you're right that when it comes to the internal task forces that the administration has set up, you are more transparent than the bush administration was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to make, the real fight is about transparency. the fight was over executive privilege when it was putting congress against the presidency. you do not normally see that when both parties told the congress and the white house. if i hope at some point that the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next two years, i think you are going to see this clashes and that is when you will see whether -- with the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there is an enormous value with being able to shield some of your highest advise from public scrutiny. if you want the unvarnished honest advice of your visors, you are best off not splashing what advice they give you on to the front pages. i will use a congressional example. i do not think many members of congress would want to have made public the internal e-mail between them and their staff over what to vote on

should the approach of the administration be more like that of the george w. bush administration, or that of fdr? we will explain in a moment. you can always reach us online. you can also reach us at twitter. and for e-mail id is c-span.org. -- it is c-span.org if you have called in the past 30 days please give others a chance to call this morning. here is where we are basing our question. it is an op ed in the washington post. the author is from the brookings institution. it refers specifically to detention policy. on september, soon after 9/11 attacks the bush administration face a choice about terrorist detainee's commission to get congress on board or should it go alone? president bush bypass the legislature for seven years, based u.s. detention policy on his own constitutional authority. working with congress would be hard, the administration officials reasoned. the legislature might constrain executive flexibility in the president had powerful arguments that he did not need additional legislative support. that is worthy editorial begins. we will read more of

to make a few comments about the likely or possible difference between the obama administration's approach for india verses the bush administration or the clinton administration before that. is there a new priority? what would the problems because of those priorities? >> that is a great question. number one, i think now, because of the prominence in capacity and organization of the indian american community, there is the very narrow band with win which the administration would move -- within which the administration would move. you can't ignore india, you have to pay attention, to the great credit of the americans, that is one thing. secondly, the bush administration, the nuclear deal was such a big deal in terms of the amount of effort it took to change the congress and the legal system and the international framework, that is like giving birth to an elephant. i am going to mess up the metaphor because we have a new mother now. to follow up on that, there's not going to be anything that big you can do for a long time. that needs to get sorted out because it hasn't been implemented. there is going to be dismayed th

john taylor, former treasury undersecretary in the bush administration, serving the first term of -- under president bush, dr. at stanford university, senior fellow at hoover institution and teaches economics at stanford. welcome to the program. caller: good morning to both of you. i have maybe three questions, if i could stay on the line. host: can we stay on the line? caller: do you know tim adams? guest: former colleague at the treasury? host: second question? caller: of the second question is, -- the second question is, what area were you undersecretary? guest: international affairs. caller: that is what tim was. here is my question. the bush administration was fundamentally established as a corporate model government, which did not sit well with me because governments and corporations are difference. the first treasury secretary, paul o'neill, i liked, -- the price of loyalty, what happens with him. john snow -- paul a came -- lcoa and john snow came from cs x, so they had business experience on the ground with employees. but then with henriette -- when henry paulson came in, he

i just would like your opinion on the current administration, the bush administration, the future administrations in a position to where they can't cut off those shipments because it would be perceived in the international community as being too harsh but yet make the american public aware that we're actually fueling the north koreans' military machine k. i have your comment on that? guest: sure. that is correct. in large part. i think the two countries that i think are most responsible for propping the north carolinians up because it is a failed state -- the north koreans up, because it is a failed state. they don't produce anything besides things -- narcotics and ballistic missiles and w.m.d. that they sell on the market. but china has been i think number one in terms of investment and aid to north korea. south korea has been a big supporter of neek neck's economy. and sos -- so have we. we did it under president clinton. we did it under president bush in the latter part of his administration and right now what i think president obama and his administration are grappling with is whether we're g

the obama administration continued the warrantless wiretapping program? guest: um --you know, i hesitate to answer that question because i do not know what i do not know. formally the bush administration's terrorist surveillance program was terminated in 2007, i believe, and brought under the authority of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. what the court is doing is issuing very broad kinds of authorization which are not individual warrants. one could say that warrantless surveillance is continuing, in essenca sense, but president b's program has been terminated. caller: i appreciate that because it did clarify things for me. with it being this ambivalent why do think it is not front- page news on the major papers and msnbc when they made such a big deal out of it for a year and it is probably still on going? why is it no longer news? thank you. guest: it is a very good question. i do not think it is up to the news media to decide what business. to me the missing element here -- to decide what is new span of the missing element is congressional involvement. in the past administration we had a very assertive, energetic executive branch. we had a passive, compli

