tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 2, 2014 8:00pm-9:01pm EDT
leaders of the senate foreign intelligence committee. the admission follows a long fued between the cia and the senate. diane feinstein accused the cia in march of tampering with the committee's work. many within the intelligence community believe an apology from mr. brennan was not enough. mark udall says he is concerned about mr. brennan's inability to find any flaws in the agency he leads. joining me is david ignatius, of "the washington post." he knows the cia better than anyone. let me begin with this. just explain what they did, and what the investigation concluded about the cia, and why it was important that john brennan had to apologize to the senators? >> the core issue is that the cia inspector general was looking at was how cia employees learned that senate committee staffers, who since 2009 have been preparing a report on cia interrogation practices, learned
of the fact that senate staffers had a document, which is the panetta review document, when the cia officials didn't believe that had been provided to the senate investigators as part of a hearing dump of documents that was given to the investigators. when the cia made those requests about where the documents had come from the senate investigators were inquiring about, a real standoff between the committee chairman, dianne feinstein and john brennan began. they made a referral from what was alleged to be possible criminal activity i senate staffers in obtaining the document. that is what the inspector general was describing as the improper actions.
>> will it lead to brennan's resignation? >> the initial response from the white house today was to defend brennan, to say that this had not damaged him. we will have to see how this plays out. in particular, we will have to see what senator feinstein, the leader of the senate committee, how angry she is. feinstein and brennan clashed personally. brennan made a public speech, a public criticism of the head of his senate oversight committee in which he questioned feinstein's decision to go forward, made accusations against her staff. that made it more personal and bitter. >> in the end it is about this report that is coming forward. there is a lot of push back on
the cia about disclosing this. take us behind the scenes and explain what might come out of this and who said what. >> the report, 6000 pages, a massive study of cia rendition and attention and interrogation actions during the decade after 2001. in the initial years, that report has been awaiting declassification. the core issue is whether, beyond the ethical outrage, everybody views the interrogation policy as having then, whether there was any utility in the information
gained through these practices. the senate report goes through 20 specific examples of information that was gleaned and said in each case, the information could have been obtained through some other means. this horrible use of torture was unnecessary for intelligence purposes. the minority report will say in the end, you have to be agnostic about that. the way in which the majority report is written is 2020 hindsight. you can't know how you would have get an information in real time and we will try to lead this question unanswered were senator feinstein has a emphatic answer. >> this came between the bush administration. it was entirely during the bush administration.
>> one of the things he did was to formally end the policy of cia interrogation that had been banned. in a sense, these issues were dealt with more than five years ago in terms of policy. senator feinstein felt that an honest history, a real accounting was essential to make sure the u.s. government never again did anything like what was done in the years after 9/11. >> were leaders among our friends and enemies be surprised by anything? or are people, including people like you, be surprised by what is in here?
>> obviously, i haven't read the report. i've talked people who have read every one of those pages. they say there are details that will surface, as much as about the horrors of these interrogations, the use of waterboarding, as much that has come out, this will still be disturbing to people. it will put pressure on countries that host the black sites where these interrogations were done. >> willoughby released to the public or is it for internal archival purposes? >> portions will be released to the public. just how much is one of the decisions the white house is trying to resolve. a declassified version would be
available for release back to the senate, which has to decide what to do with it, as soon as a week from now. the senate has been trying to decide whether to release it during august or wait until september when senators are back and can speak to the issues. how many of those 6000 pages, how much of the specific details will be released, we don't know. >> back to the senate computers. is there an argument the cia will make that it doesn't -- it is not what it sounds like? >> the argument that the cia will make, that brennan has made, and providing senate investigators access to secret cia facilities, to these million documents, the cia was trying to be as open as it could. the issue that troubled officials was that by their accounts, when it -- when senate investigators came across this document known as the panetta review document, they became concerned that it might be taken
