that he wanted to follow the geneva conventions. what would it mean? just put it into layman's terms for the us military to throw away the geneva conventions, the rules of war. >> i mean, it's basically the compact that we've entered into with other nations that even if we go to war against each other, that there will be certain basic rules, you know, that we will have rules of engagement, that we won't indiscriminately shoot people on the battlefield, especially on the asymmetrical battlefields that pete hegseth did talk about as a part of his hearing and many of the interviews that he's done up until this point. and you're speaking to somebody right now who lost a fellow platoon leader, wears a bracelet with his name on my wrist every day. we lost him while he was following the rules of engagement, but he couldn't tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys, like many of us couldn't on the battlefield. but it doesn't mean that we still shouldn't have standards that we hold ourselves to, and it's really hard to suffe

are you saying that the geneva convention provisions which which clearly outlaw torture of prisoners, do not, should not apply in the future? >> senator, how we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners? the applications of the conventions are incredibly important, but we would all have to acknowledge that the way we fought our wars back when the geneva conventions were written are a lot different than the asymmetric, non-conventional environment of counterinsurgency that i confronted in iraq and afghanistan. i was the senior counterinsurgency instructor in afghanistan. my job was to understand how the taliban and al qaeda operated, so that nato units coming in could be informed of what was happening. they knew our rules of engagement, and when they were more restrictive, they took advantage of them. and it put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place. and you believe future wars we fight. we need to have someone atop the pentagon, sir, who understands how those ripple effects. well, i just want to i just want to understand your position. >> your position is tortu

that is the law of the land right now. >> senator, we have laws on the books from the geneva conventions into the uniform code of military justice and then underneath that you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagements are put into place. we fight enemies, also, senato, as our generation understands that play by no rules. they use civilians as human shields. they target the women and children. we don't do that. >> are you saying the geneva conventions shouldn't be followed. >> we shouldn't follow rules for rules of engagement that make it impossible to win. >> you are saying both things, and we don't need to follow the rules, but rules need to be in effect. >> and there are rules we swear an oath to defend and incredible important that this committee understands and helps set them, and then there are echelons above reality from corps to division to brigade and at that battalion, and why the time it trickles down, you have rules of engagement that nobody recognizes and makes it incredibly difficult to do your job on the battlefield. that's the kind of assessment and l

important, but we would all have to acknowledge that the way we fought our wars back when the geneva conventions were written, are a lot different than the asymmetric, non-conventional environment of counterinsurgency that i confronted in iraq and afghanistan. i was the senior counterinsurgency instructor in afghanistan. my job was to understand how the taliban and al qaeda operated, so that nato units coming in could be informed of what was happening. they knew our rules of engagement, and when they were more restrictive, they took advantage of them. and it put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place. and you believe future wars we fight. we need to have someone atop the pentagon, sir, who understands how those ripple effects. >> well, i just want i just want to understand your position. your position is torture is okay. is that correct? waterboarding. torture is is is no longer prohibited given the circumstances of whatever war we're in. is that correct, senator? >> that is not what i said. i've never been party to torture. we are a country that fights by the rule of law, and

i'm not talking about disavowing the laws of the geneva conventions. i'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand they have lived with on the battlefield making it more difficult to defeat our enemies. there was evidence withheld. there was prosecutorial -- prosecutorial misconduct. they default to the war fighter. not the second guessers in air-conditioned offices in washington, d.c. i was proud to work with president trump to understand those cases and ensure our warriors are looked out for. sen. reed: those cases are adjudicated by who? people in washington or noncommissioned officers who served and believed in the military? who were the court marshals? mr. hegseth: in multiple cases they were actually acquitted. regardless of where those authorities are. sen. reed: others were convicted. that's the only reason you asked for a pardon, because they were convicted. it was already disparaged in writing, the geneva convention, the rules of law, all of these things. how will you be able to effectively le

but the other factor, too, is you've already disparaged in writing the geneva convention the rules of law, all of these things. how will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority? you have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a jag officer. or by the way, would you explain what a jag off is? >> i don't think i need to, sir. >> why not? >> because the men and women watching understand. >> well, perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand. >> it would be a jag officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the warfighters, their promotions, their medals, in front of having the backs of those who are making the tough calls on the front lines. >> thank you senator. >> interesting. >> thank you, senator. thank you very much, senator fischer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, mr. hegseth, to you and to your family. thank you for the meeting that we had. we talked about a number of things. first and foremost was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense.

