Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  March 26, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT

12:00 am
that, europeans need to step up their intelligence sharing. i know several people from the brussels attacks, on the watchlist, not let into the united states. are we sharing our intelligence with of the belgians? gen. dunford: i can speak at the military level, i was speaking broader when i spoke to congress. intelligence agencies, military capabilities, law-enforcement, from a military perspective we have significantly increase our information and intelligence sharing over the last few months. we have specific locations where we bring together our coalition partners to do just that. we believe over 100 countries have fighters in syria and iraq, you see the numbers that exceed 35,000. i would not put it with a high degree of confidence, but it gives you an idea of the problem of the magnitude we are dealing with. those affected by the foreign fighters are cooperating on the law enforcement level.
12:01 am
and though intelligence and military levels. it is necessary to take action against these individuals prior to attacks like the one we saw in brussels this week. sec. carter: getting back to the fight in syria and iraq, i should also mention, a number of european partners to include belgium in the last month and a half after i had the ministerial chairman in brussels, they have increased their contributions. i wanted you to know that the belgians did that, too. in the fight in iraq and syria, i wanted to note that the belgians have intensified their role in lieu of what happened. >> in the attacks that happened in paris, can you tie some of
12:02 am
this together for us? do you see these plots being directed from isis leadership? you said he had some external affairs plotting as well. could he have been involved in the paris attack? are they training them to make bombs? what is the link you see between isis and syria? gen. dunford: i cannot confirm that this individual had anything to do with the brussels attacks specifically. the general phenomenon you are describing is correct. the kinds of influence are various.
12:03 am
they range all the way from fighters who have trained in and participated in isil operations in iraq and syria, returning to their countries of origin. and that is when these many foreign fighters are coming. right through ones who are recruited and trained by such individuals, but not have been in contact with isil forces directly. right back to those who are simply inspired by, maybe get some general instructions from isil, but are otherwise self-motivated and self radicalized. there is an entire spectrum here that law enforcement and counterintelligence colleagues are dealing with. >> we see the link -- sec. carter: one other thing we should say, they have been part of the apparatus of isil to
12:04 am
recruit and motivate foreign fighters, both to return from iraq and syria to countries in europe and elsewhere, and also simply by using the internet and other communications to do so. >> so the leaders that you see in the paris and brussels attacks, what is your assessment? do you think that this cell that has emerged in europe, do you think they are being directed by isis leadership, or being inspired, is that enough to have the expertise, equipment, technology? sec. carter: it is a relevant question. we want to eliminate the people who are directing them. but even if it is just inspiration, it still takes you back to iraq and area, and the
12:05 am
syria, and the need to eliminate the sources of that inspiration. the idea that there can be an islamic state based upon this ideology with the capital in raqqa, we will eliminate that image. it is an important part of eliminating the inspiration. even if it is not direct. there is both direction and inspiration. we need to combat them all. i cannot speak for the paris and brussels cells. that is a law enforcement matter. my impression, it is a mixture of some who are inspired either by the internet or by a friend or associate or family member, who himself, did travel to iraq and syria.
12:06 am
you see that mix in what we already know of the cells involved in paris and brussels. but i will not presume that i know everything that the law enforcement officials know that they share through a law enforcement channels. >> you mention, for months, the process against isil has been frustratingly slow. now you say things are on your side. is this a turning point? are we seeing a sign that isil is beginning to crack? are they offering less resistance? sec. carter: we are certainly gathering momentum, and we are seeing that that momentum is having effect. we are broadening both the weight and the nature of our attacks on isil. we have learned a great deal and continue to learn who is who in isil, so we can kill them, dry up their finances, and the
12:07 am
forces that we are working with on the ground in both iraq and syria, continue to gather strength. our strategic approach for the retaking of territory is to help local forces to do so. you see both in iraq, first with ramadi, and now other towns of that euphrates valley, and other areas of mosul, gathering momentum. you can see it also in syria, with -- an example i gave at the top of my statement, the taking of the town, the key connection between raqqa and mosul. the idea is to dissect the tumor of isil.
12:08 am
in all of these ways, we are gathering momentum, broadening both the tools and the weight we are bringing. gen. dunford: we talk about momentum, and it is indisputable. we have made a dent in the resources, affected their control in a way. but there is a lot of work that remains to be done. at the same time, while isil has not seized ground in the last months, that has not stopped them from conducting terror attacks and guerrilla operations. i think momentum is in our favor. there are a lot of reasons for us to be optimistic in the next few months.
12:09 am
but by no means, what i say we are about to break the back of isil, or that the fight is over. sec. carter: one final note that i would make, brussels reminds us that he central as the military effort is, and as confident as i am that we will be successful, it is necessary, but there is a critical law enforcement intelligence and homeland security ingredient to this. and there are partners in this fight here and in other countries. brussels is a reminder that that fight is necessary as well, both in european countries than any other country potentially affected by that. with the back, let me all thank you very much. >> thank you. >> c-span's washington journal,
12:10 am
live it every day with policy issues that affect you. --urday morning, the person the professor for peace at the university of maryland. of the statements made by republican presidential candidate donald trump and ted cruz. former homeland security official nathan sales will be with us from boston regarding the effectiveness of the american visa waiver program. be sure to watch washington journal, beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on saturday. join the discussion. cia and nsa director, general michael hayden discusses playing to the edge, and offers his views on national security. he talked about waterboarding, the iphone apple encryption debate.
12:11 am
american enterprises posted this 90 minute event. [crowd noise] >> good afternoon everyone. i am a fellow here at the american enterprise institute. we are pleased to be joined by michael hayden. the events in europe, cannot think of anyone better than he to enlighten us and put everything into perspective. thank you for joining us. you have a new book out. what motivated you to write this book and what does it mean? >> in terms of motivation, why
12:12 am
this book? ? , i talk about being in australia in the outlook -- in the outback at a joint facility. it is really in the outback. you land at the airport and you to on the road, and you come a t. it is way out there. some meetings, and we were walking out into the brilliant outback sunshine. i spoke to my australian counterpart -- wouldn't you like to take your citizens in there and show them what these kids are doing? and the answer was, yes. that is the book.
12:13 am
know of something so essential to american democracy that is less well known by the american population than american espionage. the purpose of the book is to walk up to the cipher lock, punch and the numbers, and bring in my countrymen. introduce them to the people and to many of the things that they do on their behalf. that is the objective. comes back to something so misunderstood. mean?t does the title >> that was my wife's title. [laughter] she had read the manuscript. i asked her for a title also. that is what she puts. it is a reflection of her
12:14 am
reading of the manuscript and conversations we have had over the last 10 years. the summary is -- the intel guys don't get to create the edges. the edges are created by the american political process. once you have those lines, here are your limits, when havemstances dictate, you a moral responsibility to play all the way to the lines. even though you know that when you do that, it is inevitable they will have an ugly hearing, and ugly op-ed, probably on one or the other posts. -- coast. and frankly, your life will be left pleasant. but the point is that if you play back from the edge coming you may be defending yourself but you're not rejecting america. , morals a moral dilemma
12:15 am
compulsion -- if the government authorizes it and the situation demands it, you have to go to the edge or you are not doing your duty. kindly, penguin arranged a session with cbs sunday morning. it was a very generous piece. their pentagon correspondent did it. david and i flew up to pittsburgh. we filmed a big chunk of it at the steeler practice facility. one of the elements of the morning show was me walking along the sideline with david at the practice is hillary. one of the conversations we had that did not make it into the final product -- as we were walking along, i said -- david, those are the #'s. if you are really concerned, you can tell your team, i want to
12:16 am
avoid any potential mistakes so i do not want to see that ball moved outside of the marks. you can run all of the plays that you want, but the ball will not go beyond those marks. will end. the game my team will lose badly. you have to use the whole field. >> when place where they do not have much chalk on their cleats is europe. four days before this week's attack in brussels, they captured the logistics chief of the cell that carried out the heiress attacks. he was given a lawyer. he spent the first night in the hospital, the second in a judicial hearing and then was put into the criminal justice system. during those four days, he successfully protected the
12:17 am
information he had about the cell and then the attack happened. isn't this an indictment of the law enforcement approach? is yes -- comma. this attack which was very sophisticated. it clearly had already matured to a certain point. i think it was put into motion. this was a fully grown plots. this did not get cooked up sunday night in someone's basement. this had a lot of work done. i think you're right. , they feared knew and therefore they acted. to comee so many ways at the question you asked me. i am going to go stream of consciousness on you. there is a passage in the book that when i was director of cia,
12:18 am
i went to the german embassy. the germans were the chair of the eu. it is the ambassadors from the union to the united states at a weekly meeting. lunch on the germans. time, theto ambassador would bring in an american. i suspect bob gates was there. and then he brought me in, the cia guy. we took this very seriously. we could have talked about soft topics. renditions, detentions, and interrogations. feeling i would never have this chance again. it was a very candid and respectful conversation. about ph three of my notes, i still have the speech. we had good speech writers. this is one that i did some
12:19 am
personal work on. i said to the collected europeans come let us be candid. believe,ll you what i and my agency beliefs. we are a nation at war. war with al qaeda and its the silliest. -- and it's affiliates. more, al qaeda, global, take the fight. there was not another country in thoseoom that agreed with statements. they rejected them for themselves but clearly felt that we were not on solid legal ground in terms of applying them to us. you have this dichotomy. there was another part of the book where i talked about targeted killing.
12:20 am
killing of a leader in september of 2009. by the navy seals. there was no time to capture. this was a kill operation. i made the point that there is not an intelligence service in europe that would give us the information to enable that rage. you do have this sharp dichotomy between the north american view and the european view of what this really is. we have a lot of americans who claim that if we do not do this in the law enforcement model, we are being long list. in the book, i say that is not true at all. there is another body of law we can rely on. the second point is this.
12:21 am
the europeans have an incredibly pathological structural problem. by pathological i'm using the literal meaning. it will be to the death of the organism unless you fix it. the problem is this. it is the division of labor between brussels as a european capital, not the victim, between brussels and the sovereign states. the sovereign state exported to brussels big chunks of their sovereignty. they have exported to brussels all questions of commerce, a lot of questions about finance and money, and frankly all questions with regard to privacy. we have a dialogue with the europeans. we are talking to brussels. the european commission of this or that of the other thing. national security remains in the capitals. it remains a national
12:22 am
responsibility. the pathology i've seen, and i said this to friends over the last couple of years, is you have a bunch of folks up here in the euro institutions making declarations about essential privacy and what constitutes essential privacy freed from the burden of guaranteeing the safety of their citizens. we have got issues here, but we get the privacy mavens and security mavens in the same room and they have ugly fights. the europeans don't. you have this body creating rules and the only imperative is how much privacy can we guarantee. them a have these. here who have to live with those rules. they have got rules that of an developed -- i'm overstating is a bit. roles that of an developed largely absent security
12:23 am
considerations. that is another -- waiting at the war and they don't. even within the law enforcement model you have got limits on what the nations can do to protect themselves. i am finally down. now i am in brussels, the victim, and that is a small under resourced, from time to time is functional security service working for what is almost all the time a dysfunctional government. have real issues. marc: yet people with no responsibility for the -- when they can prevent the attack, they are responsible but not --gen. hayden: what i think will happen is you have the brexit on the monetary union, and we might not patched that over. is creating work -- torque
12:24 am
because they have transported security to the euro institutions and they feel uncomfortable about it. i think as they think through what i just said this privacy-security torque will create great tension within the union. unless the union adapts to what i just pointed out, this is going to get worse and lead frankly to the crippling of the union. besides whatever it might do to the powers and so on. marc: the logistics chief those captured. key is what we would've called in the cia contact a high-value detainee. someone who of the whereabouts, location, identities. will we captured a high-value detainee, not only did not read them their rights, we did not announce the capture necessarily. we knew that if he did and
12:25 am
people knew we had one of their compatriots, they would begin closing down the e-mail accounts, maybe accelerate their lands for an attack. in europe we had a situation were not only did they announced the capture, we had every european leader in the world holding a press conference and he's getting this information. which likely accelerated the attack. is that a mistake and doesn't this show the need for secret detention? gen. hayden: there are lots of things you can go back and be run a video and say not so much. you can imagine the political pressure on local leaders to show progress, competency, or at least claim competency in terms of we're doing this or we are doing that. i agree with you. in a world in which were focused on security, in which you don't know where the next she was going to fall --shoe, is going to fall these are self-defeating things. if we had picked them up in
12:26 am
somalia, i would buy totally into what marc said. that is not current american policy. there is a fair argument that if he had been picked up because of the energies of american lawn is meant -- law enforcement in the homeland, i'm running up a much steeper hill to claim we should begin detention inside the american intelligence services. that is as a practical matter inside how we as americans view ourselves and how we pick between using the law enforcement model. even here, even if the cia, it would've been a tougher case to make to use the law of armed conflict model for someone who was arrested by american law enforcement inside the united states.