back. they made a copy of it, which under the rules of their inquiry, they were not supposed to do, and took that copy with him out of the facility. that is what led this general counsel to make a criminal referral to the justice department accusing them of having done something incredibly wrong. the inspector general says the improper actions were by the cia staffers and looking into the senate investigator's computers and finding out they have this document. >> this is an incredible story or i'm incredibly naïve, or both. >> what senator feinstein would say is i feel that it is essential for our country's future to tell this story in every gruesome detail so we don't ever repeated. it is, given everything that has
happened, such a focus for our intelligence director, it is amazing. >> thank you. >> david ignatius. back in a moment. stay with us. >> the united kingdom's ambassador to the united nations is here. he has served in that role since 2009. the u.k. takes on the security council for the month of august. gaza remains front and center. and the threat posed by the islamic state in iraq and syria. i am pleased to have mark lyall grant back at this table. what can you tell me about what might be going on in terms of negotiations with respect to gaza? as we take this on thursday. >> it is a fast-moving situation. the intense negotiations that
have been going on may be coming to fruition. we do hope there'll be an agreement by both sides by hamas and israel over the humanitarian pause. the trick is to use that humanitarian pause, if it sticks, which previous ones have not done, to develop a sustainable cease-fire. by sustainable, we have to address underlying causes. this is the third time there has been conflict between israel and gaza. it will happen again if we just go back to the status quo. all we're trying to do is develop space to relieve the humanitarian suffering, which is terrible. to use that space to develop more sustainable cease-fire, which could lead to a bridge or status negotiations. >> is there discussion about whether the israelis continue to close the tunnels during the cease-fire?
>> the israelis clearly want to and need to close the tunnels. they believe they have done 60% of that work already. that gives the opportunity of the military and pause. it allows them to work on the tunnels, but not to continue the shelling over the last 24 days. there are a number of combinations. i don't know how it will turn out. >> driven by whom? >> egypt is front and center. they have the ability to negotiate with hamas and with israel. there are many others involved. the americans are closely involved as well. so are turkey and saudi arabia. there are a number of players involved. >> will these negotiations lead
to serious conversations about what hamas talks about? able to open borders, use the ports, all the things that are on their list of complaints? >> that's what we want to do. we want a sustainable cease-fire. that means you have to tackle some underlying concerns. both on israel's side and on hamas. israelis have a right to not have rockets raining down on their country. threatening their children in schools. at the same time, the ordinary gazan people have a right to live in peace. trying to match those concerns together will not be easy. it will lead to involved things like monitoring and verification. it will involve opening the blockade in gaza and allowing economic activity. there is a number of elements
that will be in the mixed up when we try to move from what will be a short-term humanitarian pause over the next few days into a sustained one. >> all of the items that might play a role. what about the palestinian authority? are they involved? >> yes. now the hamas and the plo are part of the palestinian authority have joined together, in theory the palestinian authority's are the overarching authorities. in practice that has not been the case. that is why i say that part of this discussion will be how to bring the palestinian authority back into gaza and have control over what happens in gaza. even hamas to not be or to have complete control over the more radical islamic groups firing rockets.
the palestinian authority need to be able to control hamas. >> what's interesting is whether there is, because it is so visible in terms of pictures that are coming out of gaza, and civilians, is that having an impact in terms of what you sense worldwide of saying please do something about this? >> yes. attitudes in europe and my country are being affected by the scenes. too many civilians are being killed. 80% of those we were told today, 80% of those are civilians. more than 300 were killed. you cannot sustain that conflict without affecting public opinion. we are saying to the israelis this conflict must come
to an end. you must bring it to an end. >> what do the israelis say? >> they understand that. they have legitimate concerns, which we understand. how can we stop until we are confident there'll be no more rocket attacks? they don't give a specific timetable. we have the impression they are making good progress against the tunnels. the rockets have been a problem for many years. the tunnels are in a new problem. i don't think they were aware of the extent of these tunnels. that is a big issue for them. the fact that these tunnels going underneath the border into israel clearly designed to commit terrorist offenses. they have to make sure that will not be resumed if they stop the fighting.
