details on what was found in bin laden's clothe, money, phone numbers and all signs that he was ready to run. plus details of what reportedly was inside bin laden's will. another question still lingering, is the death of bin laden a result of enhanced interrogation techniques used the guantanamo bay? we'll talk to the man who oversaw interrogations at guantanamo. blue new details on the men who could replace bin laden, one of them an american born in new mexico. but we again with breaking news. a senior official tells nbc news, president obama has decided not to release a photo of osama bin laden after he was killed. nbc's mike viqueira joins us live from the white house. we started off playing congressman peter king and senator mccain, and you know it's interesting, difficult, opinions. but peter king is in the minority when you look at lawmakers who say, most say, it was not a good idea to release the photo. >> reporter: right, after a series of briefings on capitol

hill by leon panetta and others, a variety of opinions as lawmakers come out of the committees, diane feinstein saying it would be too gruesome blood, vis ser ra, this is what we're talking about here, whether it would be the benefits would be worth the costs in releasing such a picture just to prove to the arab street and others around the world this mission had been accomplished. the president now coming down on the side of those who say we should not release those photos. he had an interview with "60 minutes" the news program where he revealed his decision, i'm going to quote from the website, risks of release outweigh benefits, the president said. conspiracy theorists around the world will claim the photos are doctored anyway. and there is a real risk that releasing photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the middle east. he goes on to say, imagine how the american people would reang if al qaeda killed one of our

troops or military leaders and put photos of the body on the internet and the president continues, osama bin laden is not a trophy. he's dead and let's now focus on continuing fight until al qaeda has been eliminated. so, a number of questions have come to the fore in the heady 48 hours sin the president made that dramatic announcement in the east room. one, what did the pakistani official domino, what did the pakistan doft kngovernment know osama bin laden. there has been revision and extension of accounts of what happened in that compound when american commandos entered and killed osama bin laden, extracting him, burying him at sea and one of the biggest questions that emerged today what would happen to the the photograph. we know the answer, the u.s. government is not releasing it that is president obama's decision. >> as we mentioned, we're waiting on the white house briefing from jay carney. it is interesting, the debate

apparently that was going on behind the scenes in the interview with brian williams, cia direct, leon panetta indicated the picture would likely be released. and so tell me more insight into the back and forth that was going on there. ultimately again the president's decision, though. >> reporter: you have to look at why these photos or part of the reason the photographs were taken. there were a number of steps that the u.s. troops took, contingencies in place, procedures in place to identify the body should osama bin laden have bound in that compound. u.s. officials by their own admission, background, briefing, and on camera briefings, admit they were not 100% sure osama bin laden was there. first, there was the facial recognition software that revealed it was likely bin laden, that they had captured and killed. dna tests which officials say proved 100% that it was osama bin laden that they had. then there is the photograph that the president has now decided against releasing.

so you look at that, look at what the president alluded to himself, there's a taliban commander, for example, who reportedly said bin laden's been dead for a year and a half. you're not going to change anybody's mind who doesn't want to be changeded. they weighed all of this versus inflaming public opinion versus offending a lot of people, particular pli the aly the arabm world, and clearly they decided not to release that photograph for these and many other reasons. >> mike, thank you very much. and joining me is democratic senator from colorado, senator mark udall. he's also on the intelligence and armed services committee. senator, thank you for joining us again. republican senator says that she was shown this picture of a dead osama bin laden by another senator. have you seen the photograph? >> i have not seen the photograph, tamron. i would tell you i support the president's decision but i will ask that the intelligence committee have a chance to review these photographs. we can add heft to the reports

that have detailed osama bin laden's death and it will add weight to spreading the word that he is in fact dead that we can turn our attention to winning the war on terror as quickly as we possibly can. also many other questions that you're raising, important questions here, that ought to be answered, including what did pakistan know. strange credulity that he was living in an area that's affluent, near the pakistan's equivalent of west point, many reteared military personnel live. pakistan has some explaining to do, in my opinion. >> i saw you yesterday on our prime time coverage and you said the relationship needs to be reset. what did you mean by that? >> i think this is -- what iment by that was, pakistan has not been fully forthcoming with what they know. they're working both sides of the street, as you know. isi, their intelligence agency, has connections with the

pakistani taliban, afghan taliban forces. as i said yesterday as well i think we need to reengage pakistan on the question of their relationship with india, their concern about india drives all of their decisions. while they're looking to the east towards india, over their shoulders they face an existential threat on their western borders. there are terrorist entities and interests that would overthrow pakistan if they possibly could. that would be a very dangerous situation. there are 180 million pakistanis, they have a nuclear arsenal. it's a dangerous neighborhood, as you know. >> the president of pakistan, in his op-ed said, i'll paraphrase, it is ab-sesurd for someone to imply pakistan knew where osama bin laden was and somehow did not act on it. >> president zadari wrote that in good faith.