12:27 am
all that said, one needs to make a judgment based upon the mentality of circumstances that you find yourself in at the time. the complaint people like me have is not that we did or did not do that in this particular case. it is that we do not do it. in any case. we have taken that tool at the table. people talk to me about would like to get the technique back? i stopped the conversation and said i like to capture somebody. we are not already committed to putting through in article three a court process. marc: so in the obama administration they were caught in the same criticism in 2009 with the underwear bomber. they immediately read him his rights and it was a mistake. even administration today doesn't necessarily read them the rights on the first day. gen. hayden: that is right.
12:28 am
that is a palliative to the stress point you just described. i'm a little worried. i like miranda. i don't want miranda adjusted casually. aranda protects me and you. rather than turning the dial backup miranda because you have chosen to do this from a law enforcement model, we are going to go light on miranda, i don't the fed's getting in the habit of going light on maranda. i think the solution is rather than fooling with something of which we all rely, why don't you begin the process over here in the law of armed conflict model?
12:29 am
anything you develop would never be used in a court of law. at some point later you would put him in the law enforcement process, i truly don't care. marc: exactly. that's the difference into law enforcement approach in the intelligence driven approach. law enforcement is capturing somebody after an attack has happened in your trying to get them to cooperate in providing evidence for a little conviction. time is a friend because you build rapport and do all these things. gen. hayden: and you can course. -- colors -- coerce. i will arrest her mother and father. marc: and you can do more in the law enforcement model because under the army field manual, district attorneys say would you rather be in a federal prison or the general population in rikers island? or if you cooperate we will take the death penalty off the table?
12:30 am
gen. hayden: that's right. that would be forbidden. marc: you can see 9/11 coming. give the first world trade center attack. yet the uss cole, the mc bombings and other sciences was coming. -- signs this was coming. now we have the paris bombings and the brussel bombings. it seems like this story is repeating itself. the director of national intelligence testified it is likely that isis will try and directed attack against the united states in 2016. clapper said they will not be satisfied with lone wolf. they want directed attacks. are we reliving this movie. gen. hayden: we are. a couple of thoughts. not specifically consistent with the thinking that this is post manuscript. a couple of things. i will try to be very efficient. if this was a degree of threat under which we exist, i'm pretending this is where we are september 10, 2001. through the efforts of two some of it -- somewhat different
12:31 am
administrations we got better. we really did. about 2011 forgot about here. since about 2011, it's going back up. here is not here. we are not get to that point. we are safer than we were on september 10. we are less safe than we were in 2011. if that is what you meant by your question, the answer is yes. we are going to the same cycle. in terms of what do we do about it, i tried to do this extended metaphor two days ago. i only have three minutes. [laughter] here is the metaphor. if you take everything marc just talked about, how can the villages can do wiretaps?
12:32 am
how far do you want to put the metal detectors up from the airport? let's think of soccer. we just had an argument about stopping penalty kicks, or at a minimum we talked about needing a bigger, struck -- stronger, faster goalie. the trendline, and this is whatever good to the europeans with, when something like this happens you start talking about goalies. how come you didn't know it was this guy? how can he did no better security at the airport? white politicians make big statements and someone? it still within the 18. somebody has a real opportunity to score. practice defense, get some better fullbacks, train your goalie. that is not a winning hand. if you're playing inside the 18, are playing to stop penalty kicks, you know it's going to go
12:33 am
back into the net again. be extended metaphor is control the midfield. move the game up. the metaphor for controlling the midfield is to do all those things you ought to be doing before the attacks. things like what? espionage, collecting metadata, comparing the data with known -- you guys know this. you do all those things that a lot of the european friends are wringing their hands about. i am less inclined -- i might criticize the build him's what they did immediately. i'm less inclined to criticize them for their police did in that 96 hour period. i am more inclined to say now you want to have a conversation you thought you had two years ago about electronic surveillance? you want to do it now, with maybe a better handle on what
12:34 am
the real facts are? and why this is being done? i just thought the soccer metaphor would work better in europe than baseball. [laughter] and i mean it. that stuff that became so controversial is about controlling the midfield. david ignatius has a wonderful piece in the post two days ago where he said after this all the europeans are now lining up in front of the american intelligence leviathan. [laughter] they are demanding more product. they are still wringing their hands about american collection. control the midfield. extend the metaphor. about one more -- i have got one more. after you establish control, you can plan attacks well before they are in your airports or your sovereign space. once you think about scoring goals why don't you get into the attacking zone? why don't you begin to threaten their goal rather than worrying about yours? aggressively take this fight to
12:35 am
this that back to my speech and the german embassy, take it to where they reside. get real tough in mosul, get real tough of the islamic state. i will be overly dramatic. here comes. i would not be opposed if we used social media, traditional leaflets, we blanket that part of the earth called the islamic state with the notification if you move oil, you are going to die. period. i think that's a legitimate act in the armed conflict in which we are engaged. you make it very clear that we are serious about this. in any event, the point i'm trying to make is a lot of the conversation gets right down to the last 18 yards. the real answers are deeper. they hearken back to those feaux discussions and debates we had
12:36 am
over somebody's telephone or some country's metadata. marc: the administration would argue that they are getting tough in those places. they just killed the number two leader of isis. they claim they've taken back 40% of isis'territory. that's a little bit like letting a cancer go untreated for many months saying you have reduce the tumor by 40%. by the way, it's in your lungs but it's prettier brain. harris and wherever the next attack is. paris and brussels or wherever the next attack is.
12:37 am
gen. hayden: you're asking me a political question and i will give you a political answer. professionally, i think you can fairly characterize our effort against isis is what we call a level of effort campaign. we have been told we will give that much. ok, do everything you can with that much and under these rules. i would say, and are probably good friends of mine that we disagree on the inside, i would say we are not working backward from the desired of facts we wish to create. therefore, resourcing and
12:38 am
governing our effort based upon the desired outcomes, here is what we can offer. here are the rules. go to the best you can. and we are actually good. i said recently i got to be part of the history of armed conflict. -- greatest killing machine in the history of armed conflict. i am disappointed with the pace and the level of effort. a good friend of mine did go for 1 -- gulf war 1.