>> let me turn to the ukraine. define the concern about, and the level of aggressiveness by russia in eastern ukraine. >> we are deeply concerned about russia's behavior. firstly, the legally annexed crimea or a. the russian forces to deliver went in and took over crime era and said crimea is part of the russian federation. >> can not be undone? >> certainly, it can be undone. no one in the united nations have recognized it. we had a resolution in the general assembly which is a all 100 93 members of the union and they said that was all unacceptable. only 11 votes in favor of russia. there's a clear overwhelming majority of people who will not
accept it. russia said it is a fact of life. but we will not recognize crimea as part of russia at all. >> then we have the problem of eastern ukraine because what has happened is russia has supported these progression separatist you would like to have their own referendum, like to attach themselves to the russian federation. russia is arming and financially supporting them. and shelling across the border. that is totally unacceptable. >> what can they do to stop it. >> we have used all the tools we can multilaterally. russia has vetoed efforts to condemn what russia has been doing. equally what we are trying to do is have an arrangement where there can be a national dialogue started between the kiev
authorities and these groups who have some legitimate concerns. we shouldn't underestimate the fact that they do feel alienated. and they want to be able to keep speaking russian. they want their children to go to school in russian. all that's, the new president has said that he is willing to do. there needs to be a dialogue. what he cannot accept, and we cannot accept, is they get those demands by military means. >> what will sanctions accomplish? the president announced this week, europe and the united states were ratcheting up sanctions. >> what sanctions are designed to achieve is a change of policy in the part of president putin and the russian government. there was no desire to punish russia. what we're trying to do is bring about a change of policy.
if you continue to support these separatists in the east of ukraine, if you continue to flout the international world order in this way, then we will increase the pressure on you and your cronies and your economy until you recognize their needs to be a change of behavior. if russia decides it will stop supporting separatists and say to the armed separatist, lay down your weapons. we will help you pursue your legitimate concerns, then of course we would not pursue sanctions. >> russia has it in its hands to be able to stop the separatists in eastern ukraine from doing the things they are doing because of the conflict in the beginning. >> there is no question. if russia was not supporting the separatist they would not be able to sustain. >> why do you think vladimir putin does this? >> he takes a zero-sum view of the world, particularly in his own backyard. it was president putin who said
that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the breakup of the soviet union. he feels discomforted by event that happened in what he has considered the new ex-soviet space. he feels that he ought to be able to dictate who is in power. we cannot accept that. the ukraine is an independent country. they have a new government. they want to realign themselves more closely to the west. they should be allowed to do so. they should choose themselves. >> do we have a belief that sanctions will work? >> the have worked in the past. i don't think we have gone down this road. in various places it has worked. in south africa it has worked.
in the balkans, it worked. there are some areas where it has worked in the past. there are many cases where it hasn't. >> putin may be a different kind of character. >> exactly. may be more difficult to change his mind. he does not want bad relations with the europeans. they need him economically. russia's dependence on europe. we have to make clear that we cannot be business as usual if russia is behaving this way in the 21st century. >> has conflict impacted operation with russia tried to negotiate deal about syria? >> there was wide differences of view between russia and the west on syria in the first place. >> you got the chemical weapons thing done.
>> there was an identity of interest between russia and the west. russia did not trust president assad to use chemical weapons wisely. when he did attack his own people, russians recognize the best thing was to take the chemical weapons away. >> did it begin with them or the west? that the united states would not strike if russia and united states could make a deal with assad about eliminating chemical weapons? >> it was initiated by russia. they saw it as a way to prevent military strikes. the americans responded. everyone supported it. it was a specific congruence of interest. we have seen in the un security
council russia and china have protected syria from its own people, from international isolation, from sanctions, from great depression, which could have changed assad's mind. there is up ways we haven't been able to impose sanctions because of russia. we have not used all the tools we could have to bring about the end of the suffering. 170,000 people killed in syria now. >> the question becomes, is there any effort ongoing to bring together the parties that try to create support for the non-jihadist in syria? is their movement to bring saudi arabia and turkey, and britain and france, and the united states all to support rebels who are not jihadists? >> there is quite a lot of discussion.