i think the civilian government didn't know where osama bin laden was. but i worry that the military and the intelligence communities, which are tightly linked, did have some knowledge and that's back to your initial question, what should our relationship be with pakistan. we ought to clear the air. we send $3 billion a year to pakistan. we may have to condition the aid on having a better, transparent relationship. after all, allies have to work together in every way possible. >> absolutely. i've got to ask you, also, the debate on torture, the headline in the new york sometimes, bin laden raid revives debate on value of torture. you've been very strong and very clear in your opinion of this. what do you make of some bush officials and others who quickly have pointed to the fact at least in their belief that it was a harsh interrogation that led to the ultimate death of osama bin laden? >> look, with all due respect, i will review the information once again. but i'm deeply committed to the

point of view that you can generate important information without using torture. all of our experience shows you generate better information, more accurate information when you treat prisoners humanity, when you befriend them, when you connect with them. those will defend the use of torture to the end of the day but -- i can't support that point of view. it undercuts what we stand for as americans. i remember senator mccain going to the senate year ago when senators were justifying use of torture because those are bad point. his point isn't it's about those people, it's about us. we are americans, we have higher standards, it's what our liberty and freedom is based on. we're strong enough to defend those values without stooping to the level that our enemies stoop to. >> senator mark udall, thank you for joining "news nation." >> thanks for having me on. waiting on jay carney to start his briefing for the day. but now to several new

developments coming from american intel against. officials are now saying the data found on osama bin laden's computers contain, quote, very valuable information and that it is being shared with u.s. security agencies. one official is not denying that some of the data includes information about who has been funneling money to bin laden and al qaeda. also, the cia is denying a report by bin laden's daughter, she's a 12-year-old that the u.s. forces captured bin laden and then killed him minutes later. meanwhile, in testimony on capitol hill, attorney general eric holder said bin laden's killing was absolutely justified and would have been even if the terrorist did not surrender. >> the operation against bin laden was justified as an act of national self-defense. it's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field. >> nbc's jim miklaszewski joins me live from the pentagon. again, we've spoken to you several times there are so people out there wondering why

the story -- and i don't want to use the word "change" -- but the account of what happened in the compound has been modified sense we first learned of bin laden's killing. >> reporter: well, even there we heard from attorney general eric holder justifying killing osama bin laden even though he was unarmed because he was an unlawful combatant. leon panetta indicated to brian williams, in their interview last night, that essentially, look, you know, he was fair game and you have to understand that when those soldiers broke into that room, it was not clear, it was dark, his one of his wives charged at one of the special operators in the room, she was shot in the leg, and from all of the conversations we have had with special operations forces who have been involved in operations like this, between shooting the wife and shooting bin laden, it's believed that would have been almost instantaneous. pop, pop pop, there wouldn't have been time to discern when he was arounded, whether he had

an explosive vest or if it was quite frankly clearly bin laden. it would have all happened so quickly. there's nobody in the military community of course that disputes those tack techs and throws ki those kinds of operations. we heard eric holder saying they were justified, armed or not, because he was an enemy combatant. >> what can you tell me, if anything, about the report cia military briefing team will travel to texas to brief former president george w. bush on the planning and execution of the assault? >> reporter: well, i think that's out of courtesy, because obviously the hupnt for bin ladn began during the bush administration. and the initial threads of evidence that were acquired through aggressive interrogations of khalid shaikh mohammed and others actually ultimately led the cia to the identification of the courier that led them to that complex, that led them to osama bin laden. and we're also hearing now that in addition to all of the other

information, the hard drives, the computers and the like, there were at least five cell phones that were confiscated, among the material taken from that compound. and it was clear that the courier, according to u.s. intelligence official, would often destroy cell phones, once he used them. because they contain -- they can contain, as you know, critical information, not just perhaps about who they were calling but where those call were placed to. >> which is so interesting because senior u.s. officials have told nbc news, i know you know this, the big security breach by the closest to osama bin laden was the use of the cell phones, ones that they would often destroy. thank you very much, mik. we're awaiting to hear from white house press secretary jay carney about the president's decision we just learned within the last hour, the president has decided not release the picture of a dead osama bin laden. the briefing from jay carney is expected to start any minute now. also coming up who will the