do you still contend that the bush administration kept the united states and its allies say for? >> well, i would contend that for several reasons. first of all, i think we had a significant impact on al qaeda when we took down the saddam hussein regime, we eliminated one of the great sources. they had previously produced and used weapons of mass destruction. we also took down muammar qaddafi's program in libya. he did that just a few days after we captured saddam hussein. we took out a.q. khan, the man, the prime sponsor of pakistan's nuclear program, who then went into business for himself in the black market, so the technology that was being sold to libya and terror -- and it iran, i think we had some success. they are still out there. my guess is that there is a lot of attention being focused specifically on those, the weather is in the white house is going to have to address this. north koreans have a demonstrated once again that they are not prepared. they have tested a nuclear weapon, it looks like they are getting ready to test another mosul -- missile, as well. we have t

two days later we were asked by the same two bush appointees to initiate the tarp program of $700 billion. subsequently, we worked with the bush administration, and after we were unable to pass the bill because the house passed it and the senate bennett, involving the auto companies the bush administration initiated it. so we are talking now about a bush administration initiations of funding for aig, a bush administration request to congress to create the tarp, and the bush administration intervention without congressional final action for the auto companies. how that became a democratic agenda puzzles me. perhaps i will be enlightened later on. i do know that i have colleagues who believe that the world was created only 4000 years ago. i had not previously known there were some who thought it was created on january 20, 2009. so i do want to say we are engaged in this and we are engaged and have been engaged for months in dealing with the consequence decisions made by the bush administration, some of which i agreed with, some of which i agree with the course they weren't well carried out. i would note on the tarp money, that thanks in part t

the administration. host: how would you gauge their strength in this administration compared to the previous one? guest: probably had a little more sway with the bush administration. it is a strong force. the banking industry is a force to be reckoned with. host: check out our website if you want more information on this. these are figures on the political action committees of the banking industry. wells fargo has well over $1 million invested in a political action committee. ohio on our democrats' line. caller: thank you. everyone has their mind on the banks. i give the president a b overall, but a d as far as the economy and oil prices. we started with the low prices -- with those oil prices. i would like to ask your guest about how he feels without oil prices going up again. host: sen diego, calif. on our republican line. caller: right, thank you. ok, i do not know if you can hear me, or not? host: yes, go ahead, please. caller: i think that the guy is a failure and john voight got up yesterday and started talking about what is going wrong with the administration and raised $18 million just by talking about. everyone is afraid to say anything. t

the nixon administration. they were close and had a long- term relationship. but by the end in the bush administration donald rumsfeld had very few voices of support either within the administration, congress, or the senior military ranks. host: why did the president wait until after the elections to accept his resignation? guest: the president was adamant about waiting even though he seems to have made up his mind about the replacement. that was before the election. they set into motion some planning as to how the resignation would be announced. bush was insistent that the news not come until after the election because he did not want it to seem like he was being politically motivated, to help republican candidates. there were many republican candidates after the fact who were quite upset that bush had not moved sooner because republicans felt the departure might have helped save some republican candidates. host: bradley graham is our guest. this is his book. good morning on the democrats' line. caller: congratulations with your new book i think you have the market on the fiction ultim

host: was their release of classified -- was there an increase of classified information in the bush administration? @@ guest: in the 10 million range annually up to 20 million. now, some of that is not -- you know, the bush administration is not strictly response before it because some of it reflects the creation of new secrets in electronic form, which tend to grow more quickly than document, paper documents, that are classified secret. but what is true, though, is that secrecy increase dramatically during the bush administration, and i would add, with tremendous adverse consequences in areas of the decision to go to war, questions of warrant-less surveillance, questions of the tension, prisoner interrogations, there were major departures in u.s. national security policy that were carried out secretly, and in my opinion, without adequate the liberation. in your paper on classified information you write about a number of congressional attempts in the past to reform the cia and the practice of how classified information is released. what has worked so far? guest: one of the frustrating things is th