we are willing to work with 3w are willing to work with anyone. we are prepared to work with anyone who is prepared to help bring about a peaceful political transition. at the moment, assad is not showing any interest. he thinks he is winning on the ground. russia is supporting him. unless his allies say to him, the game is up, you need to move on, i think this could go on for some time. >> will history say there was a moment early on in which the west, including the united states, agreed to do more, they had assad on the run, and could have gotten them two years ago? >> i'm not sure. history would relate that had we used all the tools in our toolbox, including sanctions, we
could have stopped the bloodshed when there was less than 10,000 people. not 180,000 people now. whether given russian support for assad it would have been possible for us, it would have to be military means to change that dynamic. >> iran has been a difference. >> iran and hezbollah have supported him with boots on the ground at certain times. hezbollah certainly. there are hezbollah fighters there. >> where are we on iran in terms of negotiations? or the extent of negotiations? what is the point that needs to be overcome? the number they will be allowed to keep operational? and what they can produce with those centrifuges? >> yes.
the key point is can iran give us an assurance that they will not use their legitimate right to have some form of nuclear energy, for the purposes of creating weapons of mass distraction. that is the key point. all of that comes down to enrichment. what sort of enrichment do they need? they are claiming -- exactly. for peaceful purposes they need a huge number of centrifuges. we say that is absolutely ridiculous. the only purpose you would need this number for is creating nuclear weapons. it is the heart of the problem. within that there are technical details. how many centrifuges are required, and what happens with verifications. that is the heart of the
problem. there is a reasonable chance by the extended deadline of november some form of agreement can be reached. it is not going to be easy. i wouldn't put a percentage on it. there is a reasonable chance. negotiations have gone quite well. there are divisions between the iranian system. that is a complicating factor. on the western side, the all permanent members plus germany are united on this issue. this is where our interests are similar. >> differences of opinion in iran, is a between the president and the supreme leader or more sophisticated than that? >> iran is an interesting country. it has different political polls. it is not a monolithic structure.
you have different views between the clergy and, the supreme leader, the president, the republican guard, the parliament. they have different interest. it is fascinating watching that because it is clearly have a different view not only aware iran should go but also on this nuclear program. >> it is great to have you here. we will be right back. ♪ >> the new york times editorial board has called for the end to the federal ban on marijuana. there has been a profound cultural shift on the issue over the last decade. a majority of americans now support legalization. the board has written, it has been 40 years since congress passed the current ban on
marijuana. i am pleased to have my guest andrew rosenthal here. >> thank you very much. >> tell me how the board did this. >> i personally have had this view from the time i was 17. there were a couple of members of our staff, particularly a young woman, who has been pushing this for a year. she found our position to be illogical. all the states were doing this. state after state legalizing it for medicinal purposes. some things just allow one pill. colorado comes along and washington. we suddenly found ourselves increasingly, this year, writing in a positive way about these
developments. we had a long time ago said medicinal is fine, the government should leave it alone. then colorado comes along. we are thinking, what is our position? you should take a position. we had a discussion. there was zero dissent on the board. there was some discussion about it. nobody said it should be even legal forever and destroys young minds and turns you into a saxophone player. we had three possibilities. one was let's go ahead. we dismissed that. what if the federal government decides not to let it happen? we had a documentary a year or
so ago. we have a thing called op-docs. this was a guy growing medicinal marijuana. the dea decided to rate him. he had rifles in his truck because he was going hunting. he got a sentence of 80 years. they burned down his business and sent him to prison for following the laws of his state. holder had said, we are going to let this happen. >> the reality is that could happen today. you can be in adherence to state law and violating federal law. >> they are violating federal law. everyone in colorado is violating federal law. the governor is licensing
marijuana in violation of federal law. >> is anything happening in congress? >> there is a bill that is relatively serious that would remove a requirement -- there is a requirement that every time there was a call for legalization of any controlled substance, the federal government has to denounce it. which is why the white house issued a statement saying, we were wrong. >> why did they say you are wrong? is it all politics? >> they are required to by law. there is a bill that would remove that requirement. others that say, don't enforce the law. but nothing serious to remove it. what has to happen is the federal law has to be changed.
