tavis: good evening, from los angeles, i'm tavis smiley. as the white house considers reversing course and moving the controversial terror trials out of the new york city, there is a renewed debate on how the u.s. should be dealing with suspected terrorists. first up font tonight, a conversation with one of the central figures in this debate, john yoo. the official justice department official and author of the bush era torture memos is out with a new book on the use of president power called "crisis and command." also tonight, actor ed o'neal stops by, the former star with "married... with children" is enjoying success in prime time on tv's number one new comedy, "modern family." we're glad youoined us, author john yao and actor ed o'neal coming up right now. >> there are so many things that wal-mart is looking forward to

doing, like helping people live better, but mostly we're looking forward to building stronger communities and relationships. because of your help, the best is yet to come. >> nationwide insurance proudly supports tavis smiley. tavis and nationwide insurance, working 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. >> john yoo is the former deputy assistant attorney general who helped set terrorist detainee policy in the wake of 9/11. he is at author of the new text,

"crisis and command," a history of executive power from george washington to george w. bush. he joins us tonight from berkeley. professor yoo, good to have you on the program. >> thanks for having me on. tavis: i want to ask a couple of lead-in questions about the book. let me ask frankly whether or not in retrospect you are willing to admit that you made a mistake with those torture memos writn during the bush era. >> i don't think so. i think that we had some very tough decisions to make about how much pressure to put on the number three, four, five leaders on al qaeda, we're talking just a few months after the 9/11 pe in that position would have done something very similar. tavis: so you don't think at all in retrospect, no insight at all as to whether or not, no rethinking, i should say as to whether or not what you were

engaged in was an absolute violation of civil liberties of certain persons? >> no, whearp trying to do was try to define what wasn't torture. we wanted to provide our intelligence agencies on how to interrogate al qaeda leaders under these circumstances but not restrict them giving them a lawyer and their rihanna warnings but not violate any laws with torture either, what was the space in-between that they could legally do. the last point i want to page on that, we didn't tell them what to do either, it's up to the c.i.a. and president what measures to take. because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do that. tavis: giving them the leeway to do that and you can't juxtapose what you wrote with the geneva conventions, doesn't that open up the door? >> i don't think so. the geneva conventions and the rules that we use to protect our soldiers to fight humanely and

according to the laws of civil warfare don't apply to al qaeda. they don't follow the rules. they attack civilians by surprise. they don't wear uniforms. all they do to carry out war is launch surprise attacks on the civilian population. we should reserve the rules of the geneva convention to other armies and not give privileged treatment to the terrorists who refuse to obey. tavis: the u.s. gets to play by different rules in other words? >> the law has different rules for different people depending on whether they violate the rules or not. if you drive within the speed limit, you don't get arrested and pulled over. if you speed, then the law has different sets of rules for you. i think that's the same thing with al qaeda. they are violati all the rules that are designed to keep civilians out of the fighting, to keep them out of the combat. what al qaeda wants to do is violate and blur those rules. i don't think we should give them any privileged status for us when the law doesn't call for it.

tavis: my question is about us, not about them. if, in fact, in the process of trying to deal with terror, we violate the very best of what america is all about. we deny people their civil liberties. we rewrite the rules so that we can do whatever we want to do and in the process, our standing in the rule completely plummets, i'm asking you now, looking back on it you're telling me now that you don't have any regrets, have you not rethought any of this with regard to what you did in the bush era? >> let m be clear. i think about these things all the time. one of the reasons i wrote this book is it comes out of a lot of things i thought about since my time in the government, but particularly after. so don't let me give you an impression that i haven't really thought about this since. but the same thing is a lot of what you said are legitimate and justified concerns. i don't think they go to what's the best legal interpretation of the geneva convention. i think those are all calls for our elected leaders. say if president bush or president obama today capture an

al qaeda leader, a lot of things you said are things they should think about when they decide on the right policy, whether to use pressure in interrogation for example, how are our own soldiers going to be treated, our position in the world, what other countries are going to do, whether they're going to cooperate with us more on terrorism. that doesn't effect how we interpret the geneva conventions. those are factors you have to think about as the president or his or her national security advisor when you decide the policy in interrogations you're going to use. a lot of the things you just mentioned are also concerns about invading iraq. maybe you thought the invasion of iraq was lawful and constitutional and the president did it. that doesn't tell you it's a good idea as a matter of policy and strategy whether to invade iraq. you have to take that decision into account looking at a lot of the factors you just mentioned. tavis: going straight to your book, one of the issues you talk about is the role that the president plays as compared to congress and the supreme court,

