tv Former Intelligence National Security Officials Discuss Intelligence... CSPAN December 11, 2018 12:05am-1:36am EST
hosted by the hayden center for international security this is 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening everybody. thank you for coming to the national press club. i serve as dean of the charter school at george mason university. we host the michael hayden center for intelligence policy and international security. welcome this promises to be a wonderful program. if you don't know one of ten schools of colleges at george mason 2000 student strong with
11-degree programs in arlington virginia and fairfax virginia and among those programs and international security studies us news and world report ranked as number three in the country. we have a very diverse faculty that makes us quite unique that has been michael hayden himself an absolute gem in the classroom as he has been a public servant throughout his whole life we are very honored to have them on the george mason faculty in to be hosting the michael hayden center there we all wish him of course a speedy recovery to get back to the public square. he is such an important and powerful voice in the sphere of public debate and discourse during difficult times.
i would like to introduce the executive director of the michael hayden center who i believe has a message from michael as well. [applause] >> think you. welcome we appreciate the turnout it is december and it is cold with competing priorities with shopping and holiday parties. thank you for coming out tonight. general hayden is very sorry he cannot be here tonight. he did suffer a fairly serious stroke in late november. he is very very hard at recovery as we speak at the rehabilitation hospital where he will be spending unfortunately part of the holidays they are working to get back to us all here.
i have been asked to extend him and his families thanks to all of you and anybody watching on television for all the prayers, concerns and well wishes and the notes and the cards from across the united states and around the globe it has been heartwarming and inspiring i know he is watching us right now on tv and appreciates that so given the fact he is watching us right no now, thought it would be a great opportunity for all of us to extend our well wishes through a round of applause. [applause] >> and know that will mean a lot to him and his family at the hayden center we are at
the school of policy and government and here are noble cause to educate the broad public about intelligence and how it informs and sometimes doesn't as our nation's leaders make those hard decisions about events around the world so we have a series of events we do throughout the year. this year the theme has focused on the accountability of intelligence the first administrative notes i would ask you with the question and answer session later, wait to be called on. wait for the microphone to be handed to you and also identify yourself if you have
an affiliation, please be a question and not a speech. in addition we have a reception at the end of the event for everybody in this room please do come and enjoy a drink and food and to converse one-on-one with panel members. this is one in a series of events on the accountability of intelligence we did an event on the 11th of september the relationship of a president of the united states with his leaders and if you are interested in it is available on youtube is on one - - as well as our website.
we will be doing two more series of events to focus on congressional oversight and in april talk about the role of the press and the media to govern and oversee intelligence activities but we will focus on our spy watchers those inside the intelligence community or executive branch whose job it is to make sure those activities are conducted in a moral and ethical and legal manner. i am at up noxious host and will ask you all to do something i would love everyone to stand up for a moment. stand up. standup. think you. raise your right hand. fantastic look around the room
at your colleagues and friends. sit down. when you looked across the room you see people standing with their right hand up that is what every single member the united states intelligence community does on their very first day of work and raise the right hand and they swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america. to bear faith and truth into those lives derived to faithfully discharge the duties of their office. it is a powerful moment for anyone who has experienced it it sets the tone as they move forward in their intelligence career. also they are all human beings so they will make mistakes and
seduced by the power vested in them and some will unfortunately go into criminal behavior but tonight we will talk about the way the intelligence community protects itself against those instances where they are not entirely true or faithful to the constitution i went introduce our panel members one at a time the first person a's mark founding partner of national security law partner government accountability he has represented many whistleblowers a very important function in the us intelligence community for people who feel they have availed themselves of the opportunities inside that their grievances have been
addressed this is another avenue of approach. please welcome mark. [applause] >> we go back a long ways director of public affairs prominently during the leon panetta years to the assistant of public affairs and many of you remember him appearing on television as the pentagon press secretary. the former acting general counsel cia probably one of the most turbulent times in recent history to serve as the officer for much of the time 2001 through 2009 you can all
go through your historical rolodex between 2001 and 2009 making the legal recommendations leading a staff of lawyers to the officers of the agency as they take on operations he is the author of a great book called company man 30 years of controversy in crisis if you want to know what a lawyers life is like please welcome him. >> i would like to introduce a national treasure with a long and storied career at the department of justice
culminating her being assistant attorney general for national security she also had a little job to be the best chief of staff of robert mueller of the fbi. serving as the assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism now spends time educating the next generation of lawyers at the nyu law school. [applause] >> last but not least a good friend of mine michael morel serving as our moderator he was going to be a panel member now he will ask questions instead of answer them former acting director of caa direct and deputy director that famously known for being the only human being with president bush on 911 and with
