we were fighting a nonstate actor and waging a conventional war against a nonstate actor. negotiating with people we don't like -- long, storied history of that. negotiating with nonstate actors? that's the issue. tose folks being able possibly go back on the battlefield, that's where this story stays alive for years to come. host: patrick is joining us. brooklyn, new york. good morning. caller: good morning and then god for c-span -- and thank go l for c-span. happy father's day. this is to both gentlemen. this is america and immigrants come from all countries, looking for peace, prosperity, and trying to make a better life. it is not that they all can't live here, but we want to give everybody a right to be peaceful and have a right to have freedom. all we need is a little hope. hope is and always today or tomorrow. it takes time. if the gentleman that are the reporters -- the gentlemen that are the reporters report the news honestly, people can make a decision who to vote for. host: thanks for the call. if you get through, turn the volume down. that in the many the echo

because you find yourself in a war with nonstate forces and the nonstate forces beat you and so a pretty basic rule of foreign policy is you probably don't want to start wars you know you're going to lose. to many foreign ministries have done that but it certainly doesn't meet the conservative test of prudence. another meaning perhaps even more profound because the foreign policy establishment utterly doesn't get it is that you don't want to fight wars with other states, why? because the losing states legitimacy already shaky in many cases will disintegrate and with it that state will disintegrate. we saw this, of course, with libia. i warned before we started bombing libya that the outcome would be the destruction of the libyan state and another big victory for the fourth generation as libya became a stateless entity. well, surprise, guess what happened? if you go to war with another state, regardless of which state wins the war, we will lose because the losing state will disintegrate and the real victor will be the forces of the fourth generation, nonstate forces will have another petr

we were fighting a nonstate actor and waging a conventional war against a nonstate actor. negotiating with people we don't like -- long, storied history of that. negotiating with nonstate actors? that's the issue. tose folks being able possibly go back on the battlefield, that's where this story stays alive for years to come. host: patrick is joining us. brooklyn, new york. good morning. caller: good morning and then god for c-span -- and thank go l for c-span. happy father's day. this is to both gentlemen. this is america and immigrants come from all countries, looking for peace, prosperity, and trying to make a better life. it is not that they all can't live here, but we want to give everybody a right to be peaceful and have a right to have freedom. all we need is a little hope. hope is and always today or tomorrow. it takes time. if the gentleman that are the reporters -- the gentlemen that are the reporters report the news honestly, people can make a decision who to vote for. host: thanks for the call. if you get through, turn the volume down. that in the many the echo

you find yourself in a war with nonstate forces and the nonstate forces beat you. foreign-policy is you don't want to start wars you know you're going to lose. many foreign ministries have done this but it does not mean the conservative test of prudence. you don't want to fight wars with other states. why? the losing state's legitimacy will disintegrate and that state will disintegrate. we saw this with libya. i warned before we started bombing libya that the outcome would be the destruction of the libyan state and another big victory for the fourth-generation. surprise. guess what happened? if you go to war with another state, regardless of which state wins the war, we will lose. . distinction that will drive international relations for the remainder of this century is not some kindergarten level of distinction between democracies or places that are free and dictatorships. it is between places that will be centers and sources of order and centers and sources of disorder. when we go to war with another state, almost certainly, the outcome will include the creation

because you find yourself in a war with nonstate forces and the nonstate forces beat you and so a pretty basic rule of foreign policy is you probably don't want to start wars you know you're going to lose. too many foreign ministries over time have done that but it doesn't meet the conservative test of prudens. another meaning perhaps even more profound because the foreign policy establishment utterly doesn't get it is that you don't want to fight wars with other states, why? because the losing states legitimacy already shaky in many cases will disintegrate and with it that state will disintegrate. we saw this, of course, with libia. -- libya. i warned before we started bombing libya that the outcome would be the destruction of the libyan state and another big victory for the fourth generation as libya became a stateless entity. well, surprise, guess what happened? if you go to war with another state, regardless of which state wins the war, we will lose because the losing state will disintegrate and the real victor will be the forces of the fourth generation, nonstate forces will have an

we were fighting a nonstate actor and waging a conventional war against a nonstate actor.otiating with people we don't like -- long, storied history of that. negotiating with nonstate actors? that's the issue. tose folks being able possibly go back on the battlefield, that's where this story stays alive for years to come. host: patrick is joining us. brooklyn, new york. good morning. caller: good morning and then god for c-span -- and thank go l for c-span. happy father's day. this is to both gentlemen. this is america and immigrants come from all countries, looking for peace, prosperity, and trying to make a better life. it is not that they all can't live here, but we want to give everybody a right to be peaceful and have a right to have freedom. all we need is a little hope. hope is and always today or tomorrow. it takes time. if the gentleman that are the reporters -- the gentlemen that are the reporters report the news honestly, people can make a decision who to vote for. host: thanks for the call. if you get through, turn the volume down. that in the many the echo we