next leader of al qaeda? there is new information that an american could fill osama bin laden's shoes. plus -- what role did harsh interrogations really play in finding bin laden? i'll talk to a special agent in charge who was once in charge of interrogations at guantanamo bay. ooh, a brainteaser. how can expedia now save me even more on my hotel? well, hotels know they can't fill every room every day. like this one. and this one. and oops, my bad. so, they give expedia ginormous discounts with these: unpublished rates. which means i get an even more rockin' hotel, for less. my brain didn't even break a sweat. where you book matters. expedia. you think i have allergies? you're sneezing. i'm allergic to you. doubtful, you love me. hey, you can't take allegra with fruit juice. what? yeah, it's on the label. really? here, there's nothing about juice on the zyrtec® label.

what? labels are meant to be read. i'd be lost without you. i knew you weren't allergic to me. [ sneezes ] you know, you can't take allegra with orange juice. both: really? fyi. [ male announcer ] get zyrtec®'s proven allergy relief and love the air®.

welcome back. we are waiting the daily briefing from white house press secretary jay carney. we'll learn perhaps more information on the president's decision not to release a photograph of a dead bin laden. we know that the president has given an interview to "60 minutes" where the president say his won't release the postmortem images of osama bin laden taken to prove his death. in that interview, there's a quote that many thought was from president obama, but it is not. it is from republican house

intelligence committee chair mike rogers, the risks of release outweigh the benefits. those were not the president's words, those were the words of republican house intelligence committee chairman mike rogers. however, the president in the interview with "60 minutes" to air on sunday, the president won't release the post momortem images of osama bin laden. with osama bin laden gone, who will now lead al qaeda? many presume bin laden's top deputy, ayman al zawahiri. the u.s. is offering a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture. that was the same offered for bin laden. at least two others may also be in line to succeed bin laden, including an american born in new mexico. nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel has been following developments in the war on terror certainly for years. he joins us libya. who stands in line next? >> reporter: the egyptian

position, al zawahiri, 59 years old, someone who has been with bin laden for a very long time burke he does have detractors. he's considers arrogant. he's not charismatic at all. he's been giving speeches of late on the internet and they just don't get a lot of traffic. very different story for a much younger individual, the american u.s. citizen from new mexico yemeni, he speaks english flew enly obviously. speaks in a language that young people can understand and he makes logical arguments in aver of al qaeda's cause instead of using only koranic phrases and speaking in a type of poetic language that bin laden would favorer to use. some people even in the united states, it was al lackey an

e-mail contact with the shoot art ft. hood and encouraged attacks in the united states on the united states from yemen, including the underwear bomber's attack and the printer cartridge bombing. he is someone to watch. al qaeda could splint ter as a result of this even more than it has splintered over the last several year waez could see multiple leadership coming up. awlaki is someone to watch. >> is that the likelier thing we might see, splintering of the organization, richard? >> reporter: that's the trend that has been taking place over the last several years where al qaeda central command with al za r al zawahri, bin laden, taking a smaller role, and the spin-off taking as. will the spin-offs take over the entire organization now that bin laden's dead. >> because al alackey is an

american, richard, does that make him a more appealing leader in that they could perhaps continue to try to recruit american-born muslims here and use these people as someone to prop up in their recruitment? >> awlacky doesn't look for american, looks for someone with a clean passport, someone that would have a passport that wouldn't raise flag at international airports, europeans, american, canadians, different national talties. something they've been seeking out and encouraging people to go out and carry out attacks spontaneously, not wait for command, not central orders, not have to go back to a training camp in pakistan but his message, if you can do it, you have the passport, just take the initiative and carry out an attack on your own. his leadership if it were to become the indicate, would change the kind of attacks as

well that al qaeda has been known for. >> richard, i've got to get your thoughts on the president expected to make it official at this news conference we're waiting on, the daily brief that he will not release the photograph of osama bin laden dead. from what you are hearing there, were people i guess worried that this photograph might be used to further inflame tensions? >> reporter: the photographs certainly would have become a -- an iconic image for osama bin laden's followers. it would have been the kind of thing people use as their screen saver on telephones or computers and it would have given the militant groups another stock image like abu ghraib, like some detainees in guantanamo bay. this would have been yet another part of the stockpile of images. >> i apologize. i've got interrupt you. jay carney is starting now. >> before i take your questions,

