time. weome. >> gooto be here >> are you one of the people who can have a private life, live in the private sector, and come into guest and go back. you're not pure government and you're not pure private >> that sort of defined my view of public service when i was in college. i went to moorehoss college where dr. king graduated a

number of years before me my come, of age was 1968, when i became aware of the world around me and that was, as you know, a very busy year. i knew i had went to college and law school i wanted to try a career in public service and private practice as well. i've been in public service three times. they were all remarkable experiences. >> rose: but you said a very interesting thing, somebody said soyou, "did you enjoy it?" and you said, "'enjoy'" is not the word i would use. i felt compelled to do it because of the responsibility of serving yr country and the psychic income of knowing you make a difrence. >> being the lawyer for the department of defense during a time of war, the largest agency of government in the world, the larntlest most complex was the perfect storm between law,

politics, and national security. i never had a dult day. i will not say it was fun. it was certainly fulfilling. >> rose: we in the war against terror? is it a war and how much of it is al qaeda per se? >> well, let me begin the answer to that question by saying i think we have to be careful in characterizing our ongoing counter-terrorism efforts which are in a variety of contexts like what we see in boston now, which is law enforcement effort. like what we see in places like yemen and elsewhere. we have to be careful when talking about it as a war against a concept. i think that term works tbien if you're talking about the state of poverty or the scourge of drugs. it a good bumper sticke to rally public support for a domestic government program. >> rose: or medical issue. >> when you're talking about a

government effort that involves lethal force, that involves the national security assets of our governmentux we only go to war against nations and groups. we don't go to war against a concept. fing we get into the framework of talking about a war against a concept, we risk dangerous overreach. >> rose: however, many people make this point that in whatever the complex might be, we sometimes lose the patl of ideas. >> that's why it is so important to-- when you're talking about armed conflict to have clear parameters about who your enemy is in the current conflict i talked about when in office, al qaeda and its affiliates, or the more legalistic term for that is al qaeda and associated forces. we spelled out who the groups are, what the objective is, and we're not talking about individuals who have varietyes

of different mives or motivated by different things, inspired by different things. we're talking about groups, and there's a way in which someone becomes part of a group that we look at in talking about armed conflict and so when i was in office and john brennans and others have stated clearly we're talking about al qaeda and affiliates and there's a well-developed legal standard for when a group can become an associated force of al qaeda which i laid out in a speech i gave about a yeargo at yale. so it's important to keep the legal and policy pra parameters clear for the public. >> rose: you do something very interesting and you made a speech at awkward as well. you seem to choose public forum to make a dais of case and present an argument, and obviously a lot of thought goes into that. am i correct? >> i think that's fair to say,

yes. i think particularly in national security it is important for public servants -- and that's who 're are, servants of the public-- to get out there and explain publicly what we are doing so that we maintain support and credibility for our efforts i went to a panel about a year ago where a apparentlyist said, "we're at war against secret enemies." and my internal reaction was well, the public should always know who the u.s. military is at war against on their behalf. and so i was gd to see that last june in our six-month war powers report that we file with the congress, we declassified the military's efforts iniemen and somalia because for the military gemmen and somalia had become the front line in our

counter-terrorism efforts. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is active against plotting against americans. i think the president and a number of us thought it was important to declassify what the military was doing so public is informed about where we are and who we are up against and what we're doing about it. >> rose: others have said the following, there is when you think about terrorism and terrorist, there is no finite number. you can't kill them. all of them. because there are new waters flowing into that stream all time. do you buy that idea? if that is true, do you win? >> what i do agree with and there was a line about this in the speech i gave at oxford which i will slayer with you. i put in, on the suggestion of general john allen, our commander in afghanistan at the time, the goalituation where

the economy kereview the quicker than you can kill or capture. in any counter terrorism effort we have to be mindful of the impact of our policies in the communities in which al qaeda and these other terrorist organizaons recruit. if they're gaining in population faster than you can take them off the battle field, then we've got a problem. >> rose: but the argument has been made for drone warfare, that it is very effective. >> two things. one, i think our government can and should do a better job of clarifying or denying or in some

cases confirming instances of collateral damage. there was unfortunate, unspenting losses of life out there. i do not believe they are as great as some in the public do main would have us believe upon. the other is i think we do need to assess the impact of our policies. when we were-- i'd go to the hill on a number of occasions with closing guantanamo. early on in the first term, and one of the things i would constantly note is al qaeda uses begun ton no as a recruiting tool, to bring in national people. we're hearing that now when it

comes to our efforts. we have to be mindful of that and i think we have to monitor >> rose: what is the legal justification for 55 the. >> in call it the tension without chrnlings. traditionally, the theory behind law board detention, is you take them off the battlefield in relation to the fight. we're going to have this question arise, i suspect very soon, vis-a-vis the taliban with

the end of combat operations in afghanistan at the end of 2014, is the night against the pal wan over such as those left at guantanamo who are telebrand saying your legal authority for holding on to me has evaporated. we're going to have to face that's question. our congress is going to face their children johto think about a new regime o deal with what i see as a reflection point in our overall efforts. we're moving away from the fight against the taliban, al qaeda, as we knew it 12 years ago, moving into a different phase, and we need to think about a new legal architecture. >> rose: is it your impression that the president of the united states has continued most of the counter-terrorism policies of

the bush administration? >> i would not put it that way. a lot of people say you guys in the first term of obama behaved a lot like the guys in the second term of bush. >i think a lot of what we did resembled a lot of what the second wuive term did. but we started from fundamentally different places. let me give you an example. a lot of times, talking with lawyers in the department who had been trained in the bush years. i asked a legal question and they'd tell me there's nothing that prohibits it in international law. for so many years their civilian -- >> let me see if i understand this. the question would be asked in the context of i want to do this. tell me if there's any reason i

can't >> the question would be asked in the obama years. what authorityized this, and the answery would get backain is there is nothing that hohibits it. my question to our lawyers was was what authorizizes this special activit in international law and domestic law. when is there anything that prohibits it? i think mamight be the president for the first. we started from different places. we ended to end up in very similar places, put we started from a fundamentally different -- >> do you believe the bush administration broke the law in terms of the way they handled. -- in the way the c.i.a. handled-- >> i would eye would-- i would

hesitate to say that i know because i've been there and i sat in the chair. you make the best legal judgments that you can at the time in the context ofch you priet and in national security, very often the situation is grave. it is urgent, and lawyers make thbest judgment that we can. we in-- the bush administration lawyers under the first towm of years after 911 had no pression department for that situation. so a lot of what you sauce was trying to fashion something to deal with a new kind of threat, unconventional enemy. a lot of it went to wowrs, hike the lit tbaigz coming out of guantanamo. they took some lumps. by the time we cav into office

in 09, the ginnings a structure post-9/11 were taking shape which we operated within. so i hesitate to accuse any lawyer or any administration that came before me of breaking the law. >> rose: bradley manning. >> yes, sir. >> rose: faims because of the wikileaks. now he's in prison somewhere. you had something to do with where he is prison, as i understand. where is that story-- where does that case stand? >> well, it's a military justice prosecution. that's bumping along. he has or intends to plead guilty to some but not all the counts, which is rather unusual. in a civilian context you don't do that. you make a deal. he wants to plead guilty to some but not all the more serious counts. national initially, he was in

pretrial confine independent quantico, a marine detension facility. one of the interesting things i did not appreciate becau of our downsizing, our base closures, quantico, which is in northern virginia, was like the only-- or one of the few pretrial detention facilities we had on the whole east coast. so here's a soldier in a marine detention facility. and there were issues about his confinement. and the issues in the public view began to snowball to the point where, you know, chants of "free bradley manning," and so i and others took a careful look at itith the-- at the request of the secretary, and leavenworth, which is an army pretrial detention facility in the midwest, stepped up and said, "we'll take him. he's our soldier. we'll take him." and they have done a remarkable

job, as far as i can see. >> rose: and everything died down in terms of the protest. >> and everything died down in terms of the protest about the conditions of his confinement. we in effect sort of change the the narrative, changed the story. >> rose: lookingat american national security, what worries you? >> what worries me most is our inability-- and i'm optimistic that this won't always be the case-- our inability in the political dialogue to have a calm, rational debate about new authorities, removing some of the restrictions on detainee movements at guantanamo, people get very emotional about these subjects and very excited about these subjects.

and you now have this very interesting dynamic where the far right and the far left have effectively converged in their thinking about war making, about use of leectal force bcounter-terrorism. and so my hope is that-- and i believe that there are elements in the acknowledge that are ready to have this kind of discussion-- myope is that we can have a calm, rational, intelligent discussion about what's needed for the future in terms of national security. we were able to do that a number of times over the last four years like military commissions were formed, for example. and my hope is that we can return to that. >> rose: i think in the oxford speech you talked about tipping point and one of the things you said, "at that point, we must be able to say to ourselves that our efforts shou noonger b an armed conflict against al qaeda and associated forces,

rather against individuals who are the scattered remnants of al qaeda." what's your point? >> my point is that armed conflict should be finite. armed conflict is an extraordinary state of affairs where one man is authorized to kill another. and that is an extraordinary, finite state of affairs that should not exist perpeally. so what tifs trying to suggest there is there should come a point when we need to think about the end, and move to something else. and one of the reasons i think that the speech got the reaction it did is not so much because of the details-- and i rest a fair amount of detail out-- but people were just glad to hear that their government was beginning tong along these lines. >> rose: do you think the end is in sight?

nkhat e end is in sight, the end of that phase is in sight. and i think it is now up to our national political leadership to have the discussion about what is needed for the future. >> rose: you were a great admirer of martin luther king, as were so many americans. you got into a little bit of a controversy, i think, at one point. >> i did, yes. >> rose: you suggested, which i thought seemed the appropriate thing to say, under certain circumstances dr. king would approve of the necessity of war. i may be giving this a too general spin. interesting story about public service. i gave a speech-- it was right after i dealt with don't ask, don't tell. what i said in that speech-- and you're correct i consider myself

a-- martin luther king was my hero. i 21 college with his son at moorehouse. what i'd like to do in speeches is talk abo the last years of his life. i wanted to deliver an antiwar message to a pentagon uniporm. so what i said was. >> -- if go-- i don't think he would expect you to put down your arms. you all are like the good shar tans dr. king referred to on the last night of his life, to stop by the roadway to help the man in need. that what i said. now, there was one reporter in the room who happened to work for the department of defense, who misunderstood the nuance of my message and posted a story that says, "king would believe in today's wars" johnson says.

the blogosphere went viral on me for. a week. it passed after about a week. what was interesting is the speechnt's entirety were not public. i hesitated in my oxford speech about quoting dr. king again but i felt like i wanted to do. >> rose: didn't the president speak to this issue in a way in his nobel speech. >> i think he did. >> rose: thank you for coming. jeh johnson. thank you for joining us. and we'll see you next time

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