the other factor, too, is you've already dispar aged in writing the geneva convention, rules of law, all these things. how will be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principle elements is discipline, respect for lawful authority. you have made statements to your platoon after being briefed by a jag officer, would you explain what a jag officer is? >> i don't think i need to, sir. >> why not? >> the men and women watching understand. >> perhaps some of my colleagues don't understand. >> it would be a jag officer who puts his or her own priorities in front of the war fighters. their promotions, their medals in front of having the backs of those making the tough calls on the front lines. >> thank you. interesting. >> thank you very much. senator fisher. >> welcome, mr. hegseth to you and to your family. thank you for the meeting that we had. we talked about a number of things. first and foremost was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense and having a safe, effective and credible nuclear deterrent undermines our alliances and deters adversaries

the rules of engagement need to follow the geneva convention. he did not seem to know that distinction. so this could be a critical thing, because when you look at what the secretary of defense has to do when he or she approves rules of engagement for forces in combat, there needs to be an understanding of what the legal parameters are and what the operational mission is. so you need to combine what the operational mission is, the types of force that you're going to use, the types of weapons you're going to use, and not just artillery rounds, but, you know, are we going to employ fighter aircraft? are we going to employ naval assets? are we going to do all of those things? and he really didn't seem to get to that point. other things that also struck me were that we didn't really talk very much about the senators, didn't talk very much about key important issues like ukraine. >> they got to it a little bit, a little bit. jacky rosen, senator rosen got to it a bit. >> yes, she did, but other than senator rosen, i didn't really see very much in tha

the geneva conventions that were arrived at after the painful experiences of world war one and world war two. he said he doesn't think women should serve in combat. he said that gays shouldn't serve in the military. he's lamented so-called diversity hires, in his words, that include, by the way, the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who's black, who he said should be fired. right. he has embraced the big lie of donald trump. we know that donald trump wanted to use the military to quash protests after george floyd in 2020. we know that there's a potential that some people around trump have talked about using the u.s. military in the mass deportation plans that they have. these are very substantive questions about what the makeup and mission and nature of the united states military is, which is an apolitical institution that is supposed to serve all americans and abide by the law. that, to me, is the real story of what is happening here with this nomination and seemingly imminent confirmation. and i think that's what we have to be focused on. >> yeah, i think what needs to

that he actually supports america's full participation and support for the geneva convention. i mean, so substantively, he would be disqualified, but item by item by item in how he has lived his life. but right now, donald trump and the republicans are pushing him through as fast as they can. they don't want details. they don't want to hear about this. they just want everybody on the republican side to vote yes and move on. >> senator, i can't thank you enough for joining us after this first confirmation hearing in the senate. there will be more and you're in other committees. there will be more there. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> and up next, senator mark kelly offered pete hegseth multiple chances to deny descriptions of his drunken conduct, and he did not actually deny those descriptions. we'll show you that next. when senator show you that next. when senator mark kelly the itch and rash of moderate to severe eczema disrupts my skin, night and day. despite treatment, it's still not under control. but now, i have rinvoq. rinvoq is a once

pete hegseth believes the geneva conventions were rightly decided or should be followed.s the fear. major general eaton, that he wants him there in case he decides to issue illegal orders to use the military against the american people. he'll do it. is that what you do? is that too much of a concern, or is that something that you're concerned about? >> no, that is a great concern because at the same time, we have to tell our military that while the commander in chief is immune from prosecution for anything that he does or fails to do as president of the united states, and he is also a flawed individual who is responsible for the good order and discipline of the armed forces of the united states, as is the secretary of defense. so what we really do have here is a failure to communicate. and this business of still working the woke agenda is, is going to be a continuing failure. >> we need to pay attention to these things. we appreciate both of you for helping us to understand what we're really seeing here. retired army major general paul eaton and our friend, both of our fr