president obama on the day of the osama bin laden takedown so a lot of great stories he can tell you as well and we will get started. [applause] >> good evening to everybody. thank you for coming. i want to start what mark and larry said about general hayden. i know i speak for all the panel members here wishing him a speedy and full recovery and wishing the best to him and his wonderful family. we will miss him here tonight just as we miss his reasonable voice. so we are thinking about you. american intelligence agencies the secret organizations
operating in a democracy and the secret part of that makes it difficult to convince the publi public, the democracy part the intelligence community is operating within the bounds of the constitution a statute and regulations that it's actually doing the job it is supposed to do and actually protecting the country and all of that using taxpayers money in a way to use that efficiently. at the end of the day when you give the public those three things is oversight there is a lot of different mechanisms to oversight and the two we think about the most are oversight by the media but there is a lot of oversight mechanisms in the executive branch inside
the intelligence community about congress and the media. so to get started i will give you a list of the mechanisms to oversee the intelligence community. number one there are lawyers. intelligence community agency the general counsel the nsc lawyers group a small group of lawyers from the national security agency who get together regularly that is the policy intelligence communities are legal the office of legal counsel of the department of justice and ultimately the attorney general himself.
a lot of lawyers there are inspector general's and at the dni and those are statutory. there are executive branch oversight bodies the advisory board common intelligence oversight board privacy and civil liberties oversight board than ad hoc commissions as well which is when i served on with president obama with those disclosures on technology and disclosures and forth whistleblowers some of those were defined in statute or regulations. i want to add one more because i wasn't sure where to put in the series and that is the
fisa court so we will put it in even though it's not part of the executive branch oversight body there is a lot of different oversight going on so with all of that is background i will turn to the panel and start by asking john denmark a simple question. why so much oversight? what is the history? >> i'm assuming you're not calling on me first because i'm the oldest person on the panel. [laughter] i joined the cia 1976 as a young totally naïve law school graduate. i was among the first wave of lawyers who was hired by the
cia after the investigation i was the 18th lawyer hired by the time i retired in 2009 we had 130 and we have dozens more now. not that i had personally had anything to do with it but that marked the beginning of oversight before that there was none 1976 marked the oversight committee of the house and the senate the establishment of the oversight board of the white house to specifically oversee from the executive branch perspective intelligence community. that's how it all started.
>> what brought us to that need for oversight? >> what drew me to apply in the first place back in 1975 where this is the first time the new york times first broke the story of the drug experiment and the assassination plots. there were the sensational televised hearings in 1975 actually the first televised hearing at that point since watergate. and this repulsion on a bipartisan basis in congress that not only these activities over the previous two decades but no one outside the cia or
those knew about it. so there was a consensus there had to be some sort of oversigh oversight. >> they exist because they are needed and john sets forth that history the us government typically is far more reactive and proactive and doesn't do a very good job to anticipate something to happen especially in the intelligence community then reacts to something bad. of course if it's good we might not hear about it and nobody will do anything. but there have been and continue to be bad things that happen to the intelligence
committee may be by an individual or other times by an agency that is more than i am - - a leadership issue leading to additional reform and oversight and we can talk about if that works to deal with the threats near both reacted very differently one of the things that i say dealing with whistleblowers if you want to talk about those who say they are whistleblowers with the national security environment to give concrete examples of going public in a way they thought was meaningful and beneficial and has made it harder for others to follow
the rules to prevent another person -type situation. but there is a lot of reaction i would hope the system could be improved but actually i think it has been made worse but we will come back to that. with policy oversight in the intelligence community in the context of the generally held view that the obama white house held a pretty tight grip on the us military in terms of operations conducted. do you think there is a reason there is a need to more
tightly oversee those two organizations than the rest of the government? >> first, thanks to george mason and the national press club for having us. i will get to your question but to add to your prior question the reason we have oversight because over time that legal and regulatory and policy requirements have increased and it is healthy to have that apparatus to make sure the intelligence community adhere to those requirements but has been
natural and healthy and appropriate response with the regulatory mechanism to make sure we experience the balance that they are sworn to provide with the protections of the constitution. i guess i take issue with the notion there is a grip on the intelligence community that there was the national security council to be that place where coordination happens in the federal government of all integration and military matters. there was a view that president obama held they
sought to do its job and with a very clear process that he articulated to follow a template to be a process and careful and clear integration and an integration of the policy needs with a clear set of goals and execution of intelligence operations. i think it makes sense to have that happen because ultimately the president one of those who
is elected at the federal level and accountable for all of that policy and is operations. . . . . the risks being taken by the military on a daily basis and the intelligence committee on a daily basis and the risk to the nation and the organizations and credibility in the nation almost requires a level of oversight
that we are talking about here. all is being done as it should be done. how should we educate the public about all this stuff most of which they don't know anything about? first let me echo what lisa said thank you to george mason. he made me a spokesman at the agency after never spoken to a reporter and my life. it was a real gamble.
