and when you look at the recruitment policies of a lot of the jihadi groups now, they use abu ghraib -- the photographs that came from it and just the entire episode for recruitment purposes. there's an extraordinarily negative implication when you start to go down that road. so as we move forward on baa gram and other internment facilities, i think there has to be -- and my sense is there is slowly an improvement in the way prisoners are treated. >> michael, chicago. good evening. >> caller: yes. gentlemen, good evening. how is it going to. i appreciate you taking my call. hopefully this isn't somewhat of a loaded question so bear with me. in your opinion, do you think it's naive to take the charlie wilson train of thought to say, hey, if we would not have left these folks high and dry after we pushed the soviets out of afghanistan that we would be in, quote-unquote, mess that we're in now? second part of that question, i hope it's not loaded, clearly northern alliance, the folks -- before we went in and took kabul, et cetera, these folks were pretty skeptical about the commitment t

because remember, what did the bush administration give us, it gave us abu ghraib and guantanamo, probably the two biggest gifts to al qaeda and its recruitment program that they ever could have been. it gave us in the war in iraq where more people died than on 9/11, and which took our focus off of al qaeda. i think the obama administration said yes, we're fighting a war but it is in afghanistan. it's after al qaeda it is not in iraq and it is to the going to use torture and it is to the going to give al quitea propaganda like abu ghraib and guantanamo. >> i think what david described is important. but it's been a problem over the past year for the administration. the rearview mirror approach to looking at what the prior policies were or were not is actually i think distracted the administration. >> ifill: what should the practice be going forward? >> i think to david's point, i think absolutely right, we need a consistent, transparent rule of law context for dealing with the terrorist threats of the 21st century. this administration is going to hold people without trial, not only in civil

i wanted to do a book about what i think america is and what i thought it was growing up and abu ghraib really what made me write this book. i wanted to write about what i thought america was. and i was looking for a story and then i realized reading tony jud's book, david mccullough's, that in post-war history histories of europe, the berlin airlift had been almost written out of the history. even where i teach at the university of southern california my colleagues tended to think it happened in the '60s. it's very confused with the berlin wall. and my students had never heard of this great american adventure. i mean, it broughtous-- as lincoln said-- the better angels of our nature and i'm not sure any other people in the world could have or would have done what those young... the daring young men, those young americans did when they got phone calls in the middle of the night says that they had to report within 48 hours to save the people who had been trying to kill them. >> rose: and the man responsible most of all is harry truman? >> truman became such a hero in my mind. i think the

you say, well, we can't have abu ghraib. you're right. torture is illegal. it was illegal then. it was investigated and they have been prosecuted, rightly so. they abused people, wrong. they go to jail. that's what happens in the system. what you're doing now is interswrecting mass confusion into the people who are going to trying to conduct harm in the world. and guess what, you've engaged one of the worse parts of the al qaeda plabe that says, remember -- playbook that says, remember, when americans are shooting at themselves and chasing their tail they are not shooting at us. allege abuse. you just put 11 confusing pages right into the hands of our enemy that says, make it really hard on the folks who are risking their lives to save americans so that we can continue to do what we do and that's plan, train, recruit and we will send people to america to kill american civilians. this is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous step that you take. no debate. no discussion. lots of confusion. don't do this to the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect the united states o

inspector general for the united states is saying we do not torture, and everybody watched the abu ghraibing point of that particular issue in the public mind, and you see this again in the court issued. criminal procedure and death penalty, and what you learn is many years now, most of what happens is criminal defendants in the court. there are deftly cases going one particular way, search and seizure cases. what is going on? you realize that racial profiling is going on, the innocence project is going on, and they are concerned about executing somebody who might be innocent spirited it is nuanced. -- who might be innocent. it is nuanced. >> but the point with xdcongressional and national reaction, when the president says he can do this on his own, he says, can do that with congress. usually the court is deferential. withxdok japanese internment, wt was -- it was authorized by roosevelt and congress, as opposed to indefinite internment authorized by military commanders in the field. recent cases, they were going to go to congress and get support. then president bush did that and the mili

we hear that is real cause of terrorism, a guantanamo, israel, abu ghraib, israel, [laughter] but whats terrorism is islamist ideology and successful attacks. that makes them think they can win. what we are trying to do is to hope they don't jump inúwith the real bad guys. what makes a difference is that we stop them from attacking. if anybody thinks -- i convicted a guy who is sitting in a nice civilian prison after having a nice civilian trial. if you think those guys are not offended that he is in an american prison because he happens not to be in guantanamo bay, that is suggestive of completely being divorced from the reality of who we are dealing with. >> we will try to get the last two -- yes, sir? >> i am a former marine. [applause] my question is mainly for the warriors. we were talking about identifying the enemy. it was after the christmas bombing incidents and the question was why do they want to do this? there is a warped version of islam that is motivating them. hewhat do you say to people who will jump to any mental groups to make us the bad guy? the conclusion was that t

