Dr. James Zogby

Viewpoint with James Zogby: January 29, 2009 Episode

Posted on Monday February 2, 2009

Partial transcript:

James Zogby: Hi, I'm Jim Zogby and welcome to "Viewpoint." It's been an extraordinary first 10 days for the obama presidency. Calls to a number of Middle East leaders. Meetings with U.S. military officials and the appointment of two key regional envoys. Tonight, two expert views on the impact of these first 10 days. A sense of expectation in the region from Paul Salem, the director of the Carnegie Middle East center, and Michael Isikoff will be here to discuss a variety of issues, including some of the transition issues.
But first I want to welcome Paul Pillar, visiting professor and director of security studies program at Georgetown, university. He retired in 2005 after a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community. He served as national intelligence officer for the northeast and south Asia's deputy chef for the counterterrorism center. Thank you for joining us.

Paul Pillar: Thank you, Jim.

James Zogby: Let's talk about the first 10 days. The president did a whole lot of tone setting and what were described as a break -- marking a break on a number of levels from his predecessor, beginning with his inaugural address, some repudiation of the past in that and then some of his initiative. As a whole were expectations being set too high? Did he set the right tone? How would you look at the overall view of the first 10 days?

Paul Pillar: Well, the expectations were very high for him whether he wanted it or not. Expectations here in the United States and certainly around the world, and I think what we've seen in this past week and a half was a very well-planned rollout, basically. A Lot of these things having to do with some of the issues you mentioned, detainee treatment and so on. Coming out of that campaign, everyone expected a clean break with the previous administration and even at the price of some of those lines in the inaugural address, where one has to imagine that the previous president sitting there was wincing inside at some of the implied -- not so much just implied but explicit criticism of the direction of his principled successors policies. He has rolled out a new approach in a way that everyone was expecting him to. This has been the easy part so far. Except for the decisions everyone expected him to make, such as signing the order that Guantanamo would close within a year. So many of the other things, especially having to do with foreign policy questions involving negotiations and dealing with other governments, that's all ahead.

James Zogby: Let's talk about the executive orders. You've been a critic of torture, questioning its utility but also its impact on our values. Was this a clean break?

Paul Pillar: Yes, I think it was. Not only what the president said but look at what the new attorney general said, eric holder in his hearings. This time the nominee, Mr. Holder, who was approved by the committee, and has become our attorney general, said unequivocally, yes, water boarding is torture, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. It certainly was a clean break.

James Zogby: There are three issues with regards to torture. One, is it effective? We have some unhappy experience of the ineffectiveness, the case in point by Al lippi, the detainee who was the source of what turned out to be fraudulent statements about chemical and biological matters. Second, what's squint our values, but the third one is the larger effect on populations overseas, that so far as they do not see daylight in how we operate and how the bad guys, the terrorists, operate that, diminishes the whole effort.

James Zogby: I've been watching some of the news from fox and some of the commentators there arguing that it makes us more vulnerable. Having been in the intelligence community, you've written that it doesn't give us good intelligence, but has it given us intelligence that we would not have gotten otherwise that has been useful? The president continues to make the argument we have not been attacked in the seven years following 9/11. We are safer.

Paul Pillar: You're always going to get some good stuff. And the outgoing C.I.A. director, general Hayden, whom I respect, has said we've gotten some information but you have to balance that against the other issues. Not only was I in the intelligence business but I am a professor now I have classroom discussions. And the classic scenario between the terrorist and the ticking time bomb and having to extract information out of him quickly to save lives –

James Zogby: Jack Bauer scenario.

Paul Pillar: It's a great discussion for the classroom. I don't know any real situation in the past or one I'm aware of today where that's actually come up.

James Zogby: Guantanamo and the president's request to get 120 days to deal with defining these detainees. What are the bad guys, who are they and what do we do with them? Saying he will close it is one thing. Closing it is something else. Where are the problems, the pitfalls?

Paul Pillar: The main pitfall is we have such a mixed bag of these nearly 300 detainees which range from hardcore terrorists to people who are innocent. The other problem is inheriting the system of military commissions from the previous administration, which was subject to a lot of criticism and clearly the new administration wants to find a different way. And underlying all this is something I did encounter in the intelligence business -- having an intelligence case against someone to persuade someone that someone's a bad guy is not to be equated as having a case that holds up in court. There were going to be a lot of people in the middle ground, between not obvious bad guys, versus the innocents, where how you deal with it is going to be a very sticky situation and he's going to need all that year that he's given himself to close the facility.

James Zogby: Special attention has been given to Guantanamo in that it's off our shore and the question of whether U.S. laws do or do not apply. In addition there are the detainees in Afghanistan, in Iraq. We've signed an agreement with the Iraqis to turn over the ones they've requested and don't know what to do with the rest of them. And then other black sites. We don't know how many there are or where they are. What will ham there?

Paul Pillar: You're right to say there's more than just Guantanamo, but it's become a symbol. Just like Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

James Zogby: Does the problem go away? We just don't bring them to Guantanamo but we hold them somewhere else?

Paul Pillar: No, it does not go away. The right of habeas corpus does not on the face apply just to Guantanamo but other places as well.

James Zogby: If you want to give us a call overseas, the number is 001.202.842.5056. Here in the United States it's 1.800.528.2090. The president met with military leaders. Conversations were about Iraq and Afghanistan. He locked himself in this some areas on Afghanistan and gave himself some wiggle room on Iraq. You have dealt with both situations. What are the dangerous and what are the consequences of moving on each of those two as per his campaign commitments?

Paul Pillar: On Iraq there is the campaign commitment get in and out 16 months, which means may of 2010. I think one of the best things to happen for our new president happened before he took office and that was the agreement between the previous administration and Maliki to set this deadline for getting out. So my expectation is, after he continues to talk with the generals, as he did yesterday at the pentagon, that that 16-month time frame probably will slip some. Of course he always left himself wiggle room to what will be left behind. But he said, look, there's an agreement on the books between the U.S. and Iraqis that we have this deadline 2011. This is not a can I'm kicking down is road indefinitely. On Afghanistan, the big problem now is -- well, there's more than one problem -- one is deciding how much is a military task and how much is a task for other things that might need a lot of resources, particularly with regard to economic reconstruction. I have the reduction in popularity for president car sky, who has been our man, and a lot of discussion in West Virginia and inside the administration about exactly what our mission and objective in Afghanistan is right now. And there will be debates within the counties of government as to where the policy is going to wind up there.

James Zogby: One last question before we get to our calls and that is Al Qaeda itself. They're in a bit of a tizzy. They directed it at George Bush. He was an easier target for them. This is a little bit more confusing. He talks about his Muslim family in an interview and presents kind of a new target. They're not quite sure how to address him in the -- and the challenges he poses. He's raised expectations among those who in the Arab world in particular might have been receptive to the Al Qaeda message. Talk about the dangerous for the president himself and also what is this doing for the message coming from groups like that.

Paul Pillar: The president is such a contrast with the previous administration and you're right that the previous president was so much more convenient an enemy for Al Qaeda. The new man, I don't know if they're so much confused as really depressed over the idea that they don't have George bush to kick around anymore and they do have someone who is a person of color, who lived in Indonesia, who some mistakenly believe is a Muslim himself, who's middle name is Hussein. I think the president is very much aware of all those advantages and some of the things we've been having him say during the first 10 days are sending the message to what he describes as the Muslim world that I am different in a number of important respects. I am listening, not just telling. I know there were different views, hopes, dreams, and grieve advances within the Muslim world. I want to find out what they are. And especially when he sends out on envoy like George Mitchell and the only mission is basically to listen and then report that. That is consistent with the image of I am a different president than the very determined George W. bush.

James Zogby: Let's go to the first caller. Caller?

Caller: I have a question for your guest. The government admitted that the war was the wrong idea or the wrong way to do it after the wrong information was submitted to them.
Is that going to open up or pave the way for a legal matter against the government? There were a lot of people who dialed in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people.

James Zogby: Thank you, that's a good chemical weapon.

Paul Pillar: This question has come up in other guises. How much of a backward look, various things the previous administration did, not only to Iraq but other issues associated with the so-called war on terror. I think the new president has made his position clear -- he wants to look forward, not backward. He used those words and I don't expect president obama is going to favor a lot of diversion to take all these backward looks. This will continue to be a debate, continue to be commentary, but I see the current administration is not seeing that in their interests or America's interests.

James Zogby: Caller?

Caller: Yes, my boyfriend is being held by the bureau of homeland security in Florence, Arizona for the last eight months. Is there any hope that immigrants are going to get the same rights as Americans? For example, the right of him to sue his previous lawyer?