>> is it a winning vote with the public? >> 52% of the people say so. i think it would be winning for the federal government to say, we are getting out of the business and leaving it to states. >> didn't people like bill buckley come out for the legalization years ago? >> partly on the states rights, libertarian, communities should decide kind of thing. people reject the alcohol model and it is different. the philosophy behind the repeal of prohibition was, let the states decide. that is where we are. then the argument becomes -- we believe it at the new york times editorial board that getting married to the people you want to marry is an actual right. we don't believe smoking pot is a right. but something has to happen at the federal level. we had the discussion about,
should it be decriminalization? nobody could figure out what that means. the cleanest and simplest thing is to say, repeal the federal law. that is it. >> take that law off the books. states can do whatever they want. >> the classification of marijuana, delete it. there are other things that have to happen. >> there was no dissent. did you have to get past any hurdles? people i know and respect have argued, it leads to addiction to other drugs. >> the first thing i did was make sure my boss was ok with it. i work for him. the publisher arthur sulzberger -- i do have to care.
in terms of what stories he wants to cover. i represent him. >> you write what the publisher thinks, supposedly. >> we generally agree on the big things. >> if there is an argument, does he say i disagree with you but go ahead. >> yes. you have to be willing as a publisher, if you want to have an independent editor, to do what he says. you have to have confidence in that person. it is never anything huge. >> is he involved in these conversations? or presented with what you have to say? >> it depends. on ones like this, i talked to him. i see him all the time.
something like this, i said, i think i'm going to go there. what do you think? he said, fine. >> is that how you handle that? >> it is not like we never talked about it. i kind of know where he is politically. something like a presidential endorsement, i talked to him first. i have not had a situation where he disagreed. >> he might go to your board and say, this is where the publisher is. >> i don't tell them what he thinks. not in a circumstance like that. when we are doing an endorsement, it is the only thing i take a vote on. other times we have a conversation. i don't vote.
i'm afraid i will meet somebody who wants to suck up to me. >> back to marijuana. was there an issue about this notion that it leads you to other drugs? you get you on an addiction path? >> the first thing we had to do. we had to satisfy ourselves on the science. we spent a fair amount of time led by our science and medicine guy, a guy who has been doing this a long time, looking at that issue. we satisfied ourselves that the available data, and it is really squirrely data, is it is low on the addiction level. the definition is different than for heroin.
nicotine is right at the top. >> as an addictive drug. >> the gateway drugs are nicotine and alcohol. according to the best medical advice we could get, for an otherwise healthy adult, smoking moderate amounts of marijuana -- you can define the different ways -- poses no significant health risk at all. it does not lead to cancer. there is a claim that it causes schizophrenia. >> that is the medical -- >> that is based on doing studies. x number of schizophrenics smoked marijuana. we don't even know what causes schizophrenia. we don't even know what it is.
>> i have done -- we have looked into that. they are making some serious progress. >> they are. as soon as they figure out what causes it, they can figure out whether marijuana contributes. we felt like there are reasonable concerns and arguments. we don't think young children should smoke pot. adolescence or middle school kids should not smoke pot. >> did you go around the table and ask how many of you have smoked pot? >> i did not. that felt a little intrusive. >> i was asked that on the show. have you ever used -- >> i was asked the other day. i said, i went to college in colorado in the 1970's. you figure it out. >> in colorado. >> which is a line i stole from my son.
>> we know where you are. >> my life was not a failure so far. >> nor are you addicted to heroin. >> i'm no schizophrenic as far as i know. although i did smoke cigarettes for a long time, which was a stupid thing to do. >> then there is david brooks. who writes a column. quote -- "laws profoundly mold culture." what sort of community do we want our laws to nurture?