i decided to do this book because of abu ghraib. i've lived a lot of places in the world including the middle east and asia and the idea of america being hated in my old age as it were compared to what it was when i was a used to get almost personally. i mean, the berlin airlift is who we are, not the torturers, and i wanted to bring that story out to the extent i can to reevaluate who we are, where we came from, what we do and what we don't do, and i think that that was the way, that is what was tapped in the america of tom brokaw's america, the greatest generation and your talks about considering it not the first battle of the cold war. but the last battle, last year battle of world war ii. but so in the and if i represent the american people in my heart these are a people i want to be. >> it is a marvelous -- it is a marvelously and we've just scratched the surface with it tonight. but i think we have time for questions and what we would like to ask you to do is if you would come to -- is there just a microphone on the one side?

>> guest: no, of which is editing baidu has to be one lesson from iraq and abu ghraib in general was the decent treatment of prisoners. and, when you look at the web sites in the recruitment policies of a lot of the jihadi groups now, they use the abu ghraib the photographs that came from and the entire episode for recruitment purposes. there is an extraordinarily negativeification when you start to go down that road so as we move forward on bagram and other facilities, i think there has to be and my sense is there is slowly and improvement of the way the prisoners are treated. >> host: michael, chicago, good evening. >> caller: good evening. i appreciate you taking my call. hopefully this is somewhat of a loaded question so bear with me. in your opinion, do you think guiness naÏve to take the charlie wilson train of thought and say hey if we would have not let these folks-dry after we push the soviets out of afghanistan that we would be in the "mess we are in no? the second question and i hope it is not loaded, clearly before we went in and took cobbled these folks were skeptical ab

[unintelligible] as just try their effectiveness in combat are the symbols of abu ghraib anquan tunnell. that is the consequence of this mess the president has put this into. >> >> i know from experian difficult it can be to prosecute a terrorism case federally. i also have some underlying fundamental philosophical concerns about whether it makes sense conceptually to try ta terrorist in federal court. i would like to discuss these experiences and concerns. s chief of the criminal division and chief of appeals, i was involved in several high-profile terrorism cases. i brought with me mea which -- with me exhibit a. it was the brief we filed a four people who were convicted of bombing the embassies in kenya and other countries. that case was tried in 2000 into 2001. it was enormously complex and led to this link the appeal and drug prosecution of the case, the issues that were raised or novel, difficult to deal with, and in some cases, somewhat risky. i also worked on another terrorism case on appeal. that was the one involving lynn stewart. recently affirmed by the second circuit. that

>> guest: no, i would just note that i do think one of the lessons from abu ghraib in general was decent treatment of prisoners. and when you look at the websites in the recruitment policies of a lot of the jihad e-groups now, they use abu grade, the photographs that came from it. there's an extraordinarily negative implication when you start to go down that road. so as we move forward on bob graham and other facilities, i think there has to be in my sense is there is only an improvement in the way prisoners are treated. >> host: michael, chicago, good evening. >> caller: gentlemen, good evening. i appreciate you taking my call. hopefully this something of a loaded question. in your opinion, do you think it's naÏve to think charlie wilson train of thought to say hey, we would have now the these folks high and dry after we pushed them in afghanistan that would be in this quote, unquote massacre in now. second part of that question again i hope is not loaded. clearly, the north alliance when we take kabul, these folks were were -- what are these folks doing, not the united states, to maint

that guantanamo bay causes terrorism, and we hear that is real causes terrorism, gtmo, israel, abu ghraibn win. ñrwhat makes a difference is we stopped them from attacking, but if anybody thinks -- i convicted a guy, sitting in a nice civilian prison, after having a nice civilian trial, if you think those guys are not offended that he is in an american prison, just because he happened not to be in gtmo, that is suggesting of being completely divorced from the reality of who we are dealing with. >> thank you very much. we are going to try to get to the last two. >> hello, i am with a blog, if you could not tell from my tennis shoes, and i am also a former marine. my question is mainly for the warriors. we were talking about how to identify the enemy, and last week, helen thomas, it was after the christmas bombing incidents, and they were talking with the counter-terrorism tsar, and the question was, why do they want to do this, and the answer was that there is this worse version of islam, and the question again was why, why would they warp a religion in order to attack us? what do you say

inspector general for the united states is saying we do not torture, and everybody watched the abu ghraib was a turning point of that particular issue in the public mind, and you see this again in the court issued. criminal procedure and death penalty, and what you learn is many years now, most of what happens is criminal defendants in the court. there are deftly cases going one particular way, search and seizure cases. what is going on? you realize that racial profiling is going on, the innocence project is going on, and they are concerned about executing somebody who might be innocent spirited it is nuanced. -- who might be innocent. it is nuanced. >> but the point with xdcongressional and national reaction, when the president says he can do this on his own, he says, can do that with congress. usually the court is deferential. withxdok japanese internment, wt was -- it was authorized by roosevelt and congress, as opposed to indefinite internment authorized by military commanders in the field. recent cases, they were going to go to congress and get support. then president bush did that a