>> they have to treat the taliban and as if they are state actor as opposed to a nonstate actor. entered the taliban has into negotiations in order to work, theyxchange have in some respects gained the status of estate or at least a significant political organization that has state like qualities. >> there are huge controversies about the swap here in washington. ,o you think it was worth it five high-level taliban prisoners for one u.s. soldier? >> i probably would have picked different people, but they allow the taliban and to actually pick the people they were willing to exchange sergeant bergdahl four. the u.s. has a soldier of -- has a policy of no soldier left behind. get thefort is made to soldier back to the united states when one is captured. whether the soldier is guilty of anything such as desertion are any other potential rhymer misdemeanor in a court of military justice, it's very important for the united states to bring the soldiers back and if necessary, then be able to prosecute them if the evidence that just they should be prosecuted. >> that is the key question

also at the car when during mass was happening there there were also a series of explosions at the nonstate internets no soldiers were there at the time we've been hearing ukrainian military repeatedly that the checkpoints were attacked by self-defense forces well we can say that unfortunately whatever peace the reason in these parts of the country remains very very for a job and of course people very tired they are exhausted of the situation of months of clashes and months of tensions many fled already the country with many stay here and who have been hearing from many of them that their plan is that in case of emergency in case of need they will use them shelters and we visited some of them and here's my report about that this is a bomb shelter watch out it was built decades ago when ukraine was part of the used to store at the height of the cold war and it seems these dog times are returning to these parts of the world the enemy may be different but these abandoned sons are now coming back to life. as they see if you want peace prepare for war the d.m. as a resident volunteered to clean

. >> reporter: this will be fought by nonstate actors and regional players, iraq's longest neighbor andme crit immaterial saudi a raper blaming [inaudible] for the problem. >> we reject any international intervention in the countries of the region, we also support the rightful demands of the people in those countries. >> reporter: this crisis was years in the making. it is hard to see what options the u.s. has left when turkey has dismissed the idea of air strikes. and gulf states will not want their territories used for a military campaign that would save maliki's leadership. al jazerra. >>> in a moment we'll have the latest reaction from washington. roslyn george canned is a jordae deem. but first let's go iraq with omar. tell us about the government taking back the refinery. >> reporter: well, the government said in a statement that they would control it totally. this is their plan. they have sent reinforcements to the area. a huge number of military personnel and equipment. however, it is not now been cleared by the rebels. our sources there say the rebels are still controlling the

theou painted a portrait of isis of not hierarchical, nonstate military. you don't know the numbers. the numbers are fluid but in the thousands. how does that complicate military options? it does not seem like they have theote, center of gravity airstrikes could take out to break the momentum. how does the fact that they are fluid, nonstate and in the thousands versus the 600,000-man iraqi force -- how does that complicate the options? the options being prepared by will cover a wide range of military capabilities. we of the capabilities that are tasked to provide options for would be kinetic strikes, which can be incredibly donetive and powerful when the right way to achieve objectives. i'm not going to get ahead of decisions the commander-in-chief has not made yet. i'm not going to prejudge that. you are right. as i said, they are not a nationstate army. clearly they are interested in geographic gains as well. ofre's a whole swath military capabilities that could be useful depending on what decisions the president wants to make. >> [indiscernible] set pie

one is the nonstate actors, which clearly i isis is.threat that it is, as a nonstate actor, is in its ability to work in iraq, to engender support in iraq, to take cities, to do so in syria, and have related groups do so in libya, means that for the first time, we are seeing a significantly intensified jihadist terrorist threat. it is a transnational one which not only threatens to be a platform for actual attacks against people, civilians, whether americans were nil easterners, but it threatens the middle state fabric of the middle east. one of the first and crisis did when it took over is it went back to the border with syria and took down the border. is critically important for them to take down borders, take territory, and expand. it is another thing very important and threatening about isis. , it is nonstate actor trying to take down the nationstate system. there is no rational reason to believe they will stop with iraq. genocidal. as we have seen in the city they have taken, they have slaughtered the shia. they said they will cont