assess for me in short order what you make of the power, the authority, that the president does have to make the decisions that we're talking about right now. >> thanks for asking that question. i'm glad you looked at the book. the basic premise of the book is that presidents in peace-time have a relatively modest role, mostly in checking congress. but in times of emergency, crisis and particularly war, the constitution vests the president with broader powers. he or she is the head of the branch that is best able to act quickly and decisively to protect the country where congress is more deliberative and slow. so the argument in this book is that our greatest presidents and really lincoln in the civil war, lincoln is the hero of the book. when you look at what the presidents did in times of crisis, our greatest ones, lincoln, washington, f.d.r., are the ones who pressed the powers to the limits to try to address the challenges before us. we don't talk about our worst presidents, but those are the ones who faced sometimes with

the same key seize shrank into a shell and defender and looked to the other branches, the congress and the supreme court for leadership. tavis: i'm trying to figure out what your position is on this given my reading of the text, whether or not you believe that process, that -- although it is of course inscribed in our constitution, whether or not you think at this point in history we ought to rethink that, particularly on this side of the bush doctrine which we discovered after iraq didn't hold up. >> well, i think one thing is that this power expands during crisis and it retracts. and so it is not like a one-way road that just presidential power keeps getting greater and greater. part of the question we have to ask ourselves, is president obama right now is confronted still by wars in iraq, afghanistan, and against al qaeda worldwide. do we really want to pull back on his powers now while he is still grabbing those? i would say no. a very good question you ask about how should we think about the balance between the branches

and the president's power is a good time to think about when we can reflect in peace-time. second, the constitution creates a dynamic where it's up to the congress and the courts who have their own constitutional powers to limit the presidency. i think even despite the powers i talk about in "crisis and command," powers that people like lincoln with the emancipation proclamation or f.d.r. getting us into world war ii earlier, even though they can exercise great powers, the other branches have the wherewithal to stop them if they want to use it. if we want people to stop the war in iraq several years ago or congress want to stop president obama's initiatives today, they have ample power to do it in congress, but only if they have the political will to do it. tavis: i hear your point about political will, i think it's also true -- you tell me if agree. it's also true with the so-called bush doctrine now which is essentially we think you're going to hit us, we hit you first, if you don't have what we thought you had,

w.m.d.'s, we'll see oops afterwards. the doctrine causes us to strike people. you don't think that is pushing the envelope off the table and why don't you believe that every president after josh bush is going to crave more power. >> was the bush doctrine, preemptive war a good idea? we have done it before. the mexican-american war of 1848, for example, or world war i are good examples where the united states acted to try to change the balance of power, even though we were not directly threatened by invasion or attack. i would also say president obama with his policy on the predator drones is very much doing the same thing. we are launching missile attacks on people we think are going to harm us. we're not going to send the f.b.i. out to arrest them and bring them back to trial. we're trying to kill them abroad. so it has been part of american foreign policy before bush and after bush. with that said, it's certainly worth thinking about whether it's a valid strategy.

i tend to think that it's something that our presidents have to have available to them. it's also something congress can prevent if it wanted to. and rather congress and the president fighting, what you see is a high level of agreement between the congress and the president about pursuing that. tavis: i want to ask two questions. i assume that the news is coming out today, you are ok with, which is that this report that we're about to get is going to tell us there will be no sanctions against the bush lawyers who approved water boarding, that report is going to reveal hours from now perhaps. i assume that meets your approval? >> i have to say i have no information about it. i don't really know anything more than i read in the media reports i'm afraid. >> last question, should khalid sheik muhammad be tried in new york, and it apprs he is not going to be, what should they do about the trial and should it be a civilian or military? >> it's a terrible idea to try him in new york city.