>> guest: no, i would just note that i do think one of the lessons from abu ghraib in general was decent treatment of prisoners. and when you look at the websites in the recruitment policies of a lot of the jihad e-groups now, they use abu grade, the photographs that came from it. there's an extraordinarily negative implication when you start to go down that road. so as we move forward on bob graham and other facilities, i think there has to be in my sense is there is only an improvement in the way prisoners are treated. >> host: michael, chicago, good evening. >> caller: gentlemen, good evening. i appreciate you taking my call. hopefully this something of a loaded question. in your opinion, do you think it's naÏve to think charlie wilson train of thought to say hey, we would have now the these folks high and dry after we pushed them in afghanistan that would be in this quote, unquote massacre in now. second part of that question again i hope is not loaded. clearly, the north alliance when we take kabul, these folks were were -- what are these folks doing, not the united states, to maint

the world was horrified when they saw what american soldiers were doing in abu ghraib. as former secretary of state colin powell has said, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards. brutality like that hurts our credibility and undercuts our reputation in the global community. i'm a veteran. i wear my vietnam pin well. and proudly. i served in the navy, i'm passionate about protecting this country and keeping our soldiers safe. more than anything this amendment was designed to protect them. several soldiers have gone and done a far better job than i have in explaining why we need laws like this. retired colonel stewart harrington said that cruelty in interrogations, quote, endangerers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity, closed quote. the golden rule, if you will. retired admiral john huston has said, quote, getting our interrogation policies back on track will preserve our standing to fight for humane treatment of american soldiers who are captured. i couldn't agree more. without clear laws that define acc

combat deaths are respectively the symbols of guantanamo and abu ghraib. >> celeste?efly. as chief of the criminal division and chief of appeals, i was involved in several high- profile terrorism cases. i brought with me exhibit a, which is this read brief period is 600 pages long. it was the brief we filed in connection with the appeal of four people convicted of bombing the embassies in tanzania and in kenya in 1998. that case was tried before judge sand in 2000 and into 2001. and it was enormously complex. it led to this lengthy appeal. throughout the case, the issues that were raised were novel, difficult to deal with, and in some cases, somewhat risky. i also worked on eight -- another terrorism case on appeal that was the one -- that was the one involving wind storm. -- before lynn stewart. there are difficult issues raised regarding fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights. issues about how the warrant requirement applies overseas and how moran the supplies overseas. what kind of warnings are required for -- miranda rights overseas. there are also complicated s

these are the final aspects of 2004 which was the regulations of what happened at abu ghraib.because it was wrong and angry because of the damage i knew it would do. you mentioned the media part of this and al jazeera. the truth is we were fighting a constant battle against people misrepresenting us and our motives and what we were trying to do and obviously the abuse of prisoners was going to be vital propaganda. >> have you been given advanced warning? >> i think everyone was taken by surprise, including the white house. >> there was knowledge from january? >> i appointed and included as human rights adviser, we made an effort to try to say things are going to happen differently. there is no excuse for it. it's completely wrong. the most important thing is it did damage to our cause. on the other hand, it's right to say this at the time. the activities of the few within the american forces and the british forces shouldn't take away the fact that they were doing a magnificent job in incredible circumstances. we were doing that job for the iraqi people and protecting them and

inspector general for the united states is saying we do not torture, and everybody watched the abu ghraibed. criminal procedure and death penalty, and what you learn is many years now, most of what happens is criminal defendants in the court. there are deftly cases going one particular way, search and seizure cases. what is going on? you realize that racial profiling is going on, the innocence project is going on, and they are concerned about executing somebody who might be innocent spirited it is nuanced. -- who might be innocent. it is nuanced. >> but the point with xdcongressional and national reaction, when the president says he can do this on his own, he says, can do that with congress. usually the court is deferential. withxdok japanese internment, wt was -- it was authorized by roosevelt and congress, as opposed to indefinite internment authorized by military commanders in the field. recent cases, they were going to go to congress and get support. then president bush did that and the military commissions act got to say you could suspend habeas corpus for combatants abroad, and just

but final aspects of this month, april 2004, which was the revelation of what happens at abu ghraib. in what was your reaction when you saw the photographs of the conditions inside the prison? >> well, i was shocked and angry as anyone would be. shocked because it was on an angry because of the damage i knew it would do. you know, you mentioned earlier the media part of this and his era. the truth is we were fighting a constant battle against people utterly misrepresenting us our, our motives and of what we were trying to do and obviously these pictures and the abuse of prisoners was going to be vital propaganda for our enemies. >> have you been given advance warning by the americans is revelations were coming? >> i think everyone was taken by surprise including in the white house. >> there was knowledge from january something awful was going on. >> hi actually appointed the human rights adviser and made an effort, in fact, to try and say these things are going to happen differently. so there are no excuses for its, it's completely wrong. the most important thing was it did damage to