began tan know detainees for bowe bergdahl but there was significant concern about dealing with a nonstate entity and this could encourage other hostages. >> i think our views were clearly translated to in our letter both to to secretary clinton. so it comes with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation, totally not following the law. >> the president needs to look the american people in the eye and explain to the american people why he was justified in releasing the five individuals and why their background didn't demand and mandate that they be detained at guantanamo for an indefinite period of time. >> in poland the president offered this explanation. >> we have consulted with congress for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover sergeant bergdahl. >> reporter: a national security council spokesperson says the 30-day notification would interfere with the president's ability to protect the lives of americans abroad, u.s. soldiers and, quote, we believe it's fair to conclude that congress

they want to know why are we transferring prisoners with nonstate actors, was the health of sergeant bergdahl so serious that we had to make this transfer. you know, is this a back doorway to try to close down guantanamo bay. the state department spokeswoman says this afternoon that they don't want to hold prisoners any longer than they have to, there is only about 149 prisoners still down there. 78 have been cleared for release. she says this is a propaganda tool. so members of the house will get into this. there will be another classified briefing for members of the senate armed services committee tomorrow morning and then the marquee event of the week will be before the house armed services committee, the first public discussion of this, we will have defense secretary chuck hagel answering lawmakers' questions. we expect that to be very contentious because again rarely have you seen such a big policy issue. what are we doing in afghanistan, what are we doing about releasing prisoners. congressman sam seven years as p.o.w., and he believes the president has put a price on the head

fact, the taliban has been declared by the congress and the president to be a nonstate terrorist organizationral statute makes it a crime punishable by ten years in jail up to life in prison for materially aiding a terrorist organization. fact. the courts have ruled any assistance, knowingly and intentionally prostride a terrorist organization by an american makes that american liable for prosecution. >> you're accusing the president of the united states aiding and abetting the enemy. >> yes. yes. it's pretty clear. right there. ther for the president's behavior. that's the nixon argument if the president does you want it's not illegal. >> your first point is that he returned these combatants to the theater. the president argues he sent them to qatar and they will be held to qatar for a year. >> that's the president's argument. when the president was questioned about this in poland yesterday he acknowledged it is probable that they either won't stay in qatar for a year or as soon as they leave qatar they will return to the theater they once inhabited. >> aiding and abetting the enemy. is that

regular challenges of warfare, when you're fighting with people they are not state actors, they are nonstates. nor has the united nations designated them as a terrorist. >> they are not a terrorist organization? >> we have not designated them as a terrorist organization. their people and their forces, these five were part of that rule. their people, their forces engaged in gross human rights violations and, as jeremy pointed out, these are certainly very dangerous people. if they were to be released, the likelihood that they would return to the fight is high and that's why they are under -- >> for one year, they are under supervision for one year? >> that's right. >> let me address the issue about negotiating with terrorists. the state of israel, another democracy, gave up more than 1,000 prisoners that were held in the palestinian prits nesone that were held in one and they did that even though the prisoners in the israeli jails lived up to an ethos, that you leave no man behind. that's an essential bargain we cut with our service members. we will not leave you behind. >> i want to about co

state actor, nonstate actor? who is the friend in the region? iran working with the iraqi government you, have to ask. >> you can't make it up. if you wrote a screenplay -- >> you could not, right. >> the united states ally in iraq would be iran, they throw you out of the office and say there's something wrong with you. >> no money for that film. >> it's unbelievable. but that's, in fact, what may -- we're on the same side, evidently, and trying to make sure that isis doesn't overrun iraq. the cause of all of this is at least partially a function of al maliki's being such a crook and his not engaging the sunnis in postwar iraq, and that's -- this stuff will continue until something really, really bad happens and that's liable to be a civil war which will take lots of lives. >> al maliki not following through with promises and agreements. >> hasn't done it won't do. >> the isis group, a cross of a terror group, as well as organized army. how does a u.s. strike back or strike such a type? >> irn effectively. in small groups and clusters, they're m