that is a deep affection for him. what was the question again. [laughter] >> director hayden had a line in one of his speeches and you eluted to this the end. it's a openness and secrecy. there was still some stashed in the desk and it was an alliance with a red line through it, no comment but we made the decision of the agency that tha i was no longer attainable and there was no constituency for the cia it just does not exist you have
intelligence officers who support the agency but it's very difficult for the following and routine support from other branches of government especially. there's a whole lot that you can say about the agency mission. it is with one key way of trying to educate. the press is not the enemy of the intelligence community. they are very responsible and if
you develop a relationship of trust understand when there' tha bright mind that it veers on the sources and methods. they are looking at all of this but the press is an important component of that education. it took us a while at the agency to get through the plans to finally approve anything on twitter or facebook or the rest of it and the cia does have a digital presence and does a nice job of it. finally, i think that you have to hearken back to some historians of the agencies you have to tell the stories of the accomplished men and women over
time but have risked their lives for this nation and some of the details can't be told right away that they can be told with the appropriate clearances of john and others into the general as office and telling the stories of i'm just going to tell them show he was still working at the agency during world war ii and became a part of the oss against his will and stayed on as a contractor, spent 70 years of his life doing incredible things. and you can tell those stories of the men and women and their mission and the world event. you can comment on them and have a relationship with the press and that is ultimately a bag of tricks you have to inform the american people.
>> when general hayden came to the cia. i think we can push the fence line out and what we talk about. i think we can tell the american people more about what we are doing and give them more confidence in who we are and what we do and by pushing the line out, we can do a better job of protecting what we have to protect. >> most understand we have to have some secrets. >> and we did that during the tenure and we tried very hard to try to continue it after he left and that's important. i want to ask all of you that big question here which is about effectiveness, the effectiveness of this oversight. if you can talk about how
effective these mechanisms are, do we need any more, do we have too many, how do you think about all of that? the way we think about in general it has new components. this is what a lot of the national security division. part of that role as well as the others is to ensure the legal requirements are being met so think of that as a box of what
can be done and is it consistent with law and regulation but then i also think about compliance in terms of government. is it consistent with our principles and with who we are, does it follow that policy preferences of those who were duly elected and accountable to the peopl people, and that of tk is in the category we should, and i think the most effective oversight mechanisms that i've seen in operation involve all three branches of government and therefore have a legitimacy that is attached and that touch on both.
it's over many years with the intelligence committee across thacross-the-board to the cia. there is an effort to get it right. they ask themselves is this something that we should do but for the policymakers to be asking those questions. it's the lawyers in the intelligence community's they have proliferated over the years.
>> that is where inside the agency that is the first place where the analysts that operate out of these cases because they have lawyers sitting among them and i observed that over the years. this grew out of as a tough inspector general system that was nominated by the senate and we have now all of the intel
one of the regrets that i have about that the agency post-9/11 and all the controversies over the interrogation program and i told myself part of the problem with this is that we didn't tell enough people in the congress at this time of great national peril what we are doing and more importantly why we felt we had to do it. we kept it to a small group, the briefings were episodic, off the record no transcript and this is a political reality three or four years later after the briefings about the program the
political tide has turned and b's few members said that they were aware from the beginning. it was to tell as many people as possible what we were doing at the time it was being done. it wouldn't have insulated as it would have felt so. >> does oversight get in the way of doing its job? >> oversight can be a huge pain. you have to do briefings, you spend half of your time briefing members and sometimes staff.
