they have right to not provoke is self-incrimination, and if i was one of their lawyers i would encouragethem to take it. is our goal to have a national conversation where americans realize whether or not torture is ever morally justified it is categorically prohibited in international law and that's the lesson going forward 37. >> we'll be back in a moment with more inside story. when we return a look at options for preventing the kind of abuse that exceeded legal authority and was hidden by over site. is complete disclosure and threat of punishment part of this process? stay with us. real reporting that brings you the world. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america. >> we're back with more inside story on al jazeera. i'm ray suarez. with us on this edition, karen greenberg said that tortures should be charged abouter but they have to be indicted first. how do people figure out to make sure that the truth comes out and learn the treatment of prisoners overseas. with us, our guests: >> professor, w

wilson testifying for 90 minutes without once a certificating his fifth amendment right against self incriminationusual. experienced criminal lawyers will tell you, this is unheard of, and dramatically confirms that wilson believed he had nothing to hide. his account was also consistent with his prior statements. third, eyewitness testimony both supported and contradicteded wilson's account. as detailed in an interactive compilation by the "washington post," some like wilson saw brown charge while others saw surrender. but fourth, even if the eyewitness accounts are read to support an indictment, the physical evidence suggested otherwise. paul cassell, a criminal law professor at the sj quinny college of law at the university of utah, published a precise analysis in the "post" which made sense to me. his conclusion, that the powder burns, the dna, the bullet trajecto trajectory, the blood evidence and the shell casings all support wilson's account. on just the first of those points, where wilson testified that brown wrestled him for his gun inside his police vehicle during which wilson fired two s

to employees in the case of an ongoing criminal investigation to decline because of possible self-incriminationhoice with s with the employee. every previous congressional investigation including iran-contra i was deeply involved in. the congressional committee wants to talk to the people whose work they are scrutinizing. in this case, maligning. so the fact that this notion that somehow they were precluded is silly. first, a personal example. january 2008. i testified, not interviewed. i testified under oath under threat of perjury with no lawyer, no handlers before the full house intelligence committee. 26 members on the issue of the destruction of the cia video tames. remember that? at the same time there was a criminal investigation ongoing into those tapes. >> they would have asked to you fwef this investigation. you would have been happy to go up there and tell them whatever you knew. >> i would have been delighted. i wrote a whole book about it. >> what do you make of that? they didn't question one cia official. yet in this report, they're accusing these cia officials of basically breaki