i would just like to say to you, the president has made the decision not to release any of the photographs of the deceased, osama bin laden. and rather than -- rather, first, i will give you the language the president used when he was recently interviewed about an hour ago to explain his decision. this is an interview with cbs "60 minutes," steve kroft. the president was asked, he said that they were discussing when bin laden's body was taken out of the compound, the president was asked about how they knew it was him and he said, when they landed, we had very strong confirmation at that point that it was him. photographs had been taken. facial analysis indicated that,

in fact, it was him. we hadn't yet done dna testing but at that point we were 95% sure. question, did you see the pictures? the president, yes. question, what was your reaction when you saw them? the president, it was him. question, why didn't you release them? the president, we discussed this internally, keep in mind that we are absolutely certain that this was him. we've done dna sampling and testing so there is no doubt that we killed osama bin laden. it is important for us make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool. that's not who we are. we don't trot out this stuff as trophies. the fact of the matter is, this was somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received and i think americans, and people around the world, are

glad that he is gone. but we don't need to spike the football. and i think that given the graphic nature of the photos it would create some national security risk and i've discussed this with bob gates, hillary clinton and my intelligence teams, and they all agree. question, there are people in pakistan, for example, who say, look, this is all a lie, obama, this is another american trick, osama is not dead. the president, the truth is, that we were monitoring -- that we are month -- we were monitoring worldwide reaction. there is no doubt that bin laden is dead. certainly there is doubt -- no doubt among al qaeda members that he is dead. and so we don't think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference. there are going to be some folks who deny it. the fact of the matter is, you will not see bin lade walking on this earth again. that's the conclusion of the

excerpt. i think it states rather thoroughly why the president made the decision that he did. with that i'll attack your questions. >> thanks, jay. based on those comments the president made very compelling case of why not to release the photos. what was the internal debate? was he seriously considering releasing the photos? >> obviously the photos didn't exist until bin laden was killed, so there's not a great deal of time between then and the decision. there are obviously arguments to be made on either side. the fact of the matter is, as the president described, these are graphic photographs of someone who was shot in the face -- the head, rather. it is not in our national security interests to allow those images, as has been in the past been the case, to become icons to rally opinion against

the united states. the president's number one priority is the safety and security of american citizens at home and americans abroad. there is no need to release these photographs to establish osama bin laden's identity. and he saw no other compelling reason to release them, given the potential for national security risks. and further, because he believes, as he said so clearly, this is not who we are. >> was he in the time period you're discussing, the moment he had photos, and now we know the answer, was he grappling with this at all or was his stand clear and he was gathering other opinions? >> well, i don't know about the evolution of his decision making process. when i heard him discuss it he held this opinion very firmly. and he has held that opinion very firmly. but this is a very short period of time. obviously he wanted to hear the opinions of others. but he was very clear about his

view on this and obviously his decision is categorical. >> one other question. director panetta in one of the interviews he did yesterday said the government has been talking about how to best to do this but i don't think there was any question a photograph would be presented to the public. >> what i would say there are compelling arguments for in general, release of information and you know there's a discussion to be had about the pros and cons and the president engaged in that discussion and made a decision. the -- every member of the national security team is aware of and expresses the downside of releasing, was i think weighed heavily on the president in terms of potential risks and would pose to americans serving abroad and americans traveling abroad. so the idea that this was 100%

obvious, the fact of the matter is the president never gets to make a decision that's 100% obvious because those kind of decisions never get to his desk. >> that, i understand. i'm saying, his comment was, there was no question that -- >> look, the thing is the president made this decision. he consulted members of his national security team, there's reasonable arguments to be made. the president felt very strongly and made the decision he made. yes? >> jay, you talked yesterday a lot about the firefight. who was it that was shooting back at the u.s. commandos? z>> we have, as you know, since the moment this operation became public, been has helpful as we can be, to provide as much information as we can. in terms of the operational

details, we have gotten to the point where we cannot cross lines because of the necessity for preserving the methods and operational techniques and capabilities of the kinds of forces that were used in this case. you know, we have gone to limit of our able to do that and still maintain some of the things we need to maintain and be kept secret. that's a long way of beginning my answer to say we've revealed a lot of information, we've been as forthcoming with fact as we can, a lot of information came out quickly when we needed to clarify the information that we had, as more information came in, we provided that. but in terms of further details of the operation, i don't have any for you. you're welcome to obviously consult with the defense department about them, but i don't have any more information. i'm not going to discuss beyond what i've said already the operational details. >> some things, as you

acknowledged yesterday, have changed, as information came in. is the fact of a firefight solid? >> you heard the account that i read yesterday and that is information that i've provided. and i'm simply saying i'm not going further than that. >> okay. i guess i'm curious about you mentioned -- >> i'm not going further than what i said yesterday. so we can talk about -- we can ask a lot about operational details. the answer to your question is certainly contained within the account i read yesterday. but we're at a point where we need to be mindful of the necessity to protect our ability in the future to go after other bad guys, perhaps in the same way we went after this one. and some of the capacities that we have, the methods that we use, need to be protected and not compromised. >> let me ask one follow up question. are you concerned the way in which bin laden was killed and buried at sea might hurt the

president's ability to reach out to the muslim world as he has tried to over the last two years? >> the efforts that were made to give osama bin laden an appropriate burial following islamic precepts and traditions were considerable. however, i would also say that there is nothing -- the respect that was shown to him and his body was far greater than the respect that osama bin laden showed to the victims on 9/11 or any of his other victims. and that's because that's who we are. so we feel very comfortable with the fact that we took extraordinary measures to show

that respect to the traditions of the islamic faith. >> my question is about the president's specific outreach to the muslim world. >> i think that you heard the president speak on sunday evening about the unbelievably important fact to make clear, that president bush made clear before president obamaing there are efforts in the fight against terrorists, against al qaeda, are not aimed at islam, are not aimed at muslims, and the fact is, that the cooperation and assistance provided by muslims around the world is essential to our fight and it's not about them because osama bin laden was not a muslim leader. he was a mass murderer. a mass murderer of people around the world, including muslims. we obviously believe that we were absolutely within our righted to go after the most wanted man in the world, the most wanted terrorist in the world, the man who ordered the attacks on so many americans and

killed so many americans, and we -- it needs to be recognized that this is seen as a good thing throughout the world. and yet because of who we are, we took extraordinary measures to show the kind of respect that was shown in his burial. yes, jay? >> what do you say to the families of the victims of 9/11 and the "uss cole" and other terror attacks by al qaeda, do these family members say they want the photo released to have some closure? what is the white house response to that? >> i'm not going beyond the words of the president and i will rephrase them to say there is no question at all that osama bin laden is dead. he will not walk this earth again. we have established beyond any doubt through dna evidence, facial recognition, visual recognition, the naming of him by individuals on that compound,

that osama bin laden was shot and killed sunday night, he is dead, and that i think americans feel great sense of closure because of that. >> is there any other -- i understand the photographs are off the table. is there any other evidence of his death that might -- that you're still considering releasing, the president's considering releasing, whether video of his burial at sea, whether the dna evidence, is there anything else that could be released? >> welling i will simply say, the decision applies to all visual evidence and in terms of discussions that might be had, to go into more detail about how the dna evidence was analyzed and collected, how the facial recognition evidence was analyzed and collected and how the experts reached their conclusion that this was without any shred of doubt obama, i'm

sure that information can -- might be made available, will be made available in the future. but the decision that i cited the president made has to do with the visual evidence, the photographic evidence. >> lastly, the cia director, leon panetta, said in a closed door briefing on capitol hill, about the pakistani government that they either were involved or are incompetent. is that the position of the white house? >> i assume you mean by closed door briefing, classified briefing? i have no comment. >> okay. >> chip? >> sorry, dan. >> if -- i just want to clarify. you said that the president, based on your observations, always held the position that the photos should not be used? >> i just meant that we're now 2 1/2 days since this took place, that i know he had -- i heard him express this view yesterday but there was still --

he was gathering the thoughts and views of others on his team. so long held is an impossible statement to make since we're talking about a couple of days. >> he made up his mind and wanted to open it up for opinions to sway him as to whether or not they should be released. >> the president has a national security team and he wanted to hear opinions of others obviously. that's how he makes decisions in this white house and he wants to hear as he did with the decision to authorize this mission, which i think has been reported was not a decision that every member of his team supported or thought was -- that people had reservations obviously because it was a risky mission. this is a process that he undertakes because he believes that that's the way he wants his presidency to function. he wants the unvarnished opinions and advice and

assessments of his top advisers and in a situation like this, the last thing he wants is a bunch of people telling him what they think he wants to hear. >> can you give us a sense of whether or not it was majority opinion of those giving him advice that the photos should not be released? >> it was a majority opinion, yes. >> and also, can you give us anything more about this team that will be going to, i guess, brief former president bush? >> i don't have any information on that. yes, chip? >> thanks, jay. you said you didn't want to get into operational details but you kind of opened the door. >> you can try. >> you said he was shot in the face and then corrected yourself and said the head. were you saying he was not shot in the face? >> no, no, i simply -- he was shot above the neck, let's say that. >> i think we'd rather go with that, given the choice, but you're not saying -- >> i'm not. i don't have details to give you on that. >> why has the president decided