the assessment of the threats would you tell us which one, how percentagewise the state actors and nonstatend also have you been able to utilize all of our network, including congress, you know, the department of state, department of defense, all that together to share information? prevention is important and have you seen the relationship between our foreign policy inside the country? thank you. >> and then i have one back here. then we will stop. >> you made mention of our aging infrastructure. just in case another huge earthquake would happen, especially on the pacific side of the countries like california all the way up to alaska, because our infrastructure our aging, just how resistant our infrastructure? that's it, just in case the country might be strong children of quick happen, think he spent so the three questions are essentially how well are you partnering internationally, presumably also in your outrage for stakeholders on qhsr, the threats of state versus nonstate, the relative threats, and also how well are you sharing information on mitigating threats across in the agency, an

people who are there representing countries, representing individuals, nonstate is in the light, all of whom need tending. they are not going away. they are expect to the united states to show up and to make a move however we define that. and of course there are the longer-term chronic problems, the words filled with people who are struggling. i saw my role primarily to do all it could to restore american leadership. and that meant several things to me. it certainly meant that i had to figure out how to deal with the emergencies and how to 10 to over a broad array of complaints about our country from the prior eight years. it was not just iraq. it was not just the war on terror and the pieces that came to light. it was not just the economic collapse, although that is a trifecta that was waiting on our doorstep. it was the feeling that somehow america had violated our own values, the rules we had help to construct and pushed for compliance and how countries were supposed to be behaving, whether it was conventions that we assigned against torture or it was the anti-ballistic missile tr

people who are there representing countries, representing individuals nonstate actors and the like all of whom need tending. they're not going away. they are expecting the united states to show up and to make a move. however we did find that and then of course there are the longer-term chronic problems. the award is filled with people who are struggling. i saw my role primarily to do while all i could to help restore american leadership. that meant several things to me. it certainly meant that i had to figure out how to deal with the emergencies and how to tend to what were a broad array of complaints about our country from the fire eight years. it was not just iraq. it was not just the war on terror and the abuses that came to light. it was not just the economic collapse although that is a trifecta that was waiting on our doorstep. it was the feeling that somehow america had violated our own values. the rules that we had helped to construct and pushed for compliance and how countries and how countries are supposed to be behaving whether it was conventions that we had signed against to

this has sent a powerful message to enemies of america across the globe, from iran, north korea, nonstate actors in north africa and the middle east, that there's great value in capturing an american because if you do you can get some of your own prisoners released. >> do you believe you know the detail of his disappearance from the base, sergeant bergdahl? >>ee they have not shared that and i have not commented on it because it's a matter of the criminal justice system within the military. there's a process to review and reasons to charge him and court-martial, what have you, i leave that up to them. i'm not sheer to criticize sergeant bergdahl. we're al happy he's back with his family. what i criticize the process the president has followed because it's endangered americans and in the future. >> i heard senator graham say, lindsey graham of south carolina, it's impossible for them to flow prisoners out of gitmo without a huge backlash. there will be people on our side, meaning the republican side, calling for his impeachment if he did that. are you with senator graham on that? >> well,

they're worried about potential enemies whether they're state or nonstate actors developing strains that the preventions and prophylactics and treatments we have today can no longer treat. it's keeping up the defenses which constantly have to be updated because the threat is the constantly updating itself in effect. >> so when you look at this and you know the precautions the u.s. military takes, aren't you surprised that this was -- that this happened at the cdc? >> i think so. i spoke to an expert who was involved in the response to the 2001 anthrax attack. and you remember this just after 9/11. a very scary moment for the country. one, he said you know, it's important to have this because we have to have it around so we can develop defenses in the future. the other thing he said is that the risk to the general population from something like this is not great, that this in his view is confined to those workers, still a serious neb you 75 people, deadly disease, but the folks back home shouldn't be concerned that they're at risk from this. >> sanjay, it was several days, as you said, th

to outsource significant parts of its nuclear weapons development program to other states or to nonstate actors the a.q. khan's of the world and are north korea and to get a good handle on the procurement they are taking because there has been this long track record of i ran looking for various sources throughout the world that could aid its nuclear developments. the ambassador. let me in note in north korea we have a real example of how important verification and monitoring is. in 2008 when we were proceeding with the dismantlement programs to dismantle yongbyon there was a bare negation particle that they agree to orally. when we asked for them to put it in writing because that was a very robust verification protocol it required if you will unfettered access anywhere anytime samples taken out of the country and they refuse to put it in writing. since then they have not come back to the table so it shows how important verification piece of the equation is with north korea. i would think the same with iran with a very robust meaningful protocol that insists on a unfettered access and sam

prisoner exchanges and that have been in the past locations where the united states has dealt with nonstatervicemembers in order to achieve the recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> the one example i am aware of helicopter pilot michael durrant in somalia who was held captive by the warlord, and there was a quiet arraignment in with yo interstates regained durrant's freedom and functionally and exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> any characterization of this is to go shooting with terrorists misses the fact we were and are at war. he is a member of our military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion at the end 2014, we consider that the end of facilities because we will still have 10,000 troops there, but there was hostilities, these five would have had to be released as the end of hostilities. was that the department's opinion, do they feel the opposite? >> sir, the way i would answer that is we believe we have under domestic law specifically the a mof and under and nest all of the law of armed conflict we have auth

are in a -- not perpetual war, but perpetual from the standpoint of the foreseeable future against nonstate operatives who are undefined and we are -- but we know that they pose a threat. 9/11 is as fresh today as -- almost 13 years later -- as it was then. from that standpoint, there is no one for congress to declare war on, so to speak. from that standpoint, the president or the executive branch has to, within the boundaries set by the congress, conduct foreign policy, and it's not a question of instilling troops into a hostile environment. they are already there. so, it is a question of how it is managed, and the congress, through the intelligence committee and defense committees and so forth, really has i think an opportunity and a responsibility to diligently work with the executive as the policies unfold, in whatever -- >> bob, i put you last. every president back to nixon, you have watched this review have a unique perspective on that. how do you assess that? what has changed about that relationship in that time, that duration of presidents from nixon to barack obama? >> first of all

the threats of state versus nonstate, the relative threats and also how well are your sharing information on mitigating threats across the interagency and infrastructure? >> those are an excellent set of questions. on our international partners, this was something that was recognized early on and that each of our secretaries has emphasized together with our other partners across the federal government is that -- and at the state and local level as well. engagement with our international partners 1 critical to addressing these threats and hazards. >> we have a wide range of relationships with entities across the globe as well as relationships with non-governmental organizations and civic organizations aimed at at dressing this wide range of of threats and hazards and challenges so international engagement is extremely important to fulfilling homeland security mission responsibilities and reaching the ends that we really wish to reach. in terms of the percentage of state actors versus non-state actors in our threats, i think it varies across the strategic environment. there may be state act

is hugely vulnerable to actions from china, or other state actors, or for that matter, a set of nonstate actors. and given how much the plumbing and technology related to the financial sector in the u.s., and the extent to which the u.s. is comparatively dependent on in thecessful at financial world, it is an important vulnerability. be able tosume to say what is on the mind of the chinese government or the more but obviously,ip this set of things is troubling. stewart got to go in the via when it was a secure environment. i got to go to libya when all hell was breaking loose. [laughter] >> me, too. [laughter] >> one more question and then we will open it up to the audience. going back to the private sector and the totality of american economic influence and power, one way of thinking about it is a little overly simplistic. i, it hashing about tf developed and harnessed the for ato exclude actors national security impact. have we done enough in the u.s. to think holistically about how we use financial inclusion and positive dimensions of american power as part of a national security stra

few, we have not just the emerging rising powers, but we have all of the arrival of the variety of nonstate actors, individuals, corporations that are now playing a huge role in crafting national security agendas, how we use state craft, how we use the tools of national security, and playing roles in ways that we never imagined. i think trying to find a way to fold those-ups into the foreign policy debates and give them a seat at the table has been a huge challenge for us. i also think we are coping with this defusion of power. i'm not going to stand up here and get into deet klein debate is america in decline or not, is europe in decline or not? those binary debates are not particularly useful. i think we do have to have a conversation between europe and the united states to think about our share of world power has certainly diminished as all of these other actors have arrived on the global stage. i think we're, again, trying to wrap our heads around that. when you pair that with the proliferation of game-changing technologies with very mixed public opinion right now on both sides of the a

few, we have not just the emerging rising powers, but we have all of the arrival of the variety of nonstate actors, individuals, corporations that are now playing a huge role in crafting national security agendas, how we use state craft, how we use the tools of national security, and playing roles in ways that we never imagined. i think trying to find a way to fold those-ups into the foreign policy debates and give them a seat at the table has been a huge challenge for us. i also think we are coping with this defusion of power. i'm not going to stand up here and get into deet klein debate is america in decline or not, is europe in decline or not? those binary debates are not particularly useful. i think we do have to have a conversation between europe and the united states to think about our share of world power has certainly diminished as all of these other actors have arrived on the global stage. i think we're, again, trying to wrap our heads around that. when you pair that with the proliferation of game-changing technologies with very mixed public opinion right now on both sides of the a

prisoner exchanges and there have been in the past occasions where the united states has dealt with nonstate actors who are holding a service member in order to achieve their recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> the one example i'm aware of is the helicopter pilot, michael durant, in somalia who was held captive by the war lord mohammed adid and there was a quiet, as i understand it, arrangement whereby the united states regained durant's freedom and functionally in exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> and i just want to say again any characterization of this as negotiating with terrorists totally misses the fact that we were and are at war. sergeant bergdahl was a member of our military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion that at the end -- say 2014 we consider that to be the end of hostilities, which is an interesting argument because we're still going to have 10,000 troops there, that assuming there was an end of hostilities that these five would have had to have been released as the end of hostilities? is that

prisoner exchanges and there have been in the past occasions where the united states has dealt with nonstate who are holding service members in order to achieve their recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> one example i'm aware of is the helicopter pilot michael durant in somalia who was held captive by the warlord and there was a quiet, as i understand it, arrangement whereby the united states regained durant's freedom and functionally in exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> i just want to say again, i think any characterization of this as negotiating with terrorists misses the fact that we were and are at war and sergeant bergdahl was a member of our military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion that at the end of 2014 we consider that to be the end of hostilities and assuming that there was an end of hostilities they would have had to be released? is that the department's opinion or undecided or do they feel the opposite? >> the way i would answer that is to say that we believe we have under domestic law, specifica

prisoner exchanges and there have been in the past occasions where the united states has dealt with nonstate actors who are holding a service member in order to achieve their recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> the one example i'm aware of is the helicopter pilot, michael durant, in somalia who was held captive by the war lord mohammed adid and there was a quiet, as i understand it, arrangement whereby the united states regained durant's freedom and functionally in exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> and i just want to say again any characterization of this as negotiating with terrorists totally misses the fact that we were and are at war. sergeant bergdahl was a member of our military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion that at the end -- say 2014 we consider that to be the end of hostilities, which is an interesting argument because we're still going to have 10,000 troops there, that assuming there was an end of hostilities that these five would have had to have been released as the end of hostilities? is that

to outsource significant parts of its nuclear weapons development program to other states or to nonstate arcs, the a.q. khans of the world, the states like korea and also to get a good handle on what procurement that they're taking. because there has been this long track record of iran looking for various sources throughout the world that could aid its nuclear development. >> ambassador detrani. >> let me note on iran -- for north korea, we have a real example here of how important verification and monitoring is. in 2008 when we were proceeding with the dismantlement programs of yongbyon there was a verification, monitoring verification protocol they agreed to orally. when we asked for them to put it in writing because that was a very robust monitoring verification protocol, it required, if you will, unfettered access anywhere, any time. samples taken out of the country, they refused to put it in writing and that was the end and since then they've not come back to the table so it showed how important that verification piece of the equation is with north korea. i would think the same with

i mean, i don't want to minimize the degree to which -- and we talked earlier about state versus nonstatectors and cyber security is something where both of those adversaries can strike at the heart of the united states. and we need to recognize that. but i think one of the things that has happened in our discussion of cyber security is that we've conflated many things in what counts as cyber security. so we've -- you know, one of the kinds of cyber threats the government has most aggressively gone after is anonymous. some of what they do is legal. some of what they do is illegal. some of what they do is horribly embarrassing. but it's not an existential threat to the united states, and it's curious that's been sort of early on was the lead approach for the government to combat cyber threats. then there's china stealing, robbing us blind, right? and it's actually funny because that's what everyone wants to -- you know, there's this line that sheldon whitehouse, keith alexander, a number of other people use. they say that cyber theft has been the biggest transfer of wealth in history, igno