James Zogby: Tell me a little about the detention, why? Was he out of status?

Caller: No, his green card was up to date, everything was fine. Quite frankly he had a few drinks and he took a pack of cigarettes that he meant to pay for and put them in his pocket. They've held him for eight months now.

James Zogby: Thanks for the calm. That's a little bit beyond the scope of this conversation. But actually, I will tell you something -- as we get into the administration and we start to look at some of the immigration issues, that are as important -- I think we'll get some people on homeland security and talk about that. It's an issue we've talked about before, the treatment of immigrants, and some of the detention policies that have affected people here. I promise you we'll get into that later but I'm not going to direct that question to Paul. Let's go to Virginia for a caller. Your question.
Caller: I heard you say a minute ago that you said president obama wants to look guard and not backwards. You have to look backwards because George bush is the most murderous president this country's ever had.

James Zogby: There is an issue of accountability in terms of the fact we do talk to other governments about accountability and I know that there were members of congress who want to push this forward. What would happen if there were coming either out of the career guise of justice or some member of congress, a committee that says we really have to look at the cooked intelligence or we have to look at the torture memo and why was responsibility for it? The services involved and also for the public's demand for some accountability here?

Paul Pillar: I don't think you'll ever satisfy the demand. Whatever you came up with, there's always going to be something else, a larger offense that is being swept under the rug or not being sufficiently looked at. That's the kind of an title that is never satisfied.

James Zogby: Let's go to California again for a caller.

Paul Pillar: Yes, my question is the list of the terrorist organizations that was formed by the Bush administration and Hamas was considered as one of those groups, but they never carried out any terrorist act against anybody except the Israeli government -- is the new administration going to review this list again and see which justly was put in as a terrorist group –

James Zogby: Let me stop you there. I appreciate that question but that list was developed during the Clinton administration years. It was an executive order and then put into legislation.

Paul Pillar: The legislation in 1996.The anti-terrorist and effective death penalty act.

James Zogby: That goes back, you're right, to the Clinton years.

Paul Pillar: There are various lists but when we talk about the list, it was the one established by the 1996 legislation and how much has been on that list -- Hamas has been on that list from the beginning.

James Zogby: And other groups as well, for example the Tamil tigers. What was the criteria?

Paul Pillar: It has to be a group, has to have used terrorism and not necessarily directed at you but at least indirectly impacts U.S. interests. That's been interpreted as meaning you don't necessarily mean U.S. citizens having been kids but it negatively affects U.S. foreign policy and our interest in world stability. So something like the Tamil tigers, where they aren't killing Americans.

James Zogby: Montana, caller?

Caller: Hello. My question about Guantanamo. You talked about the range of prisoners. It's easy to imagine that there were prisoners who were sewer terrorists but we've either poisoned the legal case against or we have no case against. What do we do then?

Paul Pillar: The caller raises another problem, the tainting of evidence, if you will, by coercive techniques. If things were to end up for a case in a civilian will criminal court, that would be a major problem. In terms of the options, the administration is talk look a number of things. For some people it still would be a trial and a Swain criminal court. For others it would be -- the preferred solution for the United States but hard to do -- to get some other country, specifically the origin of the country of the person involved, to take custody of them. There have been a few instances of that. The other options range all the way up to setting people free. After whatever determination is made this is not a dangerous enough person and we don't have a criminal case against them.

James Zogby: There are other cases where torture was used or alleged to have been used tainting the evidence but there is other evidence against them that is admissible.

Paul Pillar: I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on television, but yes, that would be the case. In the previous administration, the standard of issues were looser. They would be somewhat tighter with regard to trials in regular civilian courts.

James Zogby: To Ohio for a call. Caller?

Caller: My question about foreign policy became a public knowledge information have been in the press about the prime minister of Israel, Olmert, demanding to ask President Bush to change the U.S. decision about the U.N. resolution which they and Condi rice have worked on with the delegation and demanding that the U.S. object or issues stain that resolution. We can the superpower, the beacon of democracy in the world and we're supposed to be looking at our own interests. Are we going to look in a different direction from the new administration? Are we going to be looking for America's self-interest --

James Zogby: We did talk about that on an earlier show. That was Olmert boasting and it has been disputed here whether or not that actually occurred. I don't know how that story played out in fact. Do you have anything further on it?