not speak at ground zero tomorrow? the president thinks it's entirely fitting and appropriate to visit the site of ground zero in the wake of this significant and cathartic moment for the american people. and he wants to lay a wreath to honor the victims, to honor the first responders who so courageously rushed to the scene, and in many cases gabe their own lives, to try to save others, to honor the spirit of unity in america that we all felt in the wake of that terrible attack. i think the power of that requires no words. and he will also meet with families of the victims and first responders in private. >> to use his expression was

there concern of spiking the ball. >> don't forget -- no, there wasn't a debate. but the president did speak on sunday night and remarkably large audience in this country, remarkable number of americans, saw him speak because the word traveled so fast about this monumental event that occurred, so, no there was no debate. >> quick question on "the new york times"/cbs poll. his approval rating jumped 11 points from 46 to 57 but at the same time approval on the economy is the lowest ever in the poll, 34%, if you can comment if you think there's any significance to all of that. >> i think that the country is still emerging from the worst recession since the great depression. i think that gas prices have weighed heavily on americans as they try to make ends meet and it's entirely understandable why

that sentiment is out there, because people are struggling and people in the case of how they're dealing with high gas prices are suffering. so that's -- we are fully aware of that and that's why this president i think you will see, will continue his focus on growing the economy, creating jobs, on working with congress to pass legislation that does that, working with congress to take measures that reduce our deficit, that invest in those areas that allow us to grow, allow us to compete, make sure that we educate our kids so we can be competitive in the 21st cent fip the centry. the remarkable thing to me, you always hear this, right, the train never stops, the speed, the events and the demands are so great, and what we have seen

in these historic times since the president came into office is that has been the indicate and then some. his focus on the economy has not wavered even as he has dealt very quietly with only a select number of people with this mission and -- from its inception to its execution, and that focus will continue. there's no -- you know, two things that he thinks about the most, security of the american people and the economic security of the american people, and at the same time. so that's the economy continues to be a major priority. >> we're hearing more and more lawmakers are seeing the bin laden photo or photos. to be clear, are they just being shown the photos or copies floating around the hill? >> i'm not aware of any photos being floating or being shown.

>> bin laden, sunday, when the raid happened, was there any opportunity for u.s. officials to question him before he was shot? >> again i'm not getting into operational details beyond what we've done. what i've said in the past yesterday is what i would say today. so you know, what happened on sunday night is that an incredibly courageous team of u.s. personnel entered a foreign country, in darkness, on an incredibly risky mission, executed it with -- at great risk to their own personal safety with -- executed that mission with great professionalism and accomplished the goal that this country had sought for 9 1/2 years. in a mission that dramatically

minimized collateral damage and civilian casualties, that was pulled off without any casualties among american personnel and it resulted in the bringing to justice of osama bin laden. we have an enormous regard for what was accomplished on sunday by those men. >> are there american heros, i didn't know if they got -- >> i defer for those questions to the defense department. >> last question, any attempt by american officials to vints interview, question bin laden's wife who was there at the scene. >> not that i'm aware of but you might ask the state department that. chuck? >> are there any u.s. officials involved in the questioning of anybody else at compound? >> that goes to that -- what mike just asked. i don't have an answer, so we

obviously cooperate and have an important relationship with pakistan and with pakistani government. but i don't have any information with which to answer that question. >> are they sending briefings of their interrogation? >> i just don't know. i don't have an answer. >> is there going to be an updated narrative on what you read yesterday? >> i think, you know, i made pretty clear that we have provided a great deal of information and have made an effort to get that information to you very quickly. the nature of this operation and the repeatity to understand the information it meant we needed to clarify some facts but i don't have any more operational detailser to you. >> are you dodone clarifying? >> i don't have any more operational details for you. >> is this final?