12:39 am
he would say the current air campaign is like a fine irish test -- mist intended by god to be a thunderstorm. when you think of it, we are getting at the rate of about 20 strikes per day. that is modest at best. i would have amped it up. i would have moved the threshold with regard to direct elegant --
12:40 am
tolerance for collateral damage. on the outside looking in i think the right number for collateral damage right now for roe's is zero. i would make the argument that might be a moral position because if you pass up multiple opportunities because of fear of collateral damage, you may end up with more dead innocent people because you have not suppressed the enemy's capacity to do harm because of your almost total allergy to collateral damage. we have talked about this. these are always hard choices. it's really unfair to second-guess but you asked. by the way, this is one war with a kinetic fight is ideological. the battlefield defeated the enemy undercuts the ideological jihadist narrative. these guys are somebody because they are successful and they can advertise themselves as representing both the will and the hand of god. nothing undercuts that like battlefield feet. marc: exactly.
12:41 am
michael: it is more complex. i read the cia press every morning. very frequently, very recently, yet another great day to be another senior informant official. as much as what i just said, you cannot kill your way out of this problem. if we could do that, this would have been over working years ago. you are more brought issues we have to take on. everyone in this room would agree we are less good at that then we are about the killing people thing. that is a part of the game we really need to recharge.
12:42 am
it is a part of the game which we don't have direct control. it is a part of the came that we are in luck more dependent on our allies in the islamic world to achieve success in any success we could personally the chief. to begin the conversation, one of the things we have to do is to get over the fantasy that this has nothing to do with islam. by the way, the response to this has nothing to do with islam is they all hate us. ok? frankly, i believe this begets that and they are both wrong. i think what we need is an adult acceptance. this has something to do with islam. it is not all about muslims. but it does have something to do with islam and we need to talk about our muslim allies. the king of jordan says the civil war is with islam and the president of egypt is biking his
12:43 am
finger at the theological fact that it is about islam. i am very careful how i say this. i understand this is one of the world's biggest monotheism. we cannot resolve it, but i don't think we serve anybody by pretending that is not what is happening. therefore, perhaps, we can help empower those voices within islam that we think actually have the best answer, not just for ourselves, but for islam. people like the king of jordan. so, there is a lot to be done and what i am saying, the complexity is beyond the battlefield threat complexity. there is a deeper complexity and our tools to influence that are in direct and distant. marc: and empowering people at the local level.
12:44 am
the number one victims of islamic radicalism are muslims. their killing more muslims than people in the west, at least for now, right? michael: i will offer you a view, hyperbolic, but not without truth, that we are merely collateral damage. we are the collateral damage which is a war in one of the world's greatest monotheism. marc: one of the reason the search was so successful in 2003 in a rack -- iraq because they were predicted by the very people they represent. michael: the sunni tribes. marc: they came to drive the u.s. out. that was a major ideological defeat.
12:45 am
how can we empower people in the muslim world, who hate isis, to join us in that fight? michael: well, listen to woody allen. who's fundamentals of life is 85% is showing up. out of our way, arab friends. given historical circumstances and who we are in the world right now, which is not a permanent condition and does not indicate any -- given the reality of the world which we now live and the relative power we can exert, our showing up creates opportunities for things to happen. our not showing up actually cuts
12:46 am
in the other direction and in fact, might be a negative because of his begin to go do things on their own, and it turns out they are not good at it. i am suggesting invading yemen, for example. it makes the situation worse. i think there is a powerful role for american leadership here. i am not calling for the return of brigades to the western iraqi desert. it is a powerful role to play. this is all beyond the context of the book that closes out with snowden. that is in there. i do not understand the lack of a no-fly zone. things that i think would be broadly accepted by what i call the civilized world,
12:47 am
christian,jew, or islamic. marc: you have accomplished what it not a single gop candidate has done, you got donald trump to back down. he said he would employ waterboarding, or worse. he openly used the word "torture." he pointed out -- you pointed out that the military would not act down to break the law. if that going well beyond the edge? michael: do you have a copy of my book? marc: we do somewhere. michael: my wife says -- i thought i would have to spend the book tour explaining my collective aggressiveness and going to the edge. did not happen. because of the dynamics of the political campaign, the book tour was more or less consumed by my explaining that there were edges. [laughter] no, we're not going to do that.
12:48 am
rather than explaining why we were here, i was explaining why we would never be here. it was an incredibly remarkable thing. the easy one is that we are going to kill their families, too. that is the one where belmar asked me -- bill mohr asked me. i already told you my view on collateral damage. i'm willing to embrace a bit more risk for the desired military affect. he was talking about killing the innocent.
12:49 am
that's bad. just morally. that is incredibly stupid operationally. you still are mad for 9/11. we are 15 years. why do we want to create that dynamic inside our enemy? by are going -- by killing their noncombatants. the tougher one was his call for waterboarding, which i did talk about in the book, which we did take off the table, which i justify as having been effective and defend the people who did it. there is a little more newmont and i haven't had as much chance to get into it. he is doing it with enthusiasm. we did it with regret. he's doing it because they deserve it. we never did it because they deserved it. we did it because we thought they knew something that we had a right to know in order to keep our citizens safe. he appears to want to do it
12:50 am
frequently. we did it rarely to three folks. his language on waterboarding was so bad that it actually gave waterboarding a bad name. [laughter] ok? and i recognize it, that -- there is a lot of link in the book that object to people having done it. i get that the greatest respect. all i argue is that we did it out of duty, not enthusiasm, with the legal judgment we had at the time. it did, in fact, lead to information. a really honorable opinion is don't do it, ever. right now, u.s. law says it is off.
12:51 am
you can't do it. i also make the point, i made the point on the book tour and i make it in the book that if a future president assad he was going to return to this, somehow creates a legal framework where it is no longer unlawful, i say quite specifically, he better bring his own bucket because the cia is not going to do it again. i explained it in the back two or three chapters in the book, the people who did it in good faith, believed there were covered by the government and by their government's legal opinion. felt an undying sense of betrayal about what happened to them after the change of administrations, so there was a show on showtime called "spy masters." we were very happy with it. they have several of us saying no to waterboarding.