Paul Pillar: I don't know. This whole category of tough decisions yet for president obama to make and ones where people in the Muslim world and not least of all in Israel will be anxiously watching what direction he takes. During the presidential campaign he said many of the same things that candidates of both parties have said with regard to unflinching support for the state of Israel. The path he's going to phenomenon remains to be seen.

James Zogby: Thank you for joining us. That's all the time we have for this segment. We're going to come back with Paul Salem and talk about some broader issues in the Middle East and we'll take more of your calls, so stay tuned.
James Zogby: Welcome back to "Viewpoint." I'm Jim Zogby and my next guest is former general director of the Farris foundation and a founder of the Lebanese policy for studies.
Thanks for joining us. Paul Salem.

Paul Salem: Thank you for having me.

James Zogby: What I'd like to do is walk you through parts of president obama's interview to get your take on three specific blocs of that interview. But first a question about Gaza. The war in Gaza, its consequences, regional impact and where it parallels and where it differs from the Lebanon war in 2006. If you would -- that's a pretty sweeping question, but if you could help me with that. Who was strengthened, who was weakened? What was the broader regional impact of it? Does Hamas emerge in the same way that Hezbollah did from this?

Paul Salem: The Gaza war novice three axies of conflict. The Palestinian conflict, the Palestinian-Palestinian conflict and also a conflict between Syria and Iran in the background and Israel and the U.S. on the other side. The war in Gaza differs from the war of 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah. Hamas didn't fight as effectively as Hezbollah nor did Hamas have a charismatic spokesman, same as Hezbollah did. Nevertheless, Hamas has emerged from this politically potentially more powerful than others. In other words, Hamas may not have won big but the others lost big probably. The real contest going forward in terms of Palestinian politics is the next Palestinian election of course. Those are not set. There isn't even a Palestinian government that brings the two sides together, but sooner or later the Palestinian territories will have to have elections and I'm sure Hamas is going to bid to sweep those elections and emerge potentially as the preeminent spokesmen of the Palestinian people. In other words, we might be seeing the end of the Fatah phase of history or not. One shouldn't be too premature about all this. Elections will decide the issue but that is a possibility and that would be one major impact because having Hamas as the predominant spokesman certainly comply indicates the situation.

James Zogby: During did Lebanon conflict, Hezbollah certainly challenged Israel in a way and also, as you saw it play out "in the Arab street." We saw in post Lebanon polling numbers in some countries rather surprising popularity for Hezbollah as such. We haven't polled on this and so I'm not going to guess that Hamas does the same although I would assume that it was not as much a victory, as you said, for Hamas, as it was a defeat for some Arab leaders who came out of it following on Lebanon and following on this, now looking even more vulnerable in the eyes of their own people, unable to stand up and articulate an alternative edge and vision. And so, decision to the three conflicts, there was that other one between kind of a mass opinion and some Arab leaders. Would that be fair?

Paul Salem: Definitely. There are a number of things going on. There was certainly the tension between public opinion, which was in desperate sympathy with the civilian population of Gaza. Not so much with Hamas at all. But you saw a desperate situation for the population of Gaza. Keep in mind that the population of Gaza was trapped by Israel and Egypt. In 2006 they weren't trapped in the same way, and the pressure on Egypt to open up the cross for humanitarian reasons was an immense amount of pressure, and the fact that Jordan and Saudi Arabia somewhat stood by Egypt exacerbated tensions between Arab public opinion and their leaders. But there was another thing going on which did not go on in 2006, and this is a Palestinian conflict and has to do with people's reading of Fatah's approach, which has been to accept the peace process. That approach clearly has not load where it should have been. The situation on the west bank today is probably worse than ever. When Arabian public opinion took stock, setting aside the humanitarian aspect and other things, they surmised that maybe Hamas has a point because what Fatah has been doing hasn't been going anywhere and you saw a maturation of Arab public opinion to say maybe the peace process has been kind of defective because it's been leading down a dead end and both Israel and the U.S. have backed dishonest policies.

James Zogby: Last week we covered the dispatching of George Mitchell, comments by the president which I think were quite significant as well. But there are three blocks of the interview that I want to talk about. First is relating to the Mitchell tour itself. Let's listen to President Obama.

President Obama: And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals. What I've told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating in the past on some of these issues and we don't always know all of the factors that are involved. He's going to be speaking to all the major participants involved and then he will report back to me. From there we'll form late a specific response. What we want to do is listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have built up over the last several years and I think if we do that there's a possibility, at least, of achieving some breakthroughs.

James Zogby: There are two comments there that really stuck out. One was we all too often start by dictating and don't always know what the factors are and second, repeating that in a way by saying setting aside some of the preconditions that have existed and have built up. That was interesting, I thought.

Paul Salem: A couple of things are interesting. One is the choice of George Mitchell himself and I think president obama very much understands the symbolism of identity. He himself, reason African American with a Muslim middle name and such is using that to good effect and I think he understand that is a lot of the conflict and tension in the Middle East relate to symbols of identity and feelings of being marginalized, things he deals with very well. Not choosing a number of people who had been mentioned during the campaign as a negotiator but choosing George Mitchell, who is well known to be of Lebanese descent in the region and that was a smart move. The issue of hue mill city something that the president uses very well to soften anger against the United States. One of Iran's main complaints about the United States is a word which translates into sort of preaching or dictating. So I think president obama is very sensitive to the dynamics and the tempers in the Middle East. Of course none of this in the end is going to be enough. I think it's a good start, it's a sensitive way to start, but these issues also are not that -- listening is fine but we know what the problem on the west bank is. Sooner or later president obama and his negotiators are going to have to roll up their sleeves and begin to make decisions.

James Zogby: I want to go to the second part of the speech where he talks more broadly about outreach to the Muslim world. Let's listen to that.

President Obama: In my inauguration speech I spoke about you will be judged on what you've built, not what you destroy. What they've been doing is destroying things and over time I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except for more death and destruction. Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family.I have lived in Muslim countries.

Reporter: The largest one.

President Obama: The largest one, Indonesia.And so what I want to communicate is the fact that, in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that, regardless of your faith, and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, nonbelievers, regardless of your faith, people have common homes and dreams and my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes, we have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record. As you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago -- there's no reason why we can't restore that, and that, I think is going to be an important task, but ultimately people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions and I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say or what's on a television station in the Arab world but I think you'll see somebody who is listening, who is respectful and who is trying to promote the interests, not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to him as well.

James Zogby: There are three parts there that struck me. One was in mention of respect and his family, which during the campaign was simply taboo. There was no discussion of that. The second was the two-way communication which I've never heard before. Our public diplomacy has always been talking about America. Never talking to the American people about other religious and cultures, and the third was judge me by my actions, not my words. Those were three interesting telling points. Comment on those. How novel they are, if they are and what impact they'll have.

Paul Salem: What's certainly novel is President Obama's identity and his ability to translate the willingness to listen, which is not completely unique. U.S. presidents in the past have gone on tour and listened and been more diplomatic than maybe President Bush or others, but the fact this is coming from Barack Hussein obama, who is regarded in some participates of the world as a Muslim, whether or not he is. He has family who is and that's important in that part of the world. I would weigh the emphasis on the third part of his remarks, that the conflicts in the Middle East and the tensions, they're not only misunderstand, there's an occupation of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of the west bank, an enormous attack on Gaza -- they are real issues relating to U.S. foreign policy that need hard decisions, difficult decisions, hard bargaining and real diplomacy that goes beyond listening and being respectful, which are all excellent starting points, especially coming after an administration where the reverse was true. We really lived in a world after September 11 that bin Laden wished for. He wished for this cultural understanding to take place and I think the bush administration walked right into it and create add world of misunderstanding.

James Zogby: If you want to give a call, we can probably get one or two in. For the U.S. it's 1.800.52 .2090. Here's the third excerpt, addressed specifically to Iran.

President Obama: The Iranian people are a great people. The Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region. Their threats against Israel, their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe. Their support of terrorist organizations in the past. None of these things have been helpful, but I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are but where there are potential avenue news for progress, and we will, over the next several months, be laying out our general framework and approach, and as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclinch their fists, they will find an extended hand from us.

James Zogby: How's that going to be viewed in Iran?