to outsource significant parts of its nuclear weapons development program to other states or to nonstate actors the a.q. khan's of the world and are north korea and to get a good handle on the procurement they are taking because there has been this long track record of i ran looking for various sources throughout the world that could aid its nuclear developments. the ambassador. let me in note in north korea we have a real example of how important verification and monitoring is. in 2008 when we were proceeding with the dismantlement programs to dismantle yongbyon there was a bare negation particle that they agree to orally. when we asked for them to put it in writing because that was a very robust verification protocol it required if you will unfettered access anywhere anytime samples taken out of the country and they refuse to put it in writing. since then they have not come back to the table so it shows how important verification piece of the equation is with north korea. i would think the same with iran with a very robust meaningful protocol that insists on a unfettered access and sam

the rise of nonstate actors, social media is disruptive to government in general.is disruptive to our dominance in the world. we are struggling to figure out how to be influential and more influential than we are now. washington bureau chief at bloomberg news, i appreciate you joining us. guest: good to see you. host: up next, carol rosenberg joins us to talk about detainees at guantanamo bay. first, a look at what is coming up on the sunday shows on c-span radio. networks, some of the topics include the release of sergeant bowe berghdal from the taliban and. you can you rebroadcast on c-span radio beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. isay, meet the press preempted by the french open. abc's this week with hillary clinton. rogers andive mike admiring, the mayor of seattle. jackel mukasey and general brandis. cheryl cnn's state of the union follows with john kerry and john mccain. at 4:00, face the nation from cbs. the chair and vice chair of the senate intelligence committee, senator dianne feinstein and sexy chambliss. the sunday network talk shows are on c-span and the

policy of the united states government since 9/11, actually before 9/11, never to negotiate with nonstateere is a lot of legal issues here. the lesser legal issue is the failure to inform congress. he signed into law a statute saying if i'm going to take anybody out of gitmo for any reason, i have to give congress 30 days notice so they can object or they can inquire. somebody is calling brian. >> it is not my cell. it is the computer. >> all right. the far more difficult one -- we were talking about this before the president came on -- is that we have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to a terrorist organization. material assistance defines very, very broadly. it could be money, map, professionals service, it could be any assets whatsoever, including human assets. so i have argued that by letting these people free and their natural and probable result of them being let free is that they will rejoin this terrorist organization. the president has done what his justice department has prosecuted people for, successfully prosecuted people for: providing

prisoner exchanges, and there have been in the past occasions where the united states has dealt with nonstatectors who are holding service -- a service member in order to achieve their recovery. >> can you give us a specific example? >> the one example i'm aware of is the helicopter pilot, michael durant, in somalia, who was held captive by the war lard, aided. the united states regained durant's freedom and functionally in exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> i just want to say again, i think any characterization of this as negotiating with terrorists totally misses the fact that we were and are at war. and sergeant bergdahl was a member of the military fighting that war. on the gtmo piece, is it your opinion that at the end say 2014 we consider that to be the end of hostilities, which interesting argument because we are still going to have 10,000 troops there, but assuming at one point there was the possibility, these five would have had to have been released? was that the department's opinion? are they undecided? or feel the opposite? >> sir, the way i woul

prisoner exchanges and there have been in the past occasions where the united states has dealt with nonstate actors who are holding a service member in order to achieve their recovery. >> can you give us a specific example of that? >> the one example i'm aware of is the helicopter pilot, michael durant, in somalia who was held captive by the war lord mohammed adid and there was a quiet, as i understand it, arrangement whereby the united states regained durant's freedom and functionally in exchange for individuals that were captured in the same operation. >> and i just want to say again any characterization of this as negotiating with terrorists totally misses the fact that we were and are at war. sergeant bergdahl was a member of our military fighting that war. on the gitmo piece, is it your opinion that at the end -- say 2014 we consider that to be the end of hostilities, which is an interesting argument because we're still going to have 10,000 troops there, that assuming there was an end of hostilities that these five would have had to have been released as the end of hostilities? is that

in development of nonstate versus nation-state? i would like to get some feedback on that and where's the military's arms sales? used thae here groups will be able to fight against each other, where are they coming from? the united states arms supplier, a large sales portfolio. the caller makes two very important points and questions. >> guest: the caller makes two very important points/questions. one is on the role of nonstate actors which which clearly isis is end this threat that isis poses as a nonstate actor is in its ability to work in iraq to engender support in iraq to take over cities in iraq to do so in syria and to have related jihadist groups do so in libya means that for the first time we are actually seeing a significantly intensify terrorist threat jihadist terrorist threats because of the transnational one which not only threatens to be a platform for actual attacks against people civilians whether american or middle eastern but it does threaten the nation-states fabric of the middle east. one of the first things th