You get tot often hear from multiple cia directors at the same place at the same time, speaking on the record. I would like to welcome to the stage our moderator, Principal Deputy director of national intelligence, the honorable sue gordon along with the honorable john brennan, the honorable general michael hayden, the honorable porter goss and the honorable jobs what does judge webster. Judge webster. Thank you. [applause] how lucky are we . I think i may be the first moderator in this programs history who has the joy of saying that she worked for everybody that was on the panel. Gentleman, im going to try to make you proud. This is remarkable. Here is what we are going to do, take a little bit of a rock throughboth romp their histories and 10 years, and comment on the issues 10 years, and comment tenures and comment on the issues. Can you look at us when you address us . Yes, sir. We are getting it back echo. I love that. What is the greatest threat or issue that consumed your tenure, and what do you say the greatest issue or threat facing the nation today from a security perspective . John, you get to go first. Congress is an answer . We will get to congress. That was a problem because i had to deal with oversight committees, particularly the report that came out of the Senate Committee on the Interrogation Program which i had to fight because i thought it was very onesided. It did not highlight the tremendous work the cia did keeping this country safe. I think there is a lot of partisanship that went into that. One of the real challenges that i faced, and this administration is facing, there are so many issues of strategic consequence and importance. The pace was frenetic. You deal with issues like north china,tourism, cyber, and go back to the white house situation room for meetings. These are issues that have some issues andy decisions attached to them and it takes a lot of time to understand and absorb and make sure you understand what the implications are of whatever moves, because the United States is the only global power that has a role in every part of the world. The pace and intensity of the issues became such that it was really difficult to deal, not just with the to make sure you prevent the next tourist attack or cyber attack, but may be dealing with issues that were on the back burner. Andh koreas Missile Nuclear programs, space conflict , and other things, it is trying to strike that balance and the Intelligence Community and cia is integral to all of that from an analytical standpoint, to make sure you provide the enlightenment policymakers need to carry out their responsibilities. When i carry out when i compare what is going on now compared to 20 years ago, the pace of information and how quickly things happen in the technologically advanced world, it makes the intelligence profession so much more challenging and important. Fantastic. We will come back to some of those themes. You asked what was the dominant in office and what i do now . In office, i was director 2006 to 2009. We were pretty much in an all hands on deck battle station for counterterrorism. It consumed a great deal of the time we had, and the energy of the agency. That was not without cost, we knew there was a cost. I tell the story of david betray euscoming to see me petra coming to see me. I said, david, the cia has never looked more like oss than it has now. America is safer but it cannot be the only thing. It is the global Espionage Service and needs to address some of the questions john was suggesting. It was ct as a big chunk. I will be very candid with regard to what it is i would worry about now. Us. Not cia us, United States us. I have been saying for the last several months the most disruptive element in the world today is the United States. It is not because we are being aggressive or have legions ready to cross borders or anything like that, that we are in a massive transition globally. We have assumed a particular and peculiar role for the last 75 years. That role isn on eroding and the rest of the world is looking at us and saying, where are you guys on 2. 0 . 1. 0 you created and sustained, and now they are asking, what is it you view your role to be . Until that question is answered i think the globe is in a whole lot of whitewater until we answer that question. 2003 and 2004 and so wash, the whole gang radical islam and how to deal with it. Iraqd a rock and calm and combat troops and how to asymmetric warfare of a type we had never ,een, abstract in some ways dealing with things we had not been set up for. The Intelligence Community was called on very definitely. Mission one is to make sure we stay safe and two, to deal with the enemy, find them, identify them, no them better. All of this is going on incidentally at the same time that congress decides to impose its wisdom on the architecture of the Intelligence Community and change it. This means that the plane you are flying in when it took off may not be the plane you are flying in when you land, and you are supposed to decide why you are flying. This was a tough complication. I started out as dci and ended retiredia and finally. I think the latter may have been the best choice. It was Interesting Times but i am very proud of the men and women in the agency and what they did to take up the slack we had in our approach to enemies who were brandnew to us in a way we had never really seen or experienced before. A lot of innovation, a lot of challenge that was not on a shelf that we could pull off the solution for. Suddenly we had to bring all that together and it had to be wellinformed with good information. That was job one, rebuilding what had been the hollowed out operation for the Central Intelligence agency and all our defense programs. Plus, the other agencies that were involved as a team effort. I think there were 15 agencies at that time. Today, i could not agree more with mike on what the problem is. ,o right through the litany obviously we have still got the radical islamic war terrorist problems. They have taken a slightly different turn and create new problems. That is a huge threat as we have seen and continue to see. We have Nuclear Proliferation which is right on the front page staring us in the face, whether it is north korea, iran, or some other way. The aggressors have not gone away, mr. Bruton and perhaps putin orpaying mr. Jinping. There is no question those are areas we have to Pay Attention to because if they are not on the front page today, they will be tomorrow. I think those are critical. Ciