literacy and the economic empowerment that comes with it. >> ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television]

tavis: jane mayer is a staff wrter for "the new yorker" writes about national intelligence. she is also a best selling author whose latest is now out in paperback, "the dark side -- the inside story of how the war on terror turned into a war of american ideals." congratulations on your success. let me start by asking you what the most significant change, not shift on iraq -- change, shift on iraq policy that came out? >> for me, obama came in and it is first week banished torture. and he also closed down the secret prison sites that the cia had. he is trying to get is back on a reasonable footing that is keeping with american values,

but it is not so easy. tavis: historically, is there any shift from one administration to the next that came so swiftly, so certain, and so severe? >> i think t was one of the most fantastic turnaround we have had. it was a complete obliteration of the policies of george bush. he wiped the slate -- he wiped the slate clean. particularly on torture. tavis: and there are those who argue that president obama has not gone far enough on the torture issue. your thoughts? >> i think it is a slippery slope. it is interesting, if anybody understands this, it is barack obama. he taught constitutional law. in dealing with the prisoners in guantanamo, they are really talking about possibly keeping

an open, holding them forever, detention indefinitely without trial. and if barack obama does that, i think he will start to make some of the same mistakes bush had. tavis: for those who have not been following this case like you have, what is the status now with specific regard to guantanamo? >> torture has been abolished by obama. we are now observing the loss, the geneva convention. -- we are now observing the law is, at the geneva convention. that has been done. the problem is, obama got left with this population of prisoners in guantanamo whose rights were so violated by the bush administration that it is very hard bring the back into the courts. they have been tortured before. you cannot just put them on trial because their rights have been violated. the evidence that is against

them has come from people who were tortured. those confessions should be thrown out in any decent american court. the problem is the evidence is tainted, the cases are tainted by everything bush did before, but these are very dangerous people, some of them, and you cannot just let them go free. tavis: what has obama said or what are we debating about the options? >> they have gone through this process of trying to figure out who is innocent so they can let them go. then they have tried to come up with charges against the people they can charge in court. they're working on that process now. i think the issue is, it is there a remaining group of people who are dangerous who they cannot bring into court? i think again, if obama decides there are people that he thinks the united states can hold without charging them, without giving them a trial, hold them forever, he will start to make some of the same mistakes george

bush did. tavis: but how could he? how could he do that? how could he do that, and when i say do that, legally, number one, and politically what is the argument for holding them indefinitely? >> i was just speaking with somebody at the white house about it. the argument is basically, right after the 9/11 attacks, congress wrote something called the authorization to use military force that allows the united states to call the war on terror a war. under the rules of war, you could hold the enemy when you have enemy prisoners of war until the end of the conflict. they could argue this is a war, the conflict is not over because the war on terror continues, and they could hold them until the end of the war on terror. nobody has defined what that means, but it could hold them basically forever. -- but they could hold them basically forever.

tavis: but that would fly in the face of his argument of upholding american ideas. >> but they will say is is a little different from what bush did. bush said was because he was president, he could define who the enemy was and hold them indefinitely. obama is saying, i am not doing this because i am president. i do not have those rights just because i am president. but congress has authorized this because they put through this legislation. he is not saying it is because i am king, it is because congress made it possible. it is less tyrannical, but i do not think it will fly, certainly not with the human rights community. tavis: what we know in addition to what has changed is that dick cheney has started coming in like the phantom of the opera, and he has a lot to say. we had the battle of the press

day when obama was speaking about torture, dick cheney was speaking about torture, both of them were being carried live with diametrically different points of view. how does dick cheney and those who believe in his argument, who see it the way he sees it, which is to say if you let any of these people go, if anything ever happens again courtesy of these individuals, obama would never live it down. if any of these persons got let go and anything happen between now and reelection, it would be over. >> i interviewed leon panetta, and he said it is almost as if dick cheney wants america to get attacked again. he got into trouble for saying it, but most people understood what he said. it is like dick cheney is lying down a marker in says, if anything bad happens, it is obama is not torturing people the way we did -- it is obama's fault because he is not portray the people the

way we did. it is ridiculous. if we get attacked again, any expert will say it is possible, it is not because we are not torturing people, it is because it is impossible to have perfect security in an open democracy. tavis: the argument could be made that we're being attacked again. they are getting ready. back to your point, a lot of people believe that is not a matter of if but when. that there is no way that you could ever be 100% certain that you will not get hit again inside your borders. the argument that dick cheney would make is we are getting hit begin not because we did not tortured but because we are being too soft on these terrorists. >> right, and that is the argument they are trying to make, and i think it is not fair because the reason we were attacked in the first place had nothing to do with being soft on people. it was because there was an

intelligence failure. the fbi and cia stop talking to each other and dropped the ball. if you talk to experts, they will say this issue of supposedly being tough, using tough methods just hurt more than a help. you get that information, you start to hurt the reputation of america around the world, you make our enemies angry to the point that they are radicalized against us, and this is what all the military leaders have said, is what the fbi says. really, the only people who are still fighting for to be able to use torture or the people who use them before, people like dick cheney. i have to wonder if he is fighting for america where he is fighting for his own reputation. tavis: both probably? >> i think so. tavis: how are we doing under the obama administration with intelligence? what is the chief failure, that we did not get the intel correct.

how are we doing on at the intelligence? >> he says we are worried that we still did not have great interrogators. he is setting up something that sounds almost like the manhattan project for interrogation. they are going to get the best homicide detectives in the country and they're going to get people from the fbi, the cia, the military, linguists who speak the languages, cultural experts, and try to put together this brain trust to interrogate terrorists. he is on it. i do not think they have accomplished all they want to yet. tavis: how does the troop drawdown in iraq impact this? >> i do not have a crystal ball. you just hope for the best. but obviously, any sort of failed states around the world, if iraq becomes unstable, is a problem for terrorism. tavis: another question that may

require a crystal ball which you said you just do not have, what then it if president obama becomes the standard for success, for mission accomplished? what is the standard for him on this issue? >> one of the things that he said that i like it is that our security, that there is not a contradiction between our security and our values. he is saying, and i hope he can prove this successfully through his term, is by using our laws, our great judicial system, and our courts and our values, we are stronger. it is not because of weaker. how will we judge that? we will see if they get convictions and get rid of these people in guantanamo and treat them any way that is just. if he does that, that will be tremendous. tavis: fascinating story, and

jane meyer is a great writer. her book is called "the dark side." nice to have you back, as always. up next, a unique look at the world of teenaged boys with journalist malina saval. stay with us. malina saval is an author whose work has appeared in "the l.a. times" and "variety." her new book is called "the secret lives of boys." nice to have you on the program. what is at the secret life of boys? >> they range from everything that i met boys who had venereal diseases that their parents did not know about, boys who were applying to colleges who their parents did not know about. on their own, there were planning to go to different schools. i had boys who were spending

nights at various friend's houses who their parents did not know about. there were just a lot of secrets that were nuanced, emotional secrets, passions they may have had about parts, favorite films, resentment they had that they never really shared. it ran the gamut from the shocking to things that were really close to the chest they did not feel comfortable sharing with their parents. tavis: our boys emotional? >> they are incredibly emotional. they are incredibly emotional. they talk, they emote, they have so much to say and share. they're passionate, compassionate, interested. they talked for hours, to the point where sometimes i had to tell them we're running out of time, we will come back to this. boys are emotional. i find fascinating the idea that boys have nothing to say and there is nothing going on inside

of them, that they are paralyzed creatures with nothing to share. that is not true. tavis: to your point, this book is really a push back on the notion that you suggest now that the world of boys and ultimately the future of the country going to hell in a handbasket because these boys today cannot get it together, particularly in communities of color, my own included. give me the argument that does not push back on that notion? >> i tried to debunk the stereotypes. you mentioned minority teens, african american teenagers. one is called the teenaged dad. i went into this book thinking, wouldn't it be wonderful to get a white middle-class teen who had become a father? i cannot get one, not because they do not exist, but because those teenagers and parents were more reluctant to go on record.

what i found, spending time with a teenage father who is african- american, for him these are not as much a big deal to have a child as a teenager and the community as in others. how i'd about the stereotypes about these boys, when you think of a teenage dad, you think of an absentee dad, a drug dealer dad, a father who does not want anything to do with his child, out of the picture. this particular teenager was trying it in some ways to become the dad he never had. there was so much love he had for his child, and that is not something that is in the statistics, the fact he was doing everything to get his life together and work hard to not make the same mistakes his father had and mistakes he had made earlier on. that is just one example of how i wanted to debunk the stereotypes of boys and boys of

different races and color. tavis: for this particular book, "the secret lives of boys," you could get a black teenage father to go on the record, but the families of these white teenage fathers did not want them on the record, beyond that, what is the difference between house day, the white teenage fathers, handled their responsibility -- what is the difference between how they, the white teenage fathers, handle the responsibility between the black community? >> i met a couple of white teenage fathers who did not go on the record. of what i noticed was their decision to have the child was met with a lot more opposition then for this particular team with his parents. because this team in the book called "the teenaged dad," his parents had had him at a young

age, whereas the other kid who i met, his parents were professional and had waited to get out of school before they had them. their frame of reference was completely different. across the board, getting these parents to cooperate was incredibly difficult, regardless of race. and a lot of respects, regardless of culture or socioeconomic, because the parents want to make sure i did not have a certain agenda. tavis: they wanted to protect their children. >> exactly, and it was difficult trying to persuade these parents i was just a curious journalist who was interested in what these kids had to say and give them an opportunity to voice their opinions. tavis: with the white teenage fathers, in some instances, their parents were pushing for an alternative. does that mean adoption or talking the mother into a boarding the child? no. 2, how did the teenage