Paul Salem: I think it's a good start but I think the president is putting his finger in a very, very deep perception in Iran and in American-Iranian relation is. The fact of the matter the U.S. knocked over the Iranian government in 1953 by a Coup d'etat engineered by the C.I.A. and put in place the shah from 1953 to 1979 against the wishes of the majority of the Iranian people. Then right after the Iranian revolution in 1979, which came with a lot of anger at the U.S. because of what happened previously. There was the take over at the ambassador, and that was followed by U.S. backing of Iraq in its war against Iran and then sanctions and isolation of Iran and then bush declaring Iran par part of the axis of evil. What I mean is that Iran perceives that the U.S. has been at war with Iran for decades. This is a serious problem and Iran is where it is today's partly, seeking nuclear weapons, finding allies wherever it can find them, guerilla groups, terrorists groups, partly out of a sense that America has been out to get it for decades, which happens to be true. The good news about that is that, this situation, you can resolve it by pulling back.
In other words, the U.S. needs to be, as president obama said, extend a very serious friend, not only of friendship but in mind of what happened in the past and try to open a new page with the Iranians. Of course the Aaron yons at that point have an enormous possibility responsibility as well, to change some of their policies. I think there's a lot of potential there but it's a very, very deep conflict that's decades old and the U.S. has a lot of responsibility there as well but there is a lot of potential for progress. If progress is made with Iran, which is the most powerful state right now in the Middle East, that would really bring a lot of benefits for other conflict areas in the Middle East.

James Zogby: Let's go to California. Caller? Hello.

Caller: Hello?

James Zogby: Yes, your question.

Caller: It's kind of a question/statement on the Hamas-Gaza annihilation that was going on here. Egypt and the Saudis stood with America, and on the other hand for obama to send George Mitchell, which everybody in the Middle East thought was an honest broker, he's not. He went everywhere for Hamas. Hamas won that election hands down. With Jimmy carter and the world watch, he got thrown out. All the rest of Syria, turkey, Iran, they're all standing straight against –

James Zogby: Let me stop you right now. Comment on that. Was it too early to start with a conversation with Hamas or did Mitchell start right dealing with countries that are our allies first?

Paul Salem: It's my view that you definitely talk to everyone and negotiate with everybody. That's how negotiations work and if you're not negotiating with opponents or people you have a problem with then who are you negotiating with? Of course in the U.S. context, there's a law. There are groups that are legally listed as terrorist groups, which a U.S. envoy legally cannot talk to. I understand perhaps the constraints under which George Mitchell is operating in terms of a face-to-face meeting, but I believe we'll see that George Mitchell will be seeking indirect contact with Hamas. There's no doubt that Hamas is a main player, if not the main player on the Palestinian scene. There's a lot of conduit to them. My view -- and I would agree with the wall -- caller that you need to talk to everybody -- of course, talking itself is not a resolution, it's not a policy, but it's part of any effective negotiation.

James Zogby: Let's go to Florida for a call. Hello?

Caller: Yes, hello.

James Zogby: Your question?

Caller: Yes, my question is about the Palestinians and the Israeli conflict. Every time I turn on the TV I hear George bush say, and everybody, Israel has the right to defend itself. What about the Palestinians? They have no right to defend themselves?

James Zogby: Thank you.

Paul Salem: I mean, I fully agreement everybody has a right to defend themselves. The problem in the west bank and Gaza is that Israel has been an occupying power there since 1967 and has not -- other than such an occupation has not even taken responsibility as an out on the west bank. They've violated all types of agreement while setting the land, building roadblocks, building walls. So certainly the situation is desperate.

James Zogby: But caller, I'm going to get into it with you at some point and have a guest on and talk about what constitutes self-defense. Both on the Israeli side -- was this legitimate self-defense? I think not. But then on the Hamas side, at what point do your tactics of resistance cross over into what is in fact ill get mat tactics that become terrorism. I remember a friend of mine, who was mayor of Nazareth speaking to Palestinians. This is the Palestinian mayor of Nazareth. He said you have the rights to self-defense and to armed resistance, but when you use it as badly as you do, you forfeit the right. I think there's a dilemma here on both sides. What cons tights legitimate resistance and legitimate self-defense and I think in this instance the Israelis clearly failed, and I think that the tactics from Hamas clearly failed. Boy, I guess I got myself into it. Let's go to U.K. and see what we hear. Your question?

Caller: Hi. Is the new administration willing to change the way they treat anybody that's born in the company they combine as -- members.

James Zogby: I'm sorry, with regard to answer years, that's something we have to talk about when we deal with the new homeland security people. I think you're absolutely right in terms of an issue that has to be raised on how we deal with our immigration policy. But I'm not going to talk to Paul about that right now.