i may broaden it a little bit and say that beginning with the clinton administration in the late '90s but then certainly in the bush administration there was both a lot of talk in the u.s. but a lot of effort and belief in transforming the relationship with india and that transformation was a phrase especially that the bush administration applied to it. but i think there was less clarity about what that meant, what that was going to mean and in particular what it's reasonable to expect from india when we talk about a strategic partnership 'cause there's this phrase well, we're natural allies. well, what does that really mean? and one thing -- and it picks up on both of the previous comments was, you know, we always have to remember that india is not aligned. i mean, that's a phrase that had its definition in the cold war but it basically refers to what peter was talking about, attention to sovereignty. but india's no one's partner in the sense, okay, you go do this and we'll do this. it's a different kind of -- india will always do more than most countries kind of what it wants, what it defines as its interest and

the obama administration, the department of justice elected to defend this privilege three times. i have no problem with that at all. i think the correct. the administration's picked up -- or -- where the bush administration left off in three pending cases. thition lambic foundation and others. during an april television interview, you stated that in your opinion, the bush administration correctly applied the state secrets privilege in these cases. now tomorrow the senate judiciary committee will begin marking a bill. last year after hearings were held on this manner in the 110th congress, attorney general sent a letter expressing the justice's department's views on the state secrets protection act. the department of justice had several concerns regarding this legislation. chief among them was the constitutional questions raised by the proposed legislation. this bill seriously limits the ability of the executive branch to protect national security information under the well established standards articulated by the supreme court. my time's up but let me just finish this question, if will you, mr. chairman. i'd be grateful for that. for that courtesy. but i also don't want to -- i don't want

guest: just after the former lebanese president was assassinated in 2005 the bush administration withdrew the ambassador in damascus. there was a suspicion that intelligence was behind the killing and it was an act of protest. since then it the u.s. has had virtually no contact with the syrians. as president obama has reached out to the islamic world, for example in cairo with his speech, they have called for greater engagement with the arab middle east in particular. this is a step in that direction. host: president obama spoke yesterday about the situation and iran, seeming to take a different tone. what went into the shift? guest: there are couple of things to note. he has slowly reted it up his language about the while and he sees on the street. substantively, however, there is not a big change. he is still not calling for the government to be changed in iran and is not even condemning the actual results of the elections. nico's question reflected the anxiety from iranians. the president said we do not have international observers there and do not know what happened. while he said tha

wrote to the president on monday about my continued concern that the administration has not formally withdrawn legal opinions, including the white paper that provided legal justifications for the bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. the letter was prompted by recent speech by the director of national intelligence. he asserted the program was not illegal, but he later clarified that. in a speech to the american constitution society, you said the following -- i never thought i would see the day when the president would act in direct defiance of federal law by out of rising warrantless interfaced surveillance of american systems. the president himself has several times said during the campaign that the program was illegal. now that you are attorney general, is there any doubt the wireless -- or loss wiretapping program was illegal? >> i think as it existed at that point was unwise in that it was put together without the approval of congress. as a result, it did not have all the protections and strength it might have had behind it that now exists with regard to to having had congressional approval. i think the concern i expressed in that speech no longer exist because

the second bush administration, the second bush administration as well was a supporter of the i.m.f. as the gentleman perhaps knows. the fact of the matter is the united states will play a very significant role in the decisionmaking of the i.m.f. because we are a very significant contributor. it is a red herring from my perspective to raise the fact that money could go somewhere. of course money could go somewhere, any money that we appropriate could go to -- if the gentleman is going to reclaim his time, the gentleman asked me a question. money could go any place. it could go to a bad place. we don't want it to go to a bad place. i don't think any of the 19 other nations want it to go to hezbollah or other organizations that might be negative in the use of that funds as far as we are concerned. what we do want, however, that's what ronald reagan was talking about, that's what george bush was talking about, that's what president obama is talking about, we do want to see the international economy rebound as well because it impacts on us as we impact very severely on it. that is why th

let me put the delays this context: in the first four months of the bush administration, second bush administration, i'm sure it was the same -- i'm sorry in the second bush administration; i'm sure it was the same in the first bush administration, when the senate was controlled by the president's party and we were in the minority, there wasn't a single filibuster of a bush nominee; not one. but in the first four months of the obama administration, republicans have filibustered eight of the nominees, the ones we had to file cloture on. i've indicated there are many others with the constraints we have, with the rules in the senate, i can't file cloture on every one of these. those eight filibusters in the first four months of president obama's administration are twice as many as president bush faced in his first four years. four months compared to four years. so i hope, mr. president, people who are listening, watching or understanding this, we are not here berating republicans in oregon or nevada or cross the country. what i'm saying as the republicans here in the senate, the 40 of th

bush administration initiation of funding for aig. a bush administration request to congress to create the t.a.r.p. and the bush administration intervention without congressional final action in the auto companies. .. more than one-third of the money advanced to banks had already been paid to the treasury. we have to decide what we do with that but does consider the whole 700 billion gone have to cope with the fact that approximately 200 billion advance in less than a year and more than 70 billion has come back some of which exceeded the loans because there was interest. these are complicated questions to be worked out and i would not ordinarily have brought this up but listening to what i heard before, yes we have had a problem with bailouts for the second point i would make is that say on pay comes from england. it is not some intervention. it is not a bailout. the compensation matters we talked about, is one thing to have fair of compensation restrictions when people are getting money correctly. it is another when we are talking about risk assessment so i will now ask my question of these three g

the previous administration. according to the editorial page of "the washington post" says it is hard is distinguish the obama's administration from the bush administration's position. last congress legislation essentially the same as this one was co-sponsored in the senate by joe biden and hillary clinton, who are now the vice president and secretary of state. this year president obama, the vice president, and the secretary of state have gone silent on the bill. when asked about it, the vice president's communications director said no comment on this from here. the legislation goes exactly in the wrong direction. so much so that even president obama, the vice president, and the secretary of state are running away from it. so should we. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you. the president is running away from a lot of things, said this is just one more of them. -- so this is just one more of them. that does not mean that consideration is just as important. we have been here before, ladies and gentlemen. there are some secrets we have to keep away from citizens and congress peop

during the bush administration we were seen as so pro-israel that the united states could not stand as and interlocutor among those nations for reasons partly because we did not have any diplomatic presence in damascus. i'm not sure help the russian ship will develop with the syrian ambassador, but the administration believes it is better to talk and be present with and not to be. i think that is the logic. host: we're joined on the democrats' line from newark, new jersey. caller: thank you to your balanced response to the questions coming your way. as a person who watches c-span consistently, it is a pleasure to hear you cannot avoid questions posed to you. my question to you as a reporter for "the washington post" regarding john mccain and lindsey gramm attacking the president's response to the situation iniran, do you s a writer for net to be out of hand on their part and only politically motivated? do you think -- what are we supposed to do in response, technically, to what is happening andiran? should we sit back, observe, and be the third party like the rest of the world was to o

the president on monday about my continued concern that the administration has not formally withdrawn legal opinions, including the january, 2006, white paper that provided legal justifications for the bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. and the letter was prompted in part by a recent speech that i'm sure you're aware of by the director of national intelligence. and which he asserted that the program was not illegal but he later clarified that. in a speech to the american constitution society in june,

on september 11th, the bush administration made a choice about terrorist the detainees. should it get congress on board or should it go along? president george w. bush bypass the legislature for seven years, made u.s. detention policy on his own authority. congress's authorization of the war on al qaeda and its affiliates, working with congress would be hard, at the officials' recent. the legislature and the powerful head powerful arguments that he did not need additional legislative support. that is where the editorial begins. the issue is about the approach of the bush administration for executive authority or the fdr administration, working through that the dispatcher. first a couple of stories. the supreme court is wrapping up their session. the associated press is reporting wrapping up the session with several additions -- decisions. including a watch discrimination case. an appeals court decided that they -- it was correct to throw out the exams. another involves campaign finance law, whether a movie that was critical of hillary rodham clinton during her presidentia