father proceed? -- does that mean adoption or abortion? >> yes, and yes. they were encouraging both in both examples. tavis: how did the boys handle that? >> well, one of the boys absolutely said, no, i want to take responsibility. i think probably the gut reaction of somebody hearing about a teenager who gets a girl pregnant, their first response is get rid of it. this teenager said, no, i will take the responsibility. this is something i did and i want to be there for my child. the parents came down with the whole dose of reality, said it you do not know how difficult it is going to be. also, when you are a teenager, is not uncommon for teenagers to be stubborn and very steadfast

and resolute and really want to show their parents that they can do it, and they want to prove it the other people. the had a determination that really trumped any reality they had not yet discovered. tavis: what fascinated me about these teenage boys and father could, the book is about -- what fascinated me about teenage boys and fatherhood, the book is about more, but there are three categories that you put the boys into. i want to put out three. one was the mini adult. >> that is a kid who is old before his time, an old soul. he has trouble fitting in with kids his age and adults, because physically he is still a child. this particular job was bullied and school, which is a big problem, and he never quite fit in. he was struggling to get 4.0,

and would not stop at anything less than perfection. even he admitted at some point, it was going to wear down on him and he would have the result of never really having a childhood. he pushed himself harder than even his parents. he put all the pressure on himself, which was interesting, because you hear so much about parents pushing their kids. this was a kid who really just, unless he was perfect at school and with grades and gpa, and he was focused on his career at 13 when we spoke, and he was focused on a career to make a lot of money and support a family. he had all these heavy issues weighing on him at an age where maybe he should be focusing on playing little league baseball or relaxing. he had a difficult time unwinding and becoming a kid. he fancied himself an adult in an emotional capacity.

tavis: another one of these categories, the troublemaker. >> he was one of my favorites, because he was challenging. he called himself a troublemaker. these are chapter headings that the boys came up with on their own. they are not things i came up with. i wanted to give them a chance to define themselves. in some respects, they are ironic and self reflective or reflective of how society views them. the troublemaker, he had a lot of issues where you could point to and say, he must be doing drugs, he must be a bad kid. he actually had a lot of undiagnosed problems. he was later diagnosed with oppositional disorder, signs of bipolar disorder. he had been so misunderstood and people kept saying he was a troublemaker and said he was doing drugs, and after what he would play into their game. you want me to be a drug addict?

ok, i will be a drug addict. he could not beat them at their own game, so he said i will just play along. he really was not a troublemaker but just a misunderstood kid who was going through a lot. it took a long time before even his parents and the school would really come to terms with what was going on and give him a second chance, which is very rare. tavis: the sheltered 1. >> he is an interesting character. he is an african american teenager, and he is not the quintessential african american teenager. he said at times she felt like an outcast because when people conjure up an image of the african american teenager in our culture, they think of hip-hop and all these things, and he was a straitlaced, preppy kid. he was bizarrely sheltered. this is a good kid who had a lot of aspirations in the way of music, wanted to be a doctor, and his parents were immigrants from the caribbean.

they were scared of american culture so much they would not let him out of the house when they were not there. he was basically under house arrest when they were not home. he cannot leave the house because they were scared something might happen or he might get aids or something crazy would derail his chances for having a successful career. they were choosing his college, they would not let him go to a competition for singing. they were depriving him of a lot of things normal teenagers really need to grow. he could not be with his friends outside to go even to a diner to get a milkshake or anything. he was sheltered. his parents drove him to and from school, would not let him get a license or atm card. he was going through a lot and his identity was being squelched. because of that, he had to sneak around because, he said, it is not fair. he had had a little freedom. it was an incidents -- it was an

instance of a sheltered child whose parents were not even letting him brief. he was telling me things he never had a chance to express to his parents because if he did, they would clamp down harder. he was an interesting person perry -- he was an interesting person. tavis: her name is malina saval, "the secret lives of boys." you might want to get this book and see what category your boy's fall into. thank you for having me on the program. that is our show for tonight. catch me on the weekend on public radio international. access our podcast through our website, pbs.org. i will see you next time back here on pbs. thank you for watching, and as always, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley on pbs.org.

tavis: join me next time for our conversation with acta me -- actor jeremy remmer on one of the most anticipated films. we will see you then. >> there are so many things that wal-mart is looking forward to doing, like helping people live better. but mostly, we're helping build stronger communities and relationships. because with your help, the best is yet to come. >> nationwide insurance proudly supports "tavis smiley." tavis and nationwide, working together to improve financial literacy and the economic empowerment that comes with it. >> ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--