that's from david brooks. >> he is one of the country's leading liberals. >> no, he is not. >> david was on tv. i said, excuse me. you actually think federal law should exist? he said, no. >> he is with the editorial board. >> the federal government should not ban marijuana. there are subsidiary questions. do you believe it should be available to 18-year-olds? if you ask david, he would say i don't think any state should
legalize recreational use. he is talking about government encouraging or discouraging the lower pleasures. >> lesser pleasures. what is your example of a lesser pleasure other than being stoned? >> i don't know. >> what has been the response? >> on our website, nytimes.com -- we have had about 13,000 people who have commented total on the articles we have run. out of those, maybe 900 are against legalization. there are a bunch of people who say they are unsure.
most of them actually have our position, which is the federal government should not be, but i am worried about -- we are not saying legalize it in the sense that every state has to have or allow recreational use. we are saying don't keep it as a criminal offense. interestingly, the letters to the editor, which we still get and publish, are more tilted on the no side. >> people who take the trouble to write a letter. >> they come by e-mail. but they are signed. it is a real person. they are people. they tend to be in more official
positions. we have a letter tomorrow from the guy who ran the dea in the 1970's. >> what did he say? >> he thinks marijuana is a terrible thing. >> or does he think is a terrible thing? >> he was arresting pot smokers in 1975. >> some reference factor in his own life. >> a lot of officials do not oppose it. i would say the majority of the people who write letters to the editor are against what we are calling for. >> is this going to open the door to anything? now that marijuana is ok, are we going to see other kinds of things that have been verboten changed? >> i hope not. >> is it a slippery slope? >> it is a concern.
there are people that say we should legalize all narcotics and maybe have prescriptions or something. >> the hypocrisy of drug laws -- people are going to prison because they did one thing in their life for 50 years. >> that is probably the biggest reason we decided to do this and do it now. for us, it is a social justice and civil rights issue. the prosecution is heavily weighted toward black people. african-americans four times as
likely to be arrested for possession and 10 times as likely to go to prison for possession. right now, somebody is getting arrested for pot possession. that kid's life is going to be ruined. even if they get a second ticket. now they are in trouble. >> it influences you, being in prison. >> not to mention the violence in prison. so many things. that is going to be a tricky thing. what do you do about those people? do you let them out? >> there are marijuana edibles. maureen dowd works for you. she wrote about her experience with pot cookies. >> candy bars. >> she took more bites than she
was supposed to. what could go wrong with a bite or two? everything. i barely made it from the desk to the bed. where i lay curled up for eight hours. i was thirsty but could not move to get water. i was panting and paranoid. that is when the room service waiter knocked and i couldn't answer. [laughter] i became convinced i had died and nobody was telling me. it took all night until it wore off, distressingly slowly.
>> i love her. she is wonderful. >> is that what marijuana does to you? >> not to me. if i had ever had it, which of course i did not inhale. it was great. she was huge. she wrote two columns. she was writing about edibles. her experience aside, which apparently was very negative, edibles are a problem. multiple ways. one is because the marijuana is refined to its strongest and the most potent substance. it is not like when some of us were in college and we put the leaves in the brownies. this is oil. you don't know what you are getting. they have to be very careful about distribution. dosage. colorado is learning about these issues.
it is a big deal. there is going to have to be an acceptance -- they are going to have to accept labeling. otherwise they're going to get in trouble. some sort of understanding of what a dose is for a human being. you have to give credit to the governor, who has been trying his best to make this work. they are still working on the regulatory question. they are trying to refine what their sense of a dose is. how they make sure when you eat a quarter of a candy bar -- maybe those edibles should only come in one dose. it is a big issue. the effect can be more intense. >> and perhaps this will start a serious dialogue.
>> we should be talking about this. in the context of what the real issues are and not because the government is required by law to denounce everybody that calls for legalization, which is our current position. if you look back at the lies told about marijuana, it is shocking. it is unbelievable. the hearings they held. they had people come in and say it turns you into a sexually violent saxophone player. ridiculous. >> this is when elvis was helping with the war on drugs? >> while he was eating pills. my father was a huge opponent. we used to argue a lot.
capital," kelly ayotte on what to do on putin. and margaret carlson debates the cia. we begin the program with senator kelly ayotte of new hampshire. you have called for more lethal weapons for ukraine. the administration has been too slow. they say it might get into the hands of bad guys like it did in afghanistan.