12:52 am
it was not a judgment of the actions performed in the past. it was, we thought when we did this for you, the beak you, we had a social contract in perpetuity that the republic had our back. turns out, in perpetuity, is one off year election cycle and the agency has taken -- it is a complicated issue and the most offensive part of the current debate is how stupidly oversimplified the discussion has been made. marc: also, for trump, for us, waterboarding was the far end point. for trump, it is the starting point. michael: yeah. the reality is -- marc: we do need an
12:53 am
interrogation program for terrorists that does not include waterboarding today. that does something more than the army manual. if we are going to prevent another 9/11, we are going to have to start capturing and interrogating them again. people who disagree with what is done by the agency, has to acknowledge there was a line and the government, whether you disagree with the line should've been, the government did it knowledge online, stay within a line, and try to do it. trump wants to just erase the line. doesn't that undermine destroying something we need? michael: that is my point. he is poisoning what has to be a carefully crafted, deeply conscientious conversation by a free people as to what it is you think is or is not legitimate
12:54 am
based upon the totality of circumstances in which you find yourself. this put us back away from this discussion and poisons it. marc: they are trying to get -- unlock the phone of the san bernardino shooter. this is been painted as a dispute between the tech world and the national security world. in the tech world, you have people like bill gates saying apple ought to be doing more. in the national security world, they have people like you, who have actually back apple. explain that to us. [laughter] michael: it's like, where were you on the night of september 11? i go towards apple.
12:55 am
there are many ways of looking at the question. it is a constitutional question. if you asked my opinion, i think the government has within its authority to compel apple to do what they want apple to do. congress can make it so. i don't think it is a constitutional question. but apple is throwing up the first, fourth, and 13th amendment. i don't think it is a privacy issue. he is dead. there are no privacy issues. by the way, it was never his phone, so i don't think these specific acts began to engage question security versus privacy. i am over here looking at this purely in a security lens. i think it would be a good thing at the government could get there. i think the government has the authority to demand it. i just it is a bad idea. it's a bad idea because jim,
12:56 am
said the most serious threat is cyber. that you have a private companies who apparently has developed a great encryption. the government cannot get into it. now they will demand this company create something that does not yet exist, which is a way to get through. all i am saying is, what apple has done, it would be less secure and less secure even if you keep it over here and it requires multiple keys and to go to a court. all right? the fact that you have created this, by definition, is less secure than it would be had you not created it. the director of an essay, when
12:57 am
nsa is going after a really tough algorithm, and i have one of my people come in and say, we just found out that someone else has been granted extraordinary access through the encryption. my response was, thank you, lord. by the way, that may not be enough, but the odds of my getting and have been increased because i have additional tools, that i can use to get beyond the encryption. when this began, i wanted to side with the bureau and the theory under which i was trying to side with the bureau was this is good, this is bad. and i am not sure if this leads to that. but the longer this has gone on, the more i am convinced this is not a one and done. first of all, komen has testified that this will establish a president we will use in other cases -- presidents we will use in other cases.
12:58 am
mr. vance, the u.s. attorney, said he has a room with 175 just waiting to go. i don't think it is one and done. i was trying to say over here, but now i am convinced, it cannot stay over here. this to a less secure operating system. i can do this very briefly, let's say i am wrong? what if we say, ". what have we done through legislation or court order, prevented technological progress. i am not feeling good about that being a winning hand. ok?
12:59 am
even if we are successful in doing it in north america, the sum total of all this will be pushing this offshore, which i think is the worst of all possible outcomes we could get. wait. there is more. if the government does get the authority to do this, what is apple supposed to do when other governments, for their own legitimate law enforcement reasons, what they perceived to be their own legitimate law enforcement reasons, now come to apple and say, i got to get in here, it is a fallen gun guy. let me get into the phone. or the egyptian government comes and says, i got to get in here. he is a terrorist. i'm kind of suggesting that countries have brought definitions of terrorists. have you answer that? one more turn of the wheel. it doesn't matter. the march of technology is long
1:00 am
and arc in which it will be more and more difficult to retrieve content from intercepted communications. mr. hayden: understand that no matter what we do with apple, it will get harder to get content. it does not mean it will be impossible to get actual intelligence. you just will be up to get content. apple has created this problem by printing this operating system with really powerful decryption. there are incredible blames of digital exhausted a good intelligence service can collect.
1:01 am
can clean an incredible blame of information. , did you ever think the last 15 years were the anomaly? did you ever think what is abnormal is the last 15 years, not the 15 years going forward. did you ever think that what happened recently is that you and i used to keep things that were really well protected and decided to put them in our phone, where they are readily retrievable, and now we are all regretting that. it is simply returning to status quo. through 10-15 years where a electronic , law enforcement or or foreign intelligence, has a golden age. we put it up there not knowing how vulnerable it was. now knowing how vulnerable it
1:02 am
was, you are kind of returning to the state back here. you are far more detecting it. sorry. far too long of an answer. my bottom line is, yeah, i am shading apple on this one. by the way, think of all the things that mike rogers and jim klapper have said about this dispute. ok, you are done. [laughter] they have not. this is not fundamentally a foreign intelligence problem. it is a law enforcement problem. the foreign intelligence guys know they can cheat. [laughter] so, let's talk about the book. [laughter] marc: one more questions on apple. play devil's advocate. the fbi put it out there
1:03 am
publicly, which everyone criticize them for. then a third party came to them we can break into it. ,mr. hayden: we will see if it happens. if i am still director of nsa and apple says we are not going to do it, and i am agreeing, the next phone call is down to omb , saying encryption is getting better, i am going to need another $500 million because i'm going to kick my way in. and that is game on. that is fair game. that is different from telling apple to build something that may make the system less secure. look, there are so many factors bearing on this.
1:04 am
we used to do this math against encryption that was not universally available. when you do the math against encryption that is not universally available, game on, kick the door in. right? fundamentally, now what is happening is it is against encryption we all depend on. that changes the math problem. marc: fbi goes to apple and says, help us get in. no, we will not help you get in. that means apple has a security vulnerability. are they going to tell them? apple -- mr. hayden: do not presume the answer to that question. that may the government's preferred position for the moment, but we have just had this grand debate about nsa and vulnerabilities when it either creates or discovers a bone of encryption. the outcome of the national
1:05 am
debate has been nsa has been shading too much of exploited the vulnerability rather than fixing it. marc: they should help them, but there is no incentive for them to help apple right now. if they figured out a way to get into iphones -- mr. hayden: the incentive to help apple is there broad, moral responsibility to make america a safer and more secure place. marc: all right. let's talk about the threat environment we face today. if you go back to 1990's, 1988 when george h w bush is running for president, no one asked him about saddam hussein, and saddam hussein invades kuwait. in 2000, when george w. bush for was running for president, nobody asked about al qaeda. then 9/11 happened. looking at the threat
1:06 am
environment we have today you're , in the middle of a presidential debate, what is it that nobody is asking the candidates about the good in-depth dominating the next presidential term? would you think is going to surprise you this year, general? [laughter] i answer theay question. my matrix is how badre they and how much time do i have? vertical axis, horizontal axis, how bad, how much time. talked down here in the lower tucked downrner -- here in the lower left-hand corner are things urgent, but not existential. he can go bad because a tsa guy in dallas missing that decision. i go out 3-4 years i get another flavor of threat, a group of
1:07 am
nationstates i have taken to label as ambitious brutal, and nuclear. north korea, pakistan, and i throw the russians in there too. that is not going to go bump tonight, but if and when it does worse than to be what we are worried about because of brussels. i probably have 3, 4, 5 years to get a handle on them. if i go out on the timeline to 10, and way up here is china. again, i don't want you to think i am treating china like al qaeda, or china like north korea, i am just saying that the accommodation of the people's republic into a stable global system is the most serious security challenge we have. but we do have some time. that is how i kind of bake it. it is not quite the answer. tell me what you don't know, general?