they are going to put you in the boat and to tell you what you're doing and if you have a problem with that, let us know. i agree there are many layers i spenspent time with in the government we spend a lot of bonding time. the director used to say there are more than four years in the intelligence committee va then e intelligence services around the world, which is true. i think that there are two broader trends that are worth talking about with respect to congress. i don't think we have the
the politics stopped at the water's edge and that isn't the case. the politicization and intelligence in congress which doesn't in my opinion lead to responsible and informed oversight to the extent those trends are happening in the executive branches of the intelligence community is more important to the extent. we need to get back to the time when congress is a more constructively or in the proce
process. it's one of the areas does thisf us in the private sector can use to ensure a degree. i agree on a partisanship that has been part of the problem and i say certainly it goes back a long way but i've been in dc now for a quarter-century and i would say the last ten to 15 years post-9/11 we can blame it on all sorts of gerrymandering and stuff like that for how it works, but it's a different subject altogether. one of the problems from the congressional oversight as far as i bring to the oversight committees, they only have so much staff and they are doing a lot more of the work in the
members. every once in a while i get to know them but i'm dealing with the staff. as a general rule it functions differently than in the years i've gone to them just by attitude, the difference between the house and the senate they don't particularly want to hear about individual cases, they want to hear more of a systemic problem so i always have to say this client of mine is undergoing this issue and it's not just highlighted to them they are not just being aided. there's something bigger for the committee to take a look at and that is difficult to do very often. the other committees that gets lost in the shuffle was the oversight is there are a number of committees that is leased by the way are created and have dual jurisdiction over the communities.
sense that given the work that i do in representing the individual employees whatever it might be, security clearances and put aside they are being investigated by the ag they want to complain about something in another part of their agencies. other than having personal relationships with folks in different agencies would be very hostile to try to work. we don't see it from the outsi
outside. i would love to try to change it what they see as a success if one example i can give would be the information security clearance appeals panel said this was a declassification entity not dealing with whistleblowers and things like that but why do i say it is a good thing? so this is all executive branch members from a variety of different agencies if you make a mandatory declassification request to an agency to declassify a document, and the agency says no, you can take it to this appeal body of other agencies including the agency you requested it from and they will sit in judgment over the decision and something like the
last act tha by salsa at 71% ofe appeals are successful meaning that it overrides the state department person saying no to an individual but said we cannot releassince wecannot release th. that to me is fantastic oversight and that is all within the executive branch. what i would love to see is another agency in the executive branch. when i see sound and informed decisions made is if i can get it outside of the agency where they have a personal stake involved either because of friendship for embarrassment or whatever it might be.
>> have you found that the dni can play that role or not? they are helping out some cases i had without a doubt. i was on the panel for the american bar association last and she was a great general counsel from the outside when i was dealing with some issues. the dni is still trying to figure out what role it plays in the community and how much oversight and authority it will exert. we are routinely bringing cases because we are having issues
trying to get them to function. i think people are not aware of the level of the cross agency oversight. they would conduct reviews of what was going on at the national security agency and the fbi for the conduct of the national security investigations and appropriate use of the authority. when i was the chief of staff i spent many hours in front of the president's foreign intelligence advisory board because they were pushing the transformation for
the builders have the capability. we had the expertise creating the commission where the former acting director of the cia served and in love with a card carrying member and constitutional law professor precisely so we could get a variety of perspectives. we came to a meeting of the minds. >> it made for a better product and a set of recommendations not all of which we took that they forced us to think through so those are three examples of oversight in different flavors.
