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 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. 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 selfmotivated 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. Cspans washington journal, 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 president ial 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. 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 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 wouldnt 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. 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 wifes 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 reading of the manuscript and conversations we have had over the last 10 years. The summary is the intel guys dont 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 oped, 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 youre not rejecting america. , morals a moral dilemma 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 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 weeks 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 information he had about the cell and then the attack happened. Isnt 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 someones basement. This had a lot of work done. I think youre 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, 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 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 its 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. 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. The europeans have an incredibly pathological structural problem. By pathological im 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 responsibility. The pathology ive 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 dont. 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 im overstating is a bit. Roles that of an developed largely absent security considerations. That is another waiting at the war and they dont. 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 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 privacysecurity 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 wouldve called in the cia contact a highvalue detainee. Someone who of the whereabouts, location, identities. Will we captured a highvalue detainee, not only did not read them their rights, we did not announce the capture necessarily. We knew that if he did and people knew we had one of their compatriots, they would begin closing down the email 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 hes getting this information. Which likely accelerated the attack. Is that a mistake and doesnt 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 were doing this or we are doing that. I agree with you. In a world in which were focused on security, in which you dont know where the next she was going to fall shoe, is going to fall these are selfdefeating things. If we had picked them up in 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, im 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 wouldve 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. 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 doesnt necessarily read them the rights on the first day. Gen. Hayden that is right. That is a palliative to the stress point you just described. Im a little worried. I like miranda. I dont 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 dont the feds 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 dont you begin the process over here in the law of Armed Conflict model . 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 dont care. Marc exactly. Thats the difference into Law Enforce