the obama administration is walking back from that. it forces us to stop questioning terrorists. it it forces us to provide a lot of intelligence about terrorists in a courtroom and worst of all, it's going to force our soldiers and agents in the field, on the battlefield to follow law enforcement and police rules when they should be fighting. i would prefer that the trial be moved back to guantanamo bay and in a military trial. tavis: professor john yoo's new book is called "crisis and command." professor yoo, and honor to have you on the program. thanks for your time. >> thanks, it was great fun it. tavis: up next, actor ed o'neal. stay with us. please well ed o'neill to this program, the talented actor who starred on tv's most pop loss shows then and now, "married... with children," a show that helped turn a struggling new

network called fox into a broadcasting powerhouse. he now stars on tv's number one new comedy, "modern family." the show airs wednesday nights at 9:00 on abc. here now, a scene from "modern family." >> look at these guys. they look like they came out of the 1800's. you see hugo over there. after lunch, he ordered a sanka. >> they're not the ones who are uncomfortable with this. you are. you have never been completely accepting of me. now that i have a family, it's getting a little old. >> these guys don't understand the gay thing. why create an awkward situation. that's all i'm saying. >> that's right, because you're a authority. they're as gay as they come. >> no, you're kidding. >> no, my gaydar is pinging. >> the guy used to be married. >> so did elton john, merv griffin. >> you couldn't be more wrong about this. >> no, dad, you could not be more wrong about a lot of things. great seeing you guys. >> that's a great coat.

>> ping! [laughter] tavis: i was saying to you before we came on camera here how fortunate you must feel to get a chance to do this again and you're the number one cedy again. i thought you were done. i said i will never see ed o'neal again because that "married... with children" run was so huge. it's a beautiful thing. >> thank you, i'm very fortunate. for a long time i wasn't interested in half hours. let me do a movie. sundance or something. then when i met steve leave tan and chris lloyd, they pitched the idea of the show. and they wrote it and you read it, i got to do this. tavis: you got chops, proudway chops and comedic chops. how did you develop that? >> well, i'm not sure about it.

i know growing up as a kid and i'm old enough to remember having been influenced by jackie gleason, sid cesar, bilko, fill silvers, jonathan winters, all of those guys that i used to watch as a little kid and that probably had an influence. i had some uncles that were funny guys. tavis: how have you over the course of your career, particularly around those 1 or 12 seasons of "married... with children," how do you square knowing that for the rest of your life, you're going to be known as mr. bundy, and knowing that you are a lover of legitimate theater? >> you got to get over that. [laughter]

>> you have to keep score in a different way. i would correct people on the street. they would say al. excuse me, my name is -- i would hear myself say that and these people don't know who the hell i am. they know me as al. after awhile, i just embraced it. every day is not as successful another might be. i said, hey, i'm a lucky guy. i made a lot of money, which got me out of the system. you can look at it as a very positive thing, which i do. tavis: is that what you mean by keeping score differently? >> yeah. for a long time i wanted -- i never did le the idea that i wanted respect from my peers and that's why i'm so happy about the show i'm doing now, because that's starting to happen now. although i did -- i got that with some stuff i did with david milch, "big apple."

and on hbo. those were great roles for me. tavis: it's the number one new comedy, so everybody has seen it since it's number one, just about everybody. for those who haven't seen it, the sitcom is about what, what is your character? >> i play a guy named jay pritchard, a divorced, grown children, remarries a younger latina, a woman from colombia who was also married once and has a young boy andow that family, we have that family and then we have my son, who is in a relationship. he is gay. and then my daughter who is more or less a yuppie or traditional family. tavis: a whole lot going on here. >> all three trying to make things work. tavis: and there that breeds a lot of the humor. >> it does. it also doesn't explain the show. i think you just have to kind of

see it the way it plays out. tavis: but those elements, for those who haven't seen it, you can see those elements lending itself to some comedic stuff. >> and it's an ensemble which attracted me. not one person is doing everything. i'm the patriarch. i'm number one on the call sheet. somebody said, what's so good about being number one on the call sheet? you don't have to deal with who is number one, because you're it. [laughter] >> but the idea that i go to work and i watch these young actors and they're blowing me away. i'm going, my god, they're all so good. it's just really fun to be a part of it. tavis: i admit, i did not know this in my own independent research, but my great producer brought this to my attention. i want your take on this. when you premiered "married... with children," you were one of