>> when you have all three branches of government giving oversight, it is very effective, number one. number two, we talked about snowden and had a discussion of the public and i'm trying to figure out how they fit into this oversight because the disclosures in particular to the programs that he disclosed or two of the programs that have the most oversight in my memory in the history of the community and executive branch oversight, congressional oversight, judicial oversight and oversight
by two different lighthouses, multiple national security teams, multiple fisa decisions yet the issue exploded because the public reacted in a certain way. >> it comes back to this framework. i should give a shout out about this notion of compliance and governance. i think what happens with the snowden disclosures would take for instance the 215 programmed this is the collection of telephone metadata subject to the robust oversight of the branch approving of this oversight by the congress and inspector general but when it
>>. >> and what i'm wondering to what extent you thought the public reaction was because we didn't handle the issue in a public relations perspective cracks. >> i certainly didn't bad a thousand going back through 2007 as a spokesperson talking to my nsa public affairs colleagues and said you better start talking more and developing more relationships with the public and sharing your mission because your day
will come. and getting some very bad coverage and with foreign-polic foreign-policy. i didn't really see that pivot on the part of nsa i will give credit to director hayden who has been more open than others during his time there but there was no comment environment for a long time. then of course they didn't even acknowledge so when the
disclosures in 2015 at the pentagon at the time i immediately thought to myself it has no capital in the bank that they have no ability to effectively tell their story in my humble opinion to defend broadly without going into details to defend their work of the men and women of the usa and it is a vitally important program. >> what's more important at the end of the day cracks. >> with the integrity quick. >> could the other iran-contra
perspective of the well-intentioned policy rules. and this was on a bipartisan basis when i got mad at us. [laughter] now everyone retreats to their corner. >> you think something significant can't happen again quick. >> i think it can. i don't know that grand of scale. i absolutely have seen to be suspected of doing something. >> so those were cut by the
agencies. but with those 15 years ago that was not a major controversy in that type of situation. but when it came known with those intel agencies were doing and what you really have of it. there were aspects where we have congressional hearings and how they were reacting in those allegations with a were off on their own and then of course they say they were authorized by so-and-so. >> so now a dozen years later
with those superiors that have denied us. >> yes i remember telling you it's okay to do but that said degree of frustration to say the least. >> it can happen without a doub doubt. i really do think the snowden situation public reaction was a pr failure by the government. not in anticipating what can likely happen or how to react. on the fifth anniversary in the past you there were very few articles very few. and what the impact has been and i would dare say that the
programs are stronger and more active and now congress cannot complain as they did in that litigation. that the key thing from the pr standpoint so now we get the fisa court decision sure there are some reductions and those are released. and then to talk about those program on television i remember msnbc talking about those aspects but instead of embracing it to say let's
reveal some information on the agencies that we will not do anything which frankly contributed to edwards noted right or wrong, quite frankly wrong,. >> and to with those budgets with those colleagues in the agencies and really had their hands tied because of that appropriate classification at the time. >> bed it did force a lot. >> i cannot see very well.
>>. >>. >> thank you to the panel for being here tonight. and for that balance i am with public-policy focusing on intelligence oversight so thank you for being here. [laughter] so what the mechanisms are that congress the executive branch the agencies choose to employ ava specifically why we choose commissions over the executive branch and those
agencies with the ombudsman as well as the committee hearings. with that expertise and accountability and agenda setting so looking at that what are your perspectives on your time and government why these different political principles choose these commissions as independent outside workers to hold government accountable quick. >> because in the awake we fired up all of these mechanisms from the presidents intelligence committee and with the oversight board we need them to have some outside perspective.
and to be represented. and then to put together this panel for those who have never served in the government or from different perspectives to give us a wide range of views. >> so with that political aspec aspect. >> so that notion there is a reason also president obama tended to take a long view on the issues aside from the individual programs but it deflected the public response the way they talk about at the
time these were adopted to be digested differently but ten or 12 years hence and technology taking on different roles in our lives. it was disclosed in different environments in the broader context. >> with that strategy commission congress wanting the independent view about the country's defens defense. >>. >> i am a freelance
journalist. so when you talk about oversight going into the church committee and also go back to the subcommittee oversight hearings in the intelligence committee that led to watergate but the intelligence oversight mechanism that evolved from that controversy, do you feel that it has weathered itself well cracks and with the response to a different set of problems we face now quick. >> the short answer is yes.
there was no intelligence committee at that point. in many ways it was posturing from both sides on the dais that with the intelligence committees we have been fortunate with some exceptions over the last 40 years the heads of the two intelligence committees regardless of party or house or senate they have been good and responsible and conscientious with some notable exceptions. but as a said earlier the
structure is not only part of the democracy but it is a huge insurance policy. so it has evolved very effectively. >> i will defer to lisa and michael but i left government in 2009 and honestly in my time with the intelligence oversight board, honestly i did not view them at the time as rigorous appointed by the president.
and just from being inside at that point, i never viewed them as terribly rigorous. >> i have worked as a contractor supporting cia for opportunities so with the ig's office and how they can truly be effective when they report to the head of the cia cracks they really are not independent at all they are not statutorily independent now that you mentioned at the cia but they still report to the cia they don't report to the outside organization.