Paul Salem: I have very little knowledge about that.

James Zogby: You have something else, call summer let's go to Ohio. Call summer your question.

Caller: My question is who will special envoy Mitchell be reporting to? President obama or the secretary of state? And the second part of the question, engaged in Iran, would that be also under the auspice sis of special envoy Mitchell or the state department?

James Zogby: I think it's going to be a separate envoy, we don't know yet. It's interesting that Holbrooke has added nassar, who is very respected, to his team. He will report directly to the president. I think one of the things Mitchell noted and the president noted is that the president himself has to be directly involved or has to give full support to Mitchell or I don't think Mitchell would have done it.

Paul Salem: Exactly and I think the president made it clear that Mitchell will be reporting to him. Richard Holbrooke I understand has been helping in some of the issues relating to Pakistan. I don't think it's an indication that he might be dealing with Iran. Everybody, indeed, is waiting for the Iran appointment. Dennis Ross was mentioned as a possible envoy but that's not yet been announced.

James Zogby: Thank you very much for joining us and I'll have you back before the Lebanon elections. "Newsweek" investigative reporter Mike Isikoff is next. And more of your calls. Stay with us.

James Zogby: Welcome back. My next guest is Michael Isikoff, investigative correspondent for "Newsweek" magazine. He was last with us to talk about that fascinating character, the whistleblower. I want to start with first one question that is sort of off the track and that's on lobbyists. The president set himself a standard that some think may be too high on no lobbyists in his government.

Paul Salem: Which by definition is too high because he immediately points as his deputy secretary of defense somebody that was a registered lobbyists.

James Zogby: Is this going to haunt him?

Paul Salem: It's going to be always in the background that he can't a indicted his own policy right from the get-go.

James Zogby: Let's get right into the executive orders on torture and actually the one on Guantanamo. Some roadblocks on the Guantanamo issue, and the first one is this case that is haunting the administration because of the failures of the Bush administration and the mistakes they made. Let us know where that story is.

Paul Salem: Here was a guy linked early on by the F.B.I. to the bombing of the S.S. Cole in October 2000 and it's a classic example of how the Bush administration completely bungled this issue. He is a guy who the F.B.I. could have clearly have made a case against in federal court, done the usual way according to the rules of evidence. They had hard documents tying him to the guys who bombed the S.S. Cole, killed 17 U.S. sailors. Instead, the Bush administration at the highest levels decided they wanted to use these people -- not try them but for intelligence purposes and experiment with these enhanced interrogation techniques, including water boarding to try to get intelligence from them.
The water boarding has backfired. It's become a huge embarrassment for the administration. It's unclear whether they ever got any useful intelligence from him but in sheery's case, he's one of two guys who were water boarding where the officials were so embarrassed that they destroyed the evidence.

James Zogby: So what happens now? Can they bring him to trial?

Paul Salem: He's been charged in a military commission. Obama said he doesn't believe these military commissions are fair. He asked for a postponement. The judge today in the migratory commission case refused demeanor he will almost certainly be ordered to postpone it. There's no way the obama administration can allow this case to go forward.

James Zogby: Does this open up a whole can of worms in terms of the other Guantanamo inmates?

Paul Salem: There is a very difficult roadblock. You can shut down Guantanamo but what do you do with these people who you think are really bad guys but you water boarded or used interrogation techniques, making it very difficult to bring them to trial in any courtroom.

James Zogby: So you wrote in your piece the Bush administration didn't think to the end of this game and boxed in their successor.

Paul Salem: Right.

James Zogby: You have a big push of some Democrats in congress to investigate this. What went wrong and how it happened and the whole liable goes on the department of justice. President obama says no. Where do you think this will go?

Paul Salem: It is a real thicket. There's cross precious on Obama. On the one hand he has intelligent officials who say we have to look forward. By the same token you have all this evidence of water boarding, with a whole new attorney general about to be confirmed, Eric holder has said was torture. Susan said a few weeks ago that it met the legal definition of torture. Torture is a federal crime. You can't ignore that. There is the feeling on a part of many that there has to be some accountability for the public and for the people who did this to lay out there what took place. Whether you can actually ever criminally prosecute them is another question. You may not be able to get too far but the important question is open it up.

James Zogby: We are done. Sorry, I want to get into this and I hope you'll come back. I want to thank all my guests and those of you who called and those who watched. See you next week on "viewpoint."