1:08 am
[laughter] i do think that the brussels event will create incredible torque in the stability of a part of the world that is important to the united states. that added by the immigrant crisis, by the instability with one nato, but not eu member, turkey, we are going to have to pay attention to europe. that may be something that is going to be pushed. let me be kind. you have a populist government movements in several european countries right now that if they were to be successful, would, i think would begin to challenge condoleezza rice and george w. bush's vision of europe as whole, free, and at peace. marc: let's talk about the tension between intelligence community and the press. in the book you write a great deal about the efforts you went to to prevent the "new york times" reporting things harmful to national security.
1:09 am
you also say that informed public is the lifeblood of democracy. how do we strike the balance between an informed public and the need for security? michael: the most important part of the book long-term is a conversation i had with carly fiorina, who was the head of the cia advisory board before she became the presidential candidate. and i gave the advisory board tough questions. the question i gave carly, this was 2007, early 2008, pre-snowden. i looked at carly and said, carly, i have a tough question for you. will america be able to conduct espionage in the future in front cultureroader political that everyday demands more transparency and more public accountability from every aspect of national life?
1:10 am
they went to the mountaintop or wherever she and her team went, came back three or four months later, carly, will america build ?o conduct espionage she looked me right in the eye and said, to close to call. which is really important. in essence what is happening is that our political culture in terms of what is demanded before it trusts the government is moving out from under the social contract the american intelligence community thought we had with american society. one of them, again this is covered thoroughly in the book, nsa was horribly back footed by this note in stuff. -- by theisappointed edward snowden stuff. y am disappointed that the
1:11 am
did not explain things better. a one reason nsa was back footed was that this thing was approved was that this thing was approved by two presidents. it was well known to the oversight committees who work frank with a stronger supporters of the program. the one i use in the book is that the madisonian trifecta, that is the church pike solution. what happened when the program became public, not all of them on the wing that population, a lot of solid citizen said that i'm not sure that constitutes consent of the governed anymore. that may be consent of the governors. so now we really do have a challenge, how does mile you,nity tell you, the big
1:12 am
a not for about what it is that we are doing that we at least have your implied sanction? much thatlling you so it is not worth doing. and that is the question you raised, and my way of rephrasing it. that is the challenge we now have. my answer is we need to be more transparent. we need to tell you more. then i say very quickly, don't is not that that that going to shave points off of our effectiveness. it will. but then again, you will not let wedo it anyway unless yo tell you more than we have already. i said that to mike leiter. you need to be translucent. which is not bad.
1:13 am
i can see the broad shapes, i can see the broad movements, i cannot see the fine print. i think what we are trying to find is that sweet translucent spot. where most americans say i have a pretty good idea what they're doing, i am ok by it. that is about as good as it gets. find that have to spot, this is not going to pass. there has been a cultural shift. we have to accommodate to it. that is how this works. last question for me, then we will take some from the audience. playing off of your last point, doesn't it seem like the intelligence community is in this vicious cycle? 9/11 happens and they said why did you do more. see you go out and set up the surveillance program, the metadata program, the cia interrogation program, and they worked, and the follow-on's are disrupted. over time, people become complacent and say why are you doing all that.
1:14 am
my privacy is being infringed in all these terrible things are happening. then we start peeling them back and another attack happens and we are back at the beginning of the cycle. is that what we are doing right now? mr. hayden: yes. i let myself one existential whine. i hardly ever get this at heinz field. american political elites feel free to criticize our intelligence service for not doing enough when they feel in danger, and immediately turn on a dime and begin to criticize them too much as soon as they feel safe again. that is kind of harsh, but that is also kind of true. that is where we are. marc: let's take some from the audience. >> thank you very much.
1:15 am
my question is that this war has been going on for the last 20 plus years and i think the cia knows everything that is going on around the globe. my question is that it started with al qaeda, then taliban, iso-, isis, and all the things continuing. do you think maybe osama bin laden has been dead, but still among these people? secretary carter and the german were speaking at the pentagon press briefing. finally, who is training them. where are they getting all these weapons and financing. who do you think today you have to control, two or three nations you can control all these terrorists. thank you, sir. covered a: this is bit in the book. on the night bin laden was
1:16 am
say i was actually surprised by all those kids going to lafayette park. it was just, really? i guess what it betrayed was an attitude of people with our background knowing there was no finality in this at all, that everyone had to go back to work the next morning at langley and continue the hunt. the general population felt some sense of closure. on one level, there is a legitimate sense of closure. he was the guy most responsible for the attack, but we never had any sense of closure. this is good, but it was going to be long-standing. i go back to what i said in the book. until you change conditions on the ground, you just get to kill people forever, and that is not a happy outcome. so we really do need to begin a serious dialogue about changing
1:17 am
conditions on the ground. it is not in the book because it postdates the book, but we are seeing the melting down of the world order as we know it. we are seeing the melting down ii postost-world war order. be seeing amay little falling on the edges in terms of the power of the state for matters of the elegy and definitions of citizenship, and so this probably isn't about getting bashar al-assad out of government. it is, but it is about so much more. and so i guess my answer to your question is we need to get on with this.
1:18 am
we are not going back to where we were. iraq no longer exists, syria no longer exists. probably put lebanon in then re.r this is not about getting back to the stable world order that that has pushed somebody out. that is gone. the next president is going to need the equivalent of the loan long telegram to kind of scope how fundamental the issues have now become. until we do that, we're going to be doing this for a long time. marc: in the back over there. >> thank you. kurdistan tv. how important is it that the peshmerga should be armed?
1:19 am
didour opinion, how isis -- mr. hayden: i think that is called a leading question. it ties closely to what i just said. this is me being critical of not quite theis traditional intelligence officers role. if you believe what i said about iraq not existing, why would you insist on approval from baghdad? my instinct -- look, i understand. if i still back in the am government one has to be .areful about what one says, this is all about new structure in the middle east. i think a useful building block would be the kurds.
1:20 am
realize all of a sudden that all my turkish friends are getting concerned. if the old is gone and the new is yet to be created, i think a good conversation have is what is the future of the kurdish autonomous region. ? and the other coders reason, the one in syria now. i would not constrain myself for the old models. how did isis come about, long history. the most recent one i would tied to the american departure in 2011. as we left, this would have not defeated isis. it was simply that we were an effective stopper in a bottle that was still unsettled. while we were there, the three factions in iraq still distrusted the others, but were
1:21 am
reasonably convinced that as long as the americans were there and some numbers that the other two were not going to eat them. as soon as we left, they also may fear that they were going to eat them and begin to move to and actspective corners in ways they thought were defensive but were perceived by the other two factions as being horrifically offenses. that created the petri dish for isis to resurrect. marc: this general and right there. engagement -- of back in the day. what were the rules of engagement or roles of rendition to a third country somewhere? >> we had to have assurances from the third country, and
1:22 am
insurances we believe that the prisoner would indeed be treated humanely. and then we embraced with a moral and legal obligation to ensure that indeed what happened. i do get the question from time to time, how can you be sure? the answer i give you is after all the cia is an intelligence organization. those of the ground rules. the current administration, that rendition policy, the same today, ok? there is a little bit more noise and we insist on guarantees and so on, which i find a little offputting. as if we weren't as much concerned about the law. there is powerful continuity between 43 and 44. there really is. one of the things the europeans remark on is not how much
1:23 am
president obama is different from bush, but how he is so much like president bush when it comes to the war on terror. i would offer the view there is thegger difference between the first and second bush administration than there is between 43 and 44. i could fill the rest of the afternoon complaining about things that were changed. there is a quote in which a , wean is deeply lamenting thought it was just a george bush. thought there were two americas. now we know there is just one , america. to which i respond, cool. [laughter] mr. hayden: it was stress producing for a lot of people who are friends in europe.
1:24 am
marc: last question. lady way in the back. thank you general. you had mentioned some limitations. i am with sinclair broadcast group. you mentioned limitations from some of our european counterparts especially as it , relates to intelligence. does this mean it is time for the u.s. to have a larger global role? would your be ok with that? mr. hayden: i guess my argument is we do have a large global role and we have stepped into that. what i would be inviting is we not be the lone striker dribbling the ball into the zone, that we actually got somebody on either wing.
1:25 am
the sincereave conversation with our putative teammates about the midfield. you realize that we can argue about specifics. this is not the forces of darkness trying to suppress european privacy. let's do that when again, all right? with maybe a better understanding of what it was. and then with regard to this definition if you think you can , handle this problem at the greek border and make it go away, you are wrong. therefore, why don't you come up here and start playing ball in the offensive zone two? oo? we don't have much time, and this is coming out harsh. this is a conversation among people who share our values and
1:26 am
interests. it is time for us to do this, ok? that german embassy thing that i was talking about, i am hitting this pretty hard. we feel comfortable doing this, and i'm getting pushed back. this is related in the book. the ambassador wants to find some common cause. i'm standing next to him talking to the gathered ambassadors and he looks up and says, general, surely you must admit that we are all children of the enlightenment. [laughter] said, yes, sir, mr. ambassador. huggingpeans seem to be e a lot, and we are over here with hobbs, which are two great enlightenment philosophers that our common culture and civilization embrace. why can't
1:27 am
can't we begin to share our view of the problem. it is part of our mainstream. marc: thank you for taking our questions. [applause] marc: mike has agreed to sign books outside. please wait while we get him out then you canand ask questions as he signed your book. inc. you very much. -- thank you very much.
1:28 am
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪
1:29 am
1:30 am
1:31 am
1:32 am
1:33 am
1:34 am
1:35 am
1:36 am
1:37 am
1:38 am
1:39 am
1:40 am
1:41 am
1:42 am
1:43 am
>> it is a wise step in american policy to deepen our relationships with those that share our values. begins, we fight partners that show up for the fight. thank you. could you elaborate more? >> regarding the relationships between china and the united states. --is the most important gao geopolitical question.
1:44 am
it is a country so large, emerging on the world stage. this is a relationship that we have to get right for the security of the planet. it would be catastrophic if the relationship between beijing and ashington ended up continuous confrontation, always ordering on confrontation. >> thank you so much. >> [indiscernible]
1:45 am
this is my first election that i am voting in. it is important to be involved. more people have voted
1:46 am
then normal. it is important to be involved in this election. reason why i decided to vote in this primary election is because this election season has probably come up for most people, the most captivating ever. and i feel like it is important to be represented in the election process. >> i am voting in this election because of the extreme racial disparity in the country as well as the economic inequality, it is essential that we choose a president that will represent all of america. on washington journal, we look at the growing hair when -- efforts toemic and deal with the problem. this is about 40 minutes. cs, the deadly statistics.
1:47 am
host: and joining us from our new york studio is daniel raymond. he's the policy director of a group called harm reduction what, mr. hich is raymond? guest: good morning. is harm reduction coalition a national organization working to address the health issues use.iated with drug host: how did it get started? started about 20 years ago. this was back in the early '90s in the height of the aids epidemic, and we came out of the exchange o start programs across the country to prevent hiv from spreading among people who inject drugs and bring them into healthcare and services. host: how are you funded? guest: we have some state and contracts who do training and education, and we have some foundations.rivate host: any federal monies?