but actually, under the geneva conventions, the international committee of the red cross has a righte deprived of their liberty. and russia is also denying them access. i want to turn to somewhere else you mentioned in your report — sudan. i mean, you have one of the world's worst humanitarian crises there. half the population have been displaced and are facing acute hunger. that's more than 25 million people. a un investigation said there's no safe place in sudan now and accused both sides, both the sudanese army and the rapid support forces, of torture amounting to war crimes. what i wonder is when you have a situation like that, where a country has basically imploded, is what difference the convention makes. sudan is an interesting case study, because... i assisted the government to ratify the convention against torture in the transition phase. in fact, i got a phone call the day before the coup happened, indicating that the bill to ratify the convention had now gone to parliament. that wouldn't have happened if bashir had not agreed. but the importance of that happening is that t

destroyed by the 3 of the occupation forces, which is of course, a black violation of the 4th geneva convention, which we happen to have the 75th anniversary of this year. so it is a disregard of all the basic international human italian. last, i need is a kolosso violation of any, a human standard of how we treat each other for the people of northern casa. this is a disaster because the people are north cross. i have been the most exposed to the seats for the last 80 days, so they are starving. they don't have water and now they are denied even a basic hospital service. it's wintering goes on now, and i fear that the hundreds if not thousands, will die from hypothermia and it will also add complications to those who are already sick and wounded. because hypothermia will reduce your immune systems, your resistance against back areas, and it will be plead your energy. so it's not a matter of only hospitals, but it is a metro, the general protection of disability and population. and when you are starving and when you are sick, you are extremely vulnerable to hypothermia. so this is part of the pl

we have abandoned some of the basic principles of human rights promulgated in the geneva conventions, like do not torture prisoners. so, so in those ways. q allegedly, they would be human rights violators in foreign countries that used to be restrained by america's restrain has had that restraint lifted, and they have become abusive more than they would have, or because the united states is no longer the example of a champion. as a champion of human rights. i think it's that. but i also think they see in the president a cheerleader for this. right wing, uh, surge that's occurring in the world. uh, he openly loves the authoritarian leaders, has contempt for democratic leaders. his rhetoric is harsh, his divisiveness, all of this is of a kind of a hateful not kind of it's a hateful thrust. and, uh, we're we're going to the right as a result. i don't. we've i've never seen a republican president in my lifetime doing anything like that. it's not about party politics. he's got something deep in them that is detestable. is he a symptom or a cause? i think he's both. he is sui generis. we've

and more specifically of geneva conventions . these are war crimes that are ongoing. and the is there anything soldiers that taken pictures of themselves while committing these more crime? so yeah, you know, it's not just a complaint with no evidence. the evidence is there. so therefore, when these postilion organizations or human rights organizations submit the complaint, they submitted with evidence clear evidence from the accounts of these soldiers and social media. they have been so uh, you know, flagged and i mean these, these, these, these people are committing a genocide on t v. i mean, and they, they, uh, this is what has been going on. and the international uh like a court of justice as of uh, as long staff procedure and it still didn't come up with the did the final decision . yet the evidence that was presented before the international court of justice is very powerful. the evidence, the international criminal court also has the procedures and you know, the prime minister of israel is wanted by the international clinic board. whole times the, you know, that

. >> then there were questions of the geneva conventions and whether he would follow any order. [simultaneous talking] >> that sounds to me that you won't comply with such an order. you will shoot protesters in the leg. >> he can afford to lose just three republican senators. about is scheduled for early next week. >> thank you very much. let's go to general... you're reactions to the fireworks. >> it was standard political point scoring. one of the challenges with congress operating in this way is we don't actually talk about the issues. sure we want to find out if he is qualified and he doesn't have any background issues but that came back in the fbi report. i think it's a good start to actually have a conversation about the challenges. things like the rapid pull out of afghanistan or any of the other things like secretary austin basically being awol and really get to the issues of the last four years. that would've been much better use of time. >> in this political theatre that we watched and jennifer was right about how fiery it was, does either side score points? i think th

that is a proto-version of the geneva convention. host: we have an excerpt from your book. can you read this portion which gets to the idea of chivalry? guest: the first one? ok. liberalism is not an abstract theory but a tradition of customs embedded in our culture. we learned magnanimity from the code of chivalry and are taught that reduce this through the stories of hans christian anderson and the novels of charles dickens, kindness came a liberal virtue. the republican virtue of the founders can be traced back to 12 centrally -- 12th-century merchants. that was my idea. it is not a grand theory. virtues are not something you define as a theory. that which is roughly noble in our culture is found not in theories but in all of those stories and people in our culture. your prior program was on curing the political wounds in our society. i thought, what better way would there be to do that then for all of us to recognize we are part of that tradition? that symbolizes us and teaches us how to behave to people on the others. -- other side. host: you discussed the confusion ar

have be littleed -- in your book the war on warriors you write, quote, should we follow the geneva convention forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so international tribe yoon always feel better about themselves aren't we better off in winning our wars according to our own rules? mr. hegseth i would ask you plan how if confirmed would maintain good order and discipline within our forces and the support of our allies and partners by rejecting international law and the law of war. i'm also concerned about your abilities as a competent manager of the organizations far less complex than the department of defense. from 2008 to 2010 you led the organization veterans for freedom that had an annual budget of less than $10 million. in each year you were in charge expenses are exceeded revenues until the organization tetered on bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group. in fact, according to the public reporting, an independent forensic accountant reviewed the organization's finances and discovered evidence of gross financial mismanagement. i would note this repo

in your book, the war on warriors, you write, quote, should we follow the geneva convention? if our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules mr. hegseth, i would ask that you explain how you, if confirmed, would maintain good order and discipline within our forces and the support of our allies and partners by rejecting international law and the law of war. i'm also concerned about your abilities as a competent manager of organizations far less complex than the department of defense. from 2008 to 2010, you led the organization veterans for freedom, which had an annual budget of less than $10 million in each year. you were in charge. expenses far exceeded revenues until the organization teetered on bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group. in fact, according to public reporting, an independent forensic accountant reviewed the organization's finances and discovered evidence of gross financial mis

but there is the geneva convention. there are rules.atedly, we should just disregard the geneva conventions. he wants to put the united states, in effect outside the pale and beyond the rule of law, any kind of law. and i find that absolutely abhorrent. i know talking like a lawyer is perhaps unpersuasive to a lot of people, but there are basic rules that need to be followed. it is, in fact, the power of our example as a great nation, not just the example of our power that gains us power around the world. >> well, and it was a bipartisan principle. i mean, it was john mccain who worked with george w bush as president into the obama presidency to make sure that those principles were upheld. i just want to put you on notice. i think people are hungry for the kind of leadership and moral clarity that you have. i hope you'll be available to us as the days move forward. and the second trump presidency commences next monday. thank you for your time today and your thoughtfulness. >> i'm determined to fight and thank you for your great work, ni

it hasn't broken every convention or the geneva conventions. the older humanitarian law, stipulations about the occupation. but the problem again is that there is no accountability, there is no price to pay because of the protection united states has been given to as what had boasted ethics, the columbia today, and it's even supplying it it's, it's not a shunt on this. united states has been a part and boston and all of this get assigned the waste on the percentage. and because of that is why it acts with taught them in immunity. it doesn't really care about what the what says as long as it has the backing of the night states. i some of the and thank you so much i, i thank you. the as in eddie, a month since the regime of bush auto acid was tough old and while people have rejoiced, isabella stepped opposite. so tax across syria and see is rarely strikes hit areas south of alaska on thursday night. and syrian state television says the attack targeted defense and research facilities and satellite images have revealed these right is moving beyond

and we need we shouldn't pay attention to the geneva convention. and oh, by the way, it's okay if we pardon people in the military who are convicted of war crimes. to me, it's such a commentary on what's happened, in my view, in our country today. one, the republican party abdicating their responsibility as, as as vice and consent. but two, the use of faith today not to sort of reform your behavior and to take responsibility for your actions, but is used as a cover all to sort of get away with whatever possible you want to get away with, as long as you say, jesus, after two paragraphs. >> all right, melanie, even if republicans all get on the same page and they all vote to confirm all of these nominees, the hearings have to actually happen. and that's not happening outside hegseth. tulsi gabbard is delayed. kristi noem is delayed. and they're saying it's a paperwork problem. i cannot imagine. it's a paper jam and a printer on the hill. what's going on? yeah. so there is this process. right. so they have to the presidential transition has to submit

. >> we're blurring, of course, the men's faces in line with the geneva convention. >> cnn can't authenticatethe video, but what ukrainian secret services say about them is that the men were captured, wounded. >> one of them had a russian i.d. on him, and according to the sbu, one of them told them that they had believed they were coming to russia for training. >> found themselves in frontline combat instead, and only had had a week of training with russian forces. we've known, of course, for many months that there were north korean soldiers fighting specifically in that kursk region that was captured, you'll remember, by ukrainian forces. in that surprise offensive last summer, much of it taken back by russian forces now. and where there are very fierce battles taking place even now, as each side tries to take as much territory as it can before expected negotiations. we heard from secretary of state antony blinken, who was speaking in seoul just a few days ago, that in just one week in december, he said 1000 north korean soldiers were believed to have been either killed or wounded. so that s

destroyed by the 3 of the occupation forces, which is of course, a black violation of the 4th geneva convention, which we happened to have the 75th anniversary of this year. so it is a disregard of all the basic international humanitarian laws i need is a color. so violation of any, a human standard of how we treat each other for the people of another goss. this is a disaster because the people are north cross. i have been the most exposed to the siege for the last 80 days, so they are starving. they don't have water, and now they are denied even a basic hospital service. and i will do the same as your next person hypothermia, and we've had cases, i think 7 cases of babies dying. we've had cases of people suffering from the cold woods, the desks of babies, a co, where not for the destruction of medical facilities were not for what, oh, sure. as to the toughest restrictions on humanitarian movement. every quoted being imposed by his route in december with those depths of being preventable is the most important way to prevent hypothermia. this is to hinder that kid sick women and other humans bec

actually disqualifying, i would say, and also that he doesn't think that we should adhere to the geneva conventionsnymore. you know, i believe there was only one question about that in the hearing today, but that is very problematic as it relates to our national security. it puts our troops at risk. and as this proceeds to a committee vote or even a floor vote, i hope senators think of those two points and understand sort of the gravity of that part of his background. and, you know, think twice before they elevate him into the role of secretary of defense. >> allison jaslow, thanks so much for coming on the show. appreciate it. and coming up. thank you. we'll turn to the other major story of the day right now, southern california under the highest level fire alert as powerful santa ana winds return to areas that have already been ravaged by flames. already been ravaged by flames. chris jansing [♪♪] are you one of the millions of americans who suffer from an upset stomach after a big meal? try pepto bismol. unlike some products, pepto coats and soothes your digestive system, to provide fast 5-sympto

he spoke about the importance of the geneva conventions more in an international context. but these are going to be important questions that he and the pentagon may indeed wrestle with. and and, of course, he'll be advised by the uniformed military we'll have who will have clear views on the role of military in some type of operation such as this. >> there have been some questions about how much this particular conversation about the use of the u.s. military on u.s. soil in these different areas has actually begun to occur inside the pentagon itself. can you give us any insight into what i know? you're deeply connected there as well. how much concern there is in the building about these questions and what plans, if any, people may be thinking about to try to deal with some of it? >> yeah, there is concern, of course, about what dod will be asked to do. there was concern during my time. there was concern, of course, during previous errors under presidents from both parties. but i think the question gets more to the, you know, the the point that tom homan, who is president t