at one point due to the organization. >> nei g during my seven years i certainly felt they felt they were independent and i felt they felt they could report to the director and deputy director what they were thinking. they were statutory they don't need our permission to go to the hill and frequently they did. so i think they have the independence they needed but my issue has always been effectiveness. i always thought the audit
piece did a magnificent job in auditing the various activities. the inspection part of the ig did not ever really tell me anything i didn't know. these were people who were on rotation for short periods of time, from other parts of the agency they didn't bring expertise or a lot of insight into a particular unit they were inspecting. on the investigative side i felt they didn't have those resources that they really needed. to get all the facts in one place to make a decision. my thought was effectiveness and not independence. >> that's what i talked about the audits with the machines of the person worked or not
with the complicated way to prove they are working. but if i want to bring the whistleblower to the ig these agencies are very small like a small town coming from dc - - from new york to dc. especially on the operational sites if they are going on rotation, everybody knows one another or is connected so if you try to bring a whistleblower inside the agency even though the ig does not get along with the director, i know that it could be at loggerheads but whether the individual is doing the investigating or they go back
to the office is problematic which i would like to see some external oversight for whistleblowers to get a completely unbiased independent view of a agency. but the thing about whistleblowers that bothers me. if you look on paper the work that i do as a nonprofit whistleblower representing 4 feet one - - for free we are all on the same page all the laws are in favor you encourage whistleblowers until one actually blows the whistle. [laughter] then they don't feel like they are in a friendly way. it is frustrating when we try to bring people who want to do it the right way and people
who don't do it at all because they are concerned if they do they will be penalized. but they are not received well enough. that is where that oversight dimension fall short as far as i'm concerned. it sad because the mechanism is there but where the people come in. >> it is dangerous if you don't feel you are taken seriously within that mechanism that's created. >> edward snowden said i don't agree but he said he went outside the system because he saw how others were treated. i would debate if that was legitimate because that is what he thought and that's why he did what he did. >>. >> working for the united states army which just beat
navy on saturday. [laughter] so to follow up on the comment to be more forthcoming on the hill. i will play devils advocate. if you had done that what are the odds somebody who disagreed with you would have leaked it to be adjudicated not through legitimate oversight but through the media cracks i am hearing you think more things need to be weighed by the public quick. >> i think from the beginning of the program early 2002 then it would have been supportive
and with those congressional leaders at that point they were all tremendously supportive if we go through with the excruciating detail that reaction from both republican and democrats is this unique cracks now i don't know if they would have then. i never felt any opposition. four years later of cours course, after 911 and the political winds change i feel if we had just gone down there to put it on the record this is what waterboarding is the so-called torture verbatim the least they could have said years later 8 percent of
congress did not know to say i never knew this was going on but to say wait i was briefed but they did not tell me enough because we had no record that's what i was talking about. >> and then the program did start to get leaked in the white house has a lot of say of what you briefed to congress. >> yes. i took a role in this but the decisions came out from the vice president's office at the time. he limited it for years until general hayden arrived and then he went back one of the one of the great many acts of service he did for our agencies.
>> i briefed congress many many times on extraordinarily sensitive issues with both members and staff in the room. nothing i breached - - i gave to congress was ever leaked. it's not well known but most leaks of classified information do not come out of congress they come out of the executive branc branch. i never had anything leaked i told congress. >> i agree with that. >>. >> i will throw this question up to the panel it's interesting you mention the review process or appeals to declassify information what struck me immensely and i just
want to know how you word explain that to me maybe there would be more empathy? additionally, talking about oversight is the model effective to other parts of the intelligence committee using more oversight cracks. >> but i don't have any insight now. i present those that have been on the panel over the years that many of you know knowing for a long period of time.
and bill leonard who i represented of those espionage cases were he was the expert witness my felt they took their job seriously with those classification guides and frankly to mean not what made a difference they didn't have any equities there was something about that issue about that agency that was classified and those other members of the community what are you talking about?
coming out through this process. >> in my experience the arbitrary rules for the longest time because it impinges on the decision-making so that is the position until president bush decided to declassify so those rules that tend to be arbitrary they don't debate very often. >> i was not ever a part of that process with a number of discussions about whether or
secret that we could have more than four debates. >> we still have questions that could be asked we'll have a reception when it comes time to conclude exit through the rear doors giving the panel members an opportunity to get a drink. and many that went well tonight. and along with my oversight thank you. [applause] >> if you like to write a note
for general hated me will make sure they get them as soon as possible. and then to offer great need for thought for those mechanisms to ensure we do the right thing for the american people. a final round of applause let's go have a drink. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the american nazi party to show them in the middle of new