15 new comedies, 15. when "modern family" came out, you were one of four new comedies. the business is changing. >> changed quite a bit. and, you know, people could not remember this, but when "married... with children" premiered, we were one of several fox new shows. it was fox's debut. and we kind of felt, at least i did, like, you know, the troops that hit the beach add normandy, the first wave, didn't expect to live and didn't. we were sort of like that we called ourselves the shock troops, because they had george c scott, patty duke, they had big names coming in. well, we'll get some attention with this crazy show. and then out the door and then we'll bring in our classy shows. [laughter] >> and 11 years later, you know. the only one left at fox when we were winding up was "murdoch."

everybody else had come and gone. tavis: he owns the thing. to what do you attribute the staying power, the relevance of that -- what made that show work? >> well, first of all, the two guys who created the show, ron leavitt, a jew from brooklyn and michael moray, a black man from north carolina, they had such an interesting dynamic. honest to god, they looked like gas station attendants. when you went in their office, they looked like street guys. but together they would -- one would offset the other. one would compliment the other and these were funny guys. they're really responsible for the success of the show. they were funny, innovative, outrageous guys. not afraid to take chances. never had a cross word, 11 years. tavis: here is a strange question. when you get a chance to come

back and do this again with "modern family" and you're the number one new comedy again, is there something, some things, plural, that you want to do differently this time around, some things you want a second chance at? it's a strange question because "married... with children" was so successful. i'm trying to figure out there is something, i got another comedy, here is what i intend to do this time that for 11 seasons i didn't get to do. >> it's an interesting question and there is an answer to it. i don't know if i can explain it, but yes, there was -- the thing that attracted me most about the show was the fact that i get to react a lot on the show. tavis: "modern family." >> "modern family." that a lot of things move around me and through me and i get to kind of let things happen rather than be the instigator of everything. and that's, strangely enough, my favorite type of acting.

and so i thought, well, i get to do this thing that i like to do. tavis: that's fascinating. give me the top line to your back story in terms of your acting. how did you get in the game? >> oh, boy. oh, my god. well, i'm from junctiontown, ohio. -- youngstown, ohio. irish catholic, lower middle class, my father was a steelworker. i played a lot of athletics. i was a rookie for the pittsburgh steelers, lasted two minutes, got cut and then went back and i got involved in a little theater group, in youngstown, the youngstown playhouse. i don't remember why or how. i think there was a girl i liked. and i was literally holding a spear and then cut to eventually i'm going to new york. i remember my dad, who was a

laborer all of his life, he said you're going to do what? you just got cut pro football, now you're trying -- this is even longer odds. [laughter] >> i said, well, i can always come home. so anyway, i went to n yk. of course, i always loved movies. i was the kind of a guy, i would go to the movie when i was 12 years old and see it and then tell all my buddies in the neighborhood the movie. then they would go see it and say it wasn't that good. i would tell it better, i would embellish and everything. i was always a bit of a storyteller which lends itself to acting. i don't know why i just thought i could do it. tavis: it's been to your point, since the 1960's, but was there an abiding lesson that you took with you from the experience of being able to be on an nfl field for a couple of weeks with the pittsburgh steelers?

is there something that you have taken from that over the course in your life? >> for sure. tavis: other than the love of football. >> iidn't love football that much towards the end. i think i remember having a certain confidence, that while, i'll stick my nose in there. if i can do this, i can do that, that sort of thing. it does kind of help you a bit to overcome certain fears tavis: did your dad live long enough to see you get success on the stage? >> oh, yeah. my dad died last year, almost 88. tavis: what did dad hav to say about success after mocking you for going to new york? >> well, i bought him a house, a car and those things he liked a lot. thanks a lot, kid. going to hawaii, you got any change? but my dad, you know, it never works out the way you wantt

to. my dad, liked john wayne. so al bundy, he would just shake his head, you know. tavis: the new, i'm sweating. the show is called "modern family" starring ed o'neill. do not call him al bundy. ed o'neill is hisame. ed, glad to have you on the program. congrats on the new show. that's our show for tonight. catch me next time. until then, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley, join me next time for a conversation with way cleff jean on three weeks after the earthquake. we'll 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 looking forward to building stronger communities and relationships. because of your help, the best is yet to come. >> nationwide insurance proudly supports tavis smiley. tavis and nationwide insurance, working 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.