military, somebody that has respect for the rule of law and international agreements like the geneva conventions. um, there just seems to be plenty of evidence that this is a uniquely unqualified, dangerous nominee. and there are loads of other very. conservative defense republicans loyal to donald trump who would make a better head of the defense department. >> but on this report that so many were saying they wanted to to have this report done and that that would, you know, inform their opinion on how they vote, certainly on the senate armed services committee, the current practice is the only the chairman and the ranking member get to be briefed on that fbi report. so it's up to the trump transition team to decide if it should be shared more widely. last i heard was they do not plan to to break that precedent. does that mean you you don't expect to see what's in that report or your colleagues on the committee don't. >> well, there certainly have been exceptions. i remember when brett kavanaugh was coming before the judiciary committee. i got to be briefed on the fbi report, even though i wasn'

constitutional oath and responsibilities or basic questions about whether he even supports the geneva conventioni mean, these are things that this is about the job of the secretary of defense. what the democrats did, and i think did very well, is that we asked the right questions and put it out there in front of the american people. we wanted a second round of questioning so we could ask even more. we wanted to see the fbi report. right. we wanted to make more of these reports public. >> more questions were denied by the chairman, despite two requests from the ranking member for democrats. and we've seen that in some past hearings, he said that was an agreement. but on the fbi report, ranking member just rank and file members did not get to actually see that the chairman did. and the ranking member, which they argued is precedent. that is typically the course. there have been some exceptions. should democrats have fought harder? did you want the ranking democrat to to fight harder to get access to that fbi report? >> let's let's remember that when there was a credible claim of a problem with alc

answer basic questions, not just gotcha questions like questions like, would you uphold the geneva conventions? would you refuse an unlawful order if the president gave you one which did happen under trump before with with spath? would you ever sick the u.s. military on american citizens? you know, there are many examples of questions that yes, he was very articulate and polished and he's a tv host. that's his main qualification. i know in tv we sometimes get confused. >> why do you denigrate this man's service? i don't understand 20 years scott decorated scott, ivy league. he's a tv host. that's all he is. not his main qualification. >> is his name. he's a tv like tv host. qualifications. you're denigrating this man certifies you. >> not not every member who served deserves to be in charge of the dod. >> she said his main qualification is that he's a tv host. and i'm sorry. that's just baloney. >> i think that gets him a qualification, is that he's a war fighter, and he's going to be the closest war fighter we've ever had. >> to the enlisted people running the pentagon. he's decorated. >> he'

the geneva convention is like the idea of that now. we actually have them written down and we expect people to prescribe these now recognized laws of war. so to me, i think that's a lesson learned, is realizing that you actually want it down on paper. so people are expected to read it, know it and then act accordingly. well, of course, you also have the joint committee on the conduct of the war, which remains sort of criminally understudied there are wonderful book by bruce taft that is very much worth on the joint committee, but that's the kind of closest equivalent i can actually think in the civil war of someone going outside of the sort of army code of conduct this is congress and it's typically radical. republicans are kind of driving this, but they're trying to kind of make a point of embarrassing it, particularly democratic generals who they love to haul up before the committee. i mean, they love to bring up mcclellan. they love to haul up meat and question them about sort of what they were doing down to a tactical level. benjam

and had to uphold standards of conduct in the united states military, who have adhered to the geneva conventionsst allow people not to hear to them anymore and i think those members of the united states senate should stand in their identity as members of the armed services in some cases or retirees and ask him some hard questions about the code they hold themselves to and the cody is seemingly not willing to hold himself to and would not hold other members of the united states military to as well and what the implications would be for our national security. >> as i hear allison talk about a standard that people hold themselves to, i'm reminded how after the election, republicans talked about a mandate from the american people, essentially that they should just rubber- stamp trumps nominees. i wondered, getting what we watched both in terms of the budget fight, the speaker's fight, if you feel that the contours of that have actually shifted a little? >> i do. i think he feels weaker on november 6th in part because, you know, the extent of the popular vote victory has narrowed. the house victory w

to do something that was outside of the bounds of american law or outside the bounds of the geneva convention or beyond. he just attributed them to hypothetical situations, and that he wasn't going to answer a question based on a hypothetical situation. what was clear today in the way that this hearing played itself out, was that you had two camps in the direction as to where they thought this confirmation process should go. republicans were solidly in the bank for hegseth, and democrats were solidly doing whatever they could to try and prevent his nomination from going forward. so you were not going to see any republican on this panel, given the fact that there was a degree of skepticism around his nomination, do anything to suggest that his nomination wasn't a done deal. and so they had a script that they were working from. the democrats had a script that they were working from. they were not going to do anything outside the bounds of that script. and i and i thought the questioning from joni ernst was most demonstrative of that. they, you know, she had a very specific set of things that sh

the law says the geneva conventions that if any president are taken by an military power, they must be incarcerated within their own territory. but since they are taken into israel, then their families can't visit them because palestinians can't into israel most of the time. and even lawyers can't visit them. it's a terrible situation and it needs to be understood by all americans. it has been over 25 years since you published your memoirs. now, first of all, how did you do it? well, i was defeated in in 1980 and went out of office in 1981. and i decided not to do traveling that first year. i you would say i wanted to lick my wounds. and i wanted to let the furor of election down. and i had all the time i was in the white. i dictated on a little tiny dictation machine my thoughts and comments that i knew would not be published in the weekly journal. of all the things that the president says publicly. and when i would finish tape i would just throw it in my out basket. and my secretary, susan clough, would those tapes and she would type them up and put them in a book and i never saw any

also in the hearing yesterday, he gave no answer at all to whether or not he would uphold the geneva conventionsundational agreement, one to protect u.s. soldiers abroad. what is your make of that? how troubling do you find that revelation? >> yeah, i mean, we i tried to follow up a little bit at the end of my questioning about the ucmj, the uniform code of military justice. is he going to interfere with that? you know, he he has been known to defend strenuously soldiers who were convicted of war crimes, whose own fellow soldiers in their own fellow unit, in his own unit turned him in and said, this is what he just did. he just shot at innocent afghans. mr. hegseth is known very widely as as defending him and getting president trump to pardon them. and so i want to know what standards is he going to be upholding? is he going to uphold the uniform code? is he going to interfere in the uniform code? he wouldn't. he actually didn't give me a lot of comfort on that. he said, well, it's my job to be involved in that. well, if you're going to go mucking around with individual soldiers and the system o

in your book, the war on warriors, you write, quote, should we follow the geneva convention?themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules? mr. hegseth, i would ask that you explain how you, if confirmed, would maintain good order and discipline within our forces and the support of our allies and partners by rejecting international law and the law of war. i'm also concerned about your abilities as a competent manager of organizations far less complex than the department of defense. from 2008 to 2010, you led the organization veterans for freedom, which had an annual budget of less than $10 million in each year you were in charge. expenses far exceeded revenues until the organization teetered on bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group. in fact, according to public reporting, an independent forensic accountant reviewed the organization's finances and discovered evidence of gross financial mismanagement. i would note that this report has not been made available to any government agencies, which is, i think, alarming. but a republi

- already disparaged in writing the geneva convention and i already disparaged in writing . the genevalaw, _ the geneva convention and the rules of law, all— the geneva convention and the rules of law, all of _ the geneva convention and the rules of law, all of these - rules of law, all of these things _ rules of law, all of these things how— rules of law, all of these things. how will- rules of law, all of these things. how will you - rules of law, all of these things. how will you be. rules of law, all of these - things. how will you be able to effectively _ things. how will you be able to effectively lead _ things. how will you be able to effectively lead a _ things. how will you be able to effectively lead a military- things. how will you be able to effectively lead a military in . effectively lead a military in which — effectively lead a military in which one _ effectively lead a military in which one of— effectively lead a military in which one of the _ effectively lead a military in which one of the principal. which one of the principal elements— which one of the principal eleme