1:48 am
guest: currently, we don't have any federal funding. in the past, we've had funding from the centers for disease control for education. host: how did you personally get involved in this issue? guest: i got involved back when i was in college in new york city, and this was ground zero epidemic, and it was all around us. it was also a huge moment in the new york drugs in city, where there was a lot of dealing, a lot of drug and it was the perfect storm, the perfect environment for hiv to spread, so i started getting doing d as a activist yringe exchange and found out it was extremely rewarding, the connections you can make with drugs, the use conversations you can make, and getting healthier was a powerful
1:49 am
motivator for me doing this work. host: do needle exchanges work? guest: they absolutely do. been my own personal experience. out by years rn and years of research. they definitely work to prevent get nd also work to help people into treatment, people who have often been using, then years, ng for years and hand.eed that helping we have a lot of examples of needle exchange programs across the country that are on the fighting s of overdose, of providing getting people connected to addiction treatment and recovery services. these e's no question programs work. host: daniel raymond we have viewers ing with our or the last 25 -- 45 minutes and we've heard incredible stories about the power of heroin addiction. in your view, what's the best
1:50 am
way to get people off of heroin r simply to manage the addiction? guest: well, when you look at effectively, st there's no solution that's going to work for everybody. i think your last caller was quit, and out how he that's a path that works for some people. the best evidence says that if as use medication, such methadone, alongside with counseling and other support services, people stay in treatment for longer and get results. everything we know tells us if you've got a heroin problem, the success and f work with a o and work get treatment with counseling to get support to help you stay on that path. tot: heroin deaths according the c.d.c. are up 286%, overdose deaths, over the last 15 or so years.
1:51 am
are you seeing a big increase in new york city? host: we've definitely seen an increase in new york city. increases ed seeing in different parts of the city around prescription pain opiods, in places like also seen nd, and these rises in heroin deaths in a lot of different parts of the city. staten island but also the bronx, parts of brooklyn. it's a phenomenon that is of the all parts country. host: daniel raymond, you're at in newdio on 42nd street york. you know, very commercial, nice neighborhood. could you go out in 15 minutes and get some heroin from where right now? guest: well, i think one thing understand is how the heroin market has changed. the image that a lot of us have is from back in the '70s and the '80s, that you find some dealer corner, that you
1:52 am
go into what seems like a bad neighborhood and you score some drugs. a lot of heroin dealing is much more subtle, invisible. you have a contact that you text. they arrange a meeting location. it could be a parking lot outside of a coffee place. so it's not so much that visible we've been that used to seeing from the '70s and '80s. it's almost like an uber or eamless model that you have a connection, you meet your dealer heroin.ace, and you get host: if you want to participate in our conversation this morning about the heroin epidemic in this country, 202-748-8000. impacted by heroin use, 202-748-8001 for medical professionals, and 202-748-8002
1:53 am
for all others. e want to show you this map, nd this is the -- the redder parts of the map is where there's been an increase or higher percentage of heroin overdose in this country. you can see the impact, a lot of appalacia there, florida, out in the west, a lot of red areas out in the west as well and up in the northeast. john is in philadelphia. a medical professional. john, you're on with daniel raymond of the harm reduction coalition. guest: good morning, peter, and thank you for c-span. i'm 64, i'm retired now. actually. i feel three stories and broke my back.nd broke
1:54 am
thank god i can walk and everything, i was a stroke victim. i was a substance abuse and mental health counselor in north carolina. i put myself through grad school and i was working. '90,' 91 and it was the crack cocaine epidemic that was happening then in north carolina. it was working its way up and down the east coast, and i -- so weekends when i was in grad school, and i worked alternating weekends at the and y treatment facility, the other alternating weekends, charter hospital. there was a different level of obviously.h one, back in '91, it cost $1,000 a and whatarter hospital and ad was professionals people with good insurance. the rest of the people who didn't have insurance, you know,
1:55 am
to the county treatment center. the county treatment center was but it didn't have the facilities, and it just -- they couldn't take people. peopleuldn't take enough in. ost: so john, as a masters level counselor, is there a olution to what's going on in your view? caller: well, that's a long story, peter, but i'll try to make it real short.'s a i'm a recovering alcoholic, and four i was on oxy for years, and i came off oxy with no problem. so different people are affected differently by different drugs. people have their different triptonite, okay. i've tried a lot of different
1:56 am
drugs. alcohol,ffected me but that was my personal. my kriptonite. here's what i think. people have a biosocial model. what that means is you've got to treat medically, socially. in other words, they have social problems, people don't have work. you know, they're living on the street. that's a social problem. psychosocial. ou've got to treat the psychological problems. host: john, i think we got the point. forel raymond, any response that caller? guest: john, thank you for your s servations and your insight from the field and from your own experience. i think the point that you were making about the limited treatment capacity in north working when you were in the early '90s is what we're seeing play out in states across now, that y right there are waiting lists for treatment. here are shortages of beds, of
1:57 am
facilities, of trained physicians, of trained counselors. and we're confronting this crisis in the midst of the big gap in our treatment capacity. we just don't have the capacity right now to get everybody into treatment tomorrow. so i think that's going to be an issue that congress and the white house are going to be looking seriously at over the next several months. you beaniel raymond, can a functioning citizen if you are addicted to heroin? guest: yeah, definitely. you can hold down a job, you can relationship. at some point, most people's to escalate.tarts they need more and more heroin to function. that means that they need more and more money to support their habit. o not everybody can sustain that indefinitely. but i think what you've heard this morning is that addiction cuts across all walks of life, whether it's the functional
1:58 am
alcoholic, or the person who's theirg arrested or losing home. lot of it has to do with the circumstances in which you're habit. maintain your if you've got a job, if you've got an income, if you've got some money. got more social apport, then you have more of cushion around you. whereas, if you're exposed to situations which are going to arrested, then you might be spiralling further harmful patterns. host: in your view, mr. raymond, do you think the heroin epidemic, the use of heroin in increased so as exponentially recently? guest: i think there's a very simple answer to that, that over the last 20 years, we've seen a
1:59 am
dramatic increase in the use and vailability of prescription pain killers, opiods. there's been a brought effort to widely that was supported by the pharmaceutical companies and manufacturing them and some people who felt understandably that maybe we pain ndertreating chronic ut the consequences have been devasta devastating. millions of people have been exposed to opiods and some of hem have gotten dependent on them and it's created this market for heroin that did not exist before. we've had heroin in this country for decades but not at the level we're seeing at. who first got opioids, whether they were prescribed or found them in friend's medicine cabinet.
2:00 am
opioidse prescription of that started it. ost: a box of rocks knows that heroin is bad but people use it anyway. how much money can fix that? eople will abuse drugs or anything until the end of time. guest: i hear that sentiment a ot, and there's a couple of pieces there, that people will use drugs, that we're not ever going to get to a place where we've finally solved our drug problems once and for all. it's a part of whatever you want to call it, human nature, not re, that our goal is going to be let's imagine a time where there are no more drugs using drugs.eople at the same time, pretty much everybody has made some bad choices or hard choices at some point or another in their lives. it may not be drugs. it may be something else. a bad business investment, a bad