>> again, i don't draw any lines like that it would be foolish to. we don't have any information for you today. i think we've provided a great deal of information for you about that operation. the focus, i think most people's focus, is on the remarkable nature of what was accomplished, the fact it was done with no american casualties and very limited collateral damage and done in a way that we could be entirely sure that osama bin laden had been brought to justice. >> one more. i want to follow up, one more on the issue of 9/11 families. given that many members of congress are being shown this photo, if they asked to see the photo under some circumstance that would not be public but for

them, if they ask for in opportunity, would the administration be open to giving that opportunity? >> i don't have an answer to that right now. >> i spoke on i believe monday with the charm of the 9/11 commission and he said one of the glaring recognitions that hasn't been implemented yet is freeing up radio spectrum for first responders. where does the administration stand on that, so first responders can communicate? >> i just don't know. >> you answered this but can you clarify, no visual evidence will be released including video? >> that's right. visual record of osama bin laden's death or his deceased body. >> just one different topic, if you don't mind. does the administration have any expectations or what expectations does the administration have for the meeting tomorrow that biden is hosting with the congressional leaders? >> look, this is the beginning of an important process.

the president, by appointing a simpson bowls commission, by putting forward the plan he did at george washington university for his vision for reducing our deficit while in a balanced way, while investing in the essential priorities of government to allow us to grow, and allow us to create jobs, he is now taking this step to move this process forward because he believes that you know we're at an important point here. republicans and democrats alike share recognize the problem, that's important, and they agree that it exists. they share the same end goal, which is $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and they share the same general idea of what the time line should be, 10 to 12 years. this creates potential for a bipartisan compromise on some of this, at least. and that's what this process, we

hope, will launch on thursday and so we -- i don't want to -- there will be no announcement after that meeting that a deal has been reached because this is a process. but you know we expect progress to be made. yes? karen? >> i'm just wonder, just trying to get clarity here, why did the narrative released yesterday not mention bin laden's son? was he killed in the raid? >> this is the kind of thing i'm trying not to -- first of all go beyond what i said yesterday and secondly, to -- what i would just say, for questions like that i referred you to the defense department and they may be able to get an answer for you. >> john brennan, on monday, gave one name -- >> okay, i think this has been made clear. this is an important point. the transcript, he gave a name, it is the correct name, unfortunately when the transcript was listened to and

put on paper, an error was made in transcribing that name. john brennan's -- i think we've corrected that and what he said was accurate. >> and was any other person dead or alive taken from the compound and transported from the scene by u.s. personnel? >> no. >> and then on tomorrow, is there -- does the president have concern about possibly exploiting 9/11 families? does they want to keep some of this private? >> he's meeting in private with 9/11 families. >> i mean, is there any -- >> in private. >> okay. >> no press. >> okay. what are the public events, then, tomorrow? >> he's going to the world trade center site and laying a wreath in public. that will be -- >> why did he decide to make these meetings all private? >> i think you said so in your question. i mean you suggested why that would be the case. it's about he wants to meet with them and share with them this

important and significant moment, a bitter-sweet moment, i think, for many families of the victims. and he thinks it's appropriate to do that in private. yeah? >> why did he want to invite president bush and what is lost by president bush not being there? >> the president obama wanted to invite, and did invite, president bush because, as he's made clear on sunday night and we've made clear this is a moment of unity for americans and a moment to recall the unity that existed in this country in the wake of the attacks on 9/11 and he wanted to -- he invited president bush because he had hoped that if president bush were able to come, that he would join the president in is v visiting the world trade center site. we completely understand that he's not able to come but that

the invitation was made in that spirit. >> to follow on ben's question earlier, when cia director panetta spoke to nbc and lawmakers on the hill he was clear that it was a question of when, not if, the photos would be released. was he misinformed or was he overruled? what -- >> the decision -- the fining decision had not been made. >> he spoke out of lirne out of turn? >> the president made a decision. there obviously are arguments to be made on each side of this and the final decision was not made until today. >> so he was wrong? >> the final decision was not made until today. >> what time? >> this morning. i don't have -- i don't remember precisely. i didn't look at my watch. >> you were with him when he made the decision? >> yes. >> can i clarify one thing? when you talked about the president's role tomorrow in new york, are you ruling out that he'll make comments, perhaps even informal ones? >> there's no plan for him to

speak at the wreath laying ceremony. his events with the families and first responders are in private. you know, i don't -- as was the case the other day when they didn't speak at cabinet meeting i obviously don't -- he's not a robot and you know he could potentially speak at some point tomorrow, but there are no plans for that. >> thanks. >> yes? >> thanks, jay. has the president spoken to anyone on the team that carried out the mission? >> i don't have any information for you on that at this point. >> do you know if anyone in the white house has, mr. brennan? >> well, it depends. the team is a big -- it's not just men who went into pakistan. there's obviously a bigger network that represents the team, the operation team, and i just -- i'm not sure. there is the head of special forces who obviously has spoken to members of the administration and he's very much part of the

team. so i don't have any information about more contact. yes? >> the u.n.'s top human rights official said yesterday that she hoped the administration would release full details about the operation in or to settle any questions about whether it was legally justifiable. does the administration feel or have any plans that it needs to say anything more about how the operation was carried out, rules of engagement to justify the action that happened? >> let me address that question and i'll -- forgive me, i'm going to read so i'm very precise here. the team had the authority to kill osama bin laden unless he offered to surrender in which case the team was required to accept his sur remember den if they could do safely. the operation was conducted in a manner consistent with laws of war. the operation was planned so that the team was prepared and had the means to take bin laden into custody.

>> did anybody on the team -- >> there is simply no question that the operation was lawful. bin was the head of al qaeda and the organization that conducted attacks of september 11, 2001 and al qaeda and bin laden himself continued to plot attacks against the united states. we acted in the nation's self-defense. the operation was conducted in a way designed to minimize and avoid altogether, if possible, civilian casualties. if i might add, that was done at great risk to americans. further more, consistent with the laws of war, bin laden's surrender would have been accepted if feasible. that's my response. yes? >> two questions. thanks, jay. one, what president obama did on sunday, he became hero around the globe, relief to millions of people, including in indian, the victim for 20 years of his

terrorism. also, my question is, when the president spoke, what is the reaction from pakistan and other leaders that he has spoken? what are they saying inside pakistan? >> well, i think -- i don't want to speak for the pakistani government and i think in terms of our analysis of the react within pakistan, i'd point you to the state department. the president of pakistan wrote an op-ed the other day, i think you can glean some information from that. and in terms of other leaders, the president did speak with a number of leaders from around the world and they all congratulated the united states on this accomplishment, bringing to justice osama bin laden, but i don't have any other characterization to give you. >> i ask that, for the last ten years, this is what i've been saying here in the white house, the pentagon, that obama is living and protected by the pakistani intelligence and

living -- you can see on sunday what the whole world saw, his lifestyle was there inside pakistan. don't you think pakistan has to answer, so many questions to answer to the international community and the united states and millions of people -- >> what john brennan said, what i'll repeat, we obviously are interested in finding out detail of the support network that obviously helped mr. bin laden hide in abbottabad. we don't know the members of that support network. we also note that the pakistani government has launched an investigation of its own and we think that's a good thing. we will work to find out as much as we can about how that happened. i would then further state, that our relationship with pakistan, while complicated is very important and it's very important precisely because of

our need to continue the fight against al qaeda, to continue the fight against terrorists, the fight is not done. and we look forward to cooperating with pakistan in the future. as others have said, more terrorists have been killed on pakistani soil than probably any other country. and the cooperation we've received from pakistan has been very useful in that regard. >> second, if i may -- >> i think that's third. >> thank you. what president said sunday, war is not against islam or the muslimings my question is in or to bring muslim community, including the u.s., because they are saying they are being targeted and congressman john king had hearings on muslims, don't you think there is time for president to speak globally to the muslim people that what -- >> i don't have any announcements for other speech. i'll let the president's statement on sunday stand for

itself. how are you? >> can you clarify, has the president indicated to you in any way he wants you to stop giving out clarifications or information or that he wants d.o.d. to stop because you're directing us in that sphere. >> my point is, this is to make the point we've provided a great number of details. i don't have new details to provide. there are issues here. you understand, a lot of reporters have covered and written about or done pieces on special operations and the kinds of operations that we're talking about here, and there are equities we need to protect, you know, it would be extremely foolhardy for us to divulge information in the recounting of what happened on sunday that would in some way, in any way, limit our capacity to perform a similar operation in the future. we're not done. going after terrorists. would that we were, but we're not. >> wait.

are you suggesting -- are you suggesting that to answer the question or any of the questions today would harm national security compared to the details that you're giving out for the last two days? >> i think that we have given out a great number of details. i don't have any more details for you. you can certainly ask the defense department for more details. the point here is that we've divulges an extraordinary am of information about this operation and we don't want to divulge any information that would impede our capacity to launch a similarlatisimilar operation in the future. i think that's entirely reasonable. i think, again, the level of detail and the amount of information has been rather extraordinary. and there has -- and we did. >> can we keep doing that? >> well, no. you can ask, but the point is, is that i don't have any clarifications for you. what i said yesterday stands and i clarified a couple of points and you know, the problem