Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

What Have We Learned?

Details

  • Description

    Former Bush Justice Department official John Yoo joins Alan to debate post-p/11 anti-terrorism policies.

  • Duration 8:26
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

-- -- welcome John -- is editor of confronting terror 9/11 in the future of American national security.

This for -- as a law professor at the University of California Berkeley.

A scholar -- American Enterprise Institute a former bush Justice Department official.

Most easily of course written a crisis and -- we -- a month of -- history of executive power.

And now I confronting terror we will look at both sides actually left and right all anti Obama of Illinois and nobody and -- you're such -- likeable guy my second time -- giving your first time in person.

In yet you know liberals like me a fire -- that.

You're the torture memo got them right does that does that -- in your mind bill that is so he's John Yoo torture memo.

You know I will either conservatives who wish they were my place in -- rebel in this at all and Africa but by god that's on not one of them.

On the other hand.

Ever since I can remember -- been surrounded by liberals I enjoy their company -- at Berkeley I live in Berkeley I teacher Berkeley I think.

Liberals eat better food they had better taste and why is that -- is safer cars like -- deliberately -- I'm your fan I have.

I have a for liberalized.

Used to drive a Volvo my wife is a -- and we shop at whole foods and alibi -- have a -- like deliberately injured in the torture and a guy.

Edit your wife this -- and my mother in -- quite a famous liberal my father the most Peter Arnett.

The end right you're you're -- -- our -- daughter dot I know that examined his name and well maybe a success breaking exclusive for you I tried I thought too many people I -- -- so that's very -- committee but.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Keeping some of the same policies of the Bush Administration which angers progressives filler text that I have to say one of the big surprises to me and a new book is you just ask.

The people to write -- as you know control what they say yeah and there's actually a fair amount of consensus on the right in the left.

About a deep unhappiness with President Obama -- -- If you're in the -- illustration that might be a sense of some kind it was Apollo -- bin -- it was Obama seems to have killed more top al-Qaeda.

Operatives and and other than than certainly George W.

Bush -- He did not do civilian trials as a lot of people -- my side wanted to do and so.

That's very upsetting to the people on on the good people on the right continue to attack -- Yeah -- I mean the people on the right my sense is that they feel Obama has ended up and all these policies you're unhappy about.

Several the authors like -- -- -- used and -- primary evidently your marrow and eighty strossen the last IDC.

They're very happy -- but I think for conservatives like myself we feel that.

He didn't really want -- up at this place when He came into office He did try to close gitmo He did try to -- military commissions.

And it was congressional opposition.

Political criticism that forced him which goes to the big issue of how much power president actually has a unit has that taken you've taken the lead in terms of -- Defining legally and accomplished our president as He seemed to get legally and you did visitors to be pushed president's much more power.

To many.

Mainstream legal scholars believe they should have or think they didn't have that I don't I don't disagree with you I think that -- I -- make sure that He -- consistent because when President Clinton -- Kos vote for example.

I was with a few people -- I think -- a constitutional authority that when President Obama.

Decide to intervene in Libya I criticized house Republicans -- or trying to cut off the funds and -- been critical of Obama going Olivea says those are consistent I think.

Now the thing is I think in his in American history this is what we talked about last year.

I do think presence like FDR like -- and Jackson Jefferson.

Exercise similar powers in times of crisis I don't want presidents exercise this kinds of -- all the time.

Every game -- and I think when the country's under threat and there's a crisis but I do think that the constitution does give our -- wears a -- how does this does -- have elasticity.

We can say okay we've been -- -- nine elevenths we now can fill out certain principles we've lived by for 200 years witnesses say you can I think it comes through the commander in chief claws and executive power Claus and I think this involves nerdy arguments about what that the framers mean by executive power and eighteen century.

I tend to think it was elastic and it was the whole reason we put together presidency but one person in charge.

Rather than not having a system of government for example set.

The president could act quickly and response swiftly to.

Threats to the country.

You say for example approach to the government does -- -- judge's permission before tapping -- al-Qaeda operatives phone intercepting emails or arresting them.

But we don't know that somebody's not Qaeda operative we don't know who they are -- you have to tap.

Into a lot of these things without a digit commission to lots of people.

Who may be innocent and that's where that's where the -- -- -- right I mean I don't think so so I usually it's located at that and many of legal scholars and you can't do that well I don't know.

Whether a lot of legal scholar so He can't do that but I I think the real question I think you're touching on it is.

There's always a concern about error and mistake and with the criminal justice system were used to having the judges supervise all that.

In the criminal justice system we wait for crimes to happen and then the police come and after but I do think when we're in a war and there's a threat to the country's security.

Then we act first we act preemptively we don't wait for the crimes to occur we don't wait for the -- to win and we try to gather information.

And stop the attacks before they happen and that's that big difference between.

Crime and -- that's I you know I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal today is trying to claim that's the real -- OJ right direction and death -- that's the really big thing the Bush Administration did I think above all was to say this is a war.

Not -- but I think it's a 55 I think half our country thinks it's crime -- for country thinks it's war I think our nation still deeply divided about this question continuously.

You say in the journal going to Danube -- always say the journal thing individual freedom emerge from the decade stronger than before but one I would argue from my vantage point that's not you He got the Patriot Act.

You've got.

You know the idea that the president can have executive powers declares -- an enemy combatant.

-- -- warrantless searches to me that's not more freedom that we had prior to 9/11 I would argue.

That that means the terrorists that sounds like a cliche have won because some of our freedoms have been the minute I think that.

Our political culture actions -- -- a -- and I'm not saying that the government.

Did anything to make it more robust I just think.

If you look at all the technology in the tools of growth of the Internet social networking social media Twitter FaceBook all things.

Cable news radio there's enormous amounts of political speech I think far more than there was ten years ago.

And it's so much more than.

Anything that's ever happened -- middle -- -- -- the government can intercept library books -- -- -- -- -- and a library where they can intercept telephone conversation -- they can do warrantless searches you don't need to judge how is that -- I think.

That these kind of cases that you're talking about these are powers -- say the Patriot Act gave although the judge needs approval on that stuff -- the Patriot Act but.

It's more that even if the government can do all -- -- freedom is still exploded in the last ten years we have so much more political speech we've -- content.

-- really contests elections that would the last thing we just had about.

The name calling between -- off into -- -- that's great I actually think that's wonderful that Hoffa said that and there's a response -- of kind of politics the framers themselves loved and engaged in the House of Lords in England that with a where they argue there I mean -- -- like child's play exactly you will get English the British press service.

I think.

That's -- and I.

I don't think Warren all the power -- time have interfered anyway with this kind of you know they affect the president has more powers and one person it appears -- -- can -- -- declare him an enemy combatant warrantless searches is near the opportunity for abuse don't know.

I that I.

Totally agree that -- I don't wanna be said that we have a perfect system.

That we won't have -- no wonder withstand those towers the problem with if they gave those that -- power system and I support Barack Obama I wouldn't be any happier because the next president comes along.

And still has the saints are Communists and my -- and this is.

More my in my scholarly -- just looking at.

Past wars.

There's always a chance or there's always a chance of -- Nixon is always chance someone would go too far.

I don't think it's writing part repairs I think is the political system that is the true check.

Contested elections divided government.

I think those are the real checks not trying to construct these very formal rules and by interpreting constitution of certain way when -- him.

Load More