it doesn't sound -- >> probably one of the good things of the bush administration have put in their given his background given a good timing, go ahead iraq paul krugman says there haven't been enough money pumped into the economy and our other economists are starting to warn that the deficit has grown so much that it is getting very dangerous so how are you feeling? it sounds like you think enough has gone into the economy. >> yes i think the big issue for me is what will the federal reserve start doing one of the financial processes, the credit creation through the bank's start coming back to normal because basically what the fed did was that ben, the financial sector was a gross for months to. we came to a point where there would have been a lot of credit destruction quote for banks would have been obliged to call back loans from private people, companies and that would have been the turkish all over so what the fed did was a buy from the banks is outstanding credits, put them on their balance sheets to us to present that there would be recalled. of course, of the counterpart of that bu

they did make an effort -- they are trying to make arguments and eliminate arguments the bush administration has made. the administration is trying hard and moving slowly. they announced yesterday he asked for presidential memorandum extending benefits to same-sex couples for travel benefits and health benefits. it is a complicated area of law. we are constrained by doma so he is trying to do what he can do within the confines and extend those benefits and said clearly he wants to be working with congress to support the legislation that would extend benefits and to repeal doma. no one thinks it is fast enough right now. i know the president cares about this and is working on, he wants to reverse do not ask, do not tell. >> what she said. in the stand when people are impatient with the pace of progress. i would say in our defense progress is mostly in the right direction and there is a question of pace. we have only been here 125 days. in those 125 days we have had many irons in the fire. i share lisa's view. of the frustration that people who care about these issues field. i hope that next y

during the clinton administration, courts refused to grant the requested privilege in 17% of opinions. that rose to 40% during the bush administration. if anything the courts have become less deferential. finally, president obama once a critic of the privilege now recognizes its great importance. every president going back to lyndon johnson has reached the same conclusion. in sum, there is no evidence that the state secrets privilege is being misused, overused or otherwise abused. it makes this legislation unnecessary. my second point is that it is also unconstitutional. unlike most other privileges this one is grounded in the constitution. specifically, the powers it permits to the president. the supreme court has said in case after case stating expressly that the constitutional power extends to military or diplomatic secrets, the very things covered by the privilege. in my written testimony i identify seven separate provisions of the act including the core operative provision that infringe on powers the court has clearly stated along to the executive. this legislation may also infringe on the scombrushl power by imp

written that when it comes to key national security, the obama administration is continue -- is continuing along the path that was paved by the bush of ministration. -- by the bush administration. this has not changed. this is more of the same. i just have to tell you, i am thankful that mr. obama has had an epiphany lately. i hope he accelerates this, because i think the national security of the country, and the economic future and constitutional free market is at stake. i will give mr. grossman and opportunity, the aclu said this is more of the same. i will give you a chance to agree or disagree with the ec -- aclu director. >> i agree. this is not a political matter. it is about the safety of our nation. >> that is my main point. i know i took the opportunity to express some feelings of -- that the men station has, hypocritical and some of the attacks the made in the previous administration. they have come to some realities that are always easy to ignore in a campaign. what is important here is for us to realize that truth and time travel on the same road and truth always has the last word. somehow, perhaps in this institution

the branches. these internal task forces that the administration has set up, you are more transparent than the bush should ministrations was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to me, the real fight about transparency in our administration, the claims of executive privilege, when it was putting the executive congress against the presidency, you don't normally see that when those fights with both parties told congress and the white house. if, i hope, the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next few years, you will see those classes, and you will see the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there's an enormous value to be able to shield some of your highest -- you are bested 5 not to splash your best advice on the front pages. i don't think many members of congress would want to make public the internal e-mail between them and their staff over whether to vote for a certain bill and what considerations they take in voting for a certain bill. that is the type of non transparency that we were really advocating in the

i would look at this as a relay race because the mad dash was actually begun by the bush administration who set in place for instance the rest use of bear stearns, aig. it was the bush administration and hank paulson who went to congress and ask for tarp money. it is fair to say that the obama administration has taken that baton and continued to run at full speed. the administration has taken on health care reform and attempting to address greenhouse gases. so, it is fair to say that he is part of that mad dash, but the mad dash began with the republican system. the guy's got scared and decided they had to act aggressively and even with that we're looking at an unemployment rate of close to 10%. host: we have a call from maine on the democrats' line. i'm sorry, i did not have my button push. caller: the problem is one thing -- hedge funds. you should know that i know. before you were born -- i have been in the market for an awfully long time. hedge funds are manipulators of stocks. the reason the fuel prices got up to $147 per barrel when there was no shortage of oil is because hedge fu

host: john taylor now with the hoover institution, formerly with the bush administration. blake is on the phone from georgia. the morning. the morning. -- goo caller: i am wondering if c-span could advertise at least a couple of days in advance to let the viewers pick out the subject matter so we can vote on it and determine what the subject matter is going to be for that day. host: you can send us an e-mail anytime you want at journal@c- span.org. i'm not sure we will have a vote but we will take into account what you are thinking, because this program is for all of you. do you have a question for john taylor? caller: the question i got is how do people ever believe what you are saying out there -- you guys were involved in the most disastrous economic system we have ever had. so, for a lot of us, you did not have any accreditation. host: how do you respond? guest: it seems a broad criticism, not quite sure how to react because it is not very specific. you know, what i have tried to do in this book and other books is to look back at what the decisions were and see if we ca

branch into the nixon administration when rumsfeld hired janney to be the chief of staff of economic opportunity so they were close and had a long-term relationship but there by the end in the bush administration, rumsfeld had very few places of support either within the administration or congress or the senior military ranks. >> host: why did the president wait until after the elections that year to accept his resignation? >> guest: for everything i was told by his top people, the president was very adamant about waiting even though he seems to have made up his mind rumsfeld need to be replaced. >> host: made up his mind before -- >> guest: before the election. they will set up in motion the plan for how the resignation would be announced and so on. bush was insistent that the news not come until after the election because he didn't want it to seem like it was being politically motivated like it was that he was trying to help a republican candidate. there were a lot of republican candidates after the fact who were quite upset that bush hadn't moved sooner because it was felt in republican circles that rumsfeld's departure might have helped save some republican candidates. >> ho

an employee from the bush and british alicia -- the bush administration. i wanted to point that out. the department has decided to seek injunctions and civil penalties against a person who is charged with intimidating, career decisions being made. the president's nominee, we will need that to make those kinds of decisions. my friends in the republican party had so far held up the nominee from confirmation. i want to make sure that we have accurate views of what is happening. the last week's tragic shooting at the holocaust memorial museum in washington reminded us of the ongoing serious problems with bias and hatred. the number of hate groups is growing. their positions are hardening. i think it will have to strengthen the hand of law enforcement to respond to these violent threats in crimes. an important issue regarding leadership conference's, they noted an increase in hate crimes in recent years. linked to the anti-immigrant rhetoric, this great country of ours, we will do everything we can to stop them. we have additional tools for prosecuting a crimes

>> i feel as though, and this is and just the second term of the bush administration. we have been negotiating with north korea for some 16 years. evans revere and others have been involved in this process during the clinton administration. there been several high-level on voice and yet this process leads us only to the point where we got at the end of the bush administration of the phrase and then beginning a process of disablement. in spite of the fact that all of the things the north has thus far have been put on the table, peace treaty, normalization, economic and energy assistance, and negative security insurance in the 2005 joint statement which says the united states will not attack north korea with nuclear conventional weapons. so what security was driving their need for nuclear weapons, the negative security insurance and everything that came with the political and material incentives should at least offer them enough of an incentive to push harder for word on the process yet in our negotiations they continue to falter when we got to the most crucial moments. >

well, the bush one administration reacted immediately. it issued a new national security strategy and a budget proposal that is laid out what our new course will be after the collapse of what kennedy called the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy to conquer the world. reagan's evil empire. it was gone and now that it was gone the whole framework of propaganda collapsed. so what was the response of the planners in the bush administration? very straightforward. in brief, everything will go on exactly as before but with new pretexts so we still need the same new huge military system but for a new reason. literally, because of the technological sophisticated of third world powers. nobody laughed. [laughter] >> we have to maintain -- we have to maintain what they call the defense industrial base. it's a standard euphemism for high tech industry. the system whereby the public pays the cost and takes the risk and high tech industry gets the profits. they said we have to maintain intervention forces directed mostly at the middle east. and then come

the former administration. he was approved for release by the bush administration. the determination that we made was there was not sufficient proof to bring a case against him. and he was transferred, not released. transferred to saudi arabia where he will be subject to judicial review. and in addition to that, to the re-education program that they have. so -- >> was that based on a question of evidence that could not be utilized? i understand the military intelligence showed that zuhair was responsible for the death of william jefferson. was there evidence that you felt was ined a missable to make -- inadmirable to make the case? >> well, i think consistent with the bush administration was there was insufficient proof to tie him to those very serious and regrettable crimes. it wasn't a question of thed a -- of the admissable -- admissability of it. >> and one received directions from khalid shaikh mohammed and is believed to be jose padilla's acomp police for second wave of attacks after 9/11. military commission charges against him tie him to a plot to blow up hi

that rose to 40% during the bush administration. if anything the course of beacom last year friendship. president obama now recognizes its great importance for the ever-present going back to lyndon johnson as reach the same conclusion. and some, there's the evidence the state secrets privileges being misused, overused or otherwise abused. it makes legislation unnecessary. my second point is that it is also unconstitutional. unlike most other privileges this one is grounded in the constitution because the civically the power it commits to the present part of the supreme court has said as much saying expressive as constitution power extends protecting military or diplomatic secrets, the very things covered by the privilege. in my written testimony i did at the seven provisions of the act including the corporate provision that infringe on powers the court is clearly stated belong to the executive board of this legislation may also infringe on the judicial power by imposing eberle decision on the courts when deciding some constitutional

the obama administration has reached an historic agreement with the government of palao to transfer 17 guantanamo detainees to this specific island. these 17 detainees are uighurs from china. the bush administration determined that all 17 are not enemy combatants and do not pose any risk to u.s. national security. the bush administration had determined that the uighurs couldn't be legally returned to china for fear that they would be imprisoned and tortured. a federal court looked at all the classified evidence against these 17 uighurs. the court found there's no legitimate reason to hold them and ordered them released. mr. president, this administration is going to follow that court and follow the law. i commend president obama and those working with him for finding a solution to what has been a vexing problem by convincing the government of palao to accept the uighur detainees. this is the kind of diplomacy that we need to achieve a better standing in the world and a more peaceful and secure situation for the united states. another thing happened yesterday as well. there was an important development. the administration transferred ahmed galani to the united states to be prosecute

the bush administration has tried to negotiate with them. host: north carolina on our democrats line. caller: about this terrorism thing, with this thing about north korea. when clinton was in the chair he made it clear to north korea that they would not get a nuclear bomb. he said we will newt you guys. when push came in the chair -- bush came in, he let them get the bomb. they have been talking for years. china has not said anything. if you want to be frank about it, we spent a lot of time on this and they will get the bombs anyway. if they have money, they have it. they have russia, china, there is nothing we can do. guest: proliferation problem is critical. we have to be able to defend ourselves. i don't believe that bill clinton that i recall said that. there was an agreement called the frame work, where they try to cap the north korean plutonium and weapons program. unfortunately, in early 2002, we started to believe that north korea had eight iranian-based program and that made things much more difficult. many people believe that they

the obama administration. the cable that the secretary ascending to diplomatic corps is here in the united states, it is a marker as not just a continuation of the commitment of the bush administration to fighting in the trafficking in modern slavery, but in anticipation -- but an intensification of the obama administration. i think it's something that those of us who work in the field whether it is here in the state department, people like myself web and federal prosecutors and investigators working with the ngo's, that is something we're seeing a positive response to. as far as the counter trafficking response, i would like to leave you with two things. one of which is the notion that because we are in a time of economic crisis, guest workers are particularly vulnerable because of the way in which recruitment is often done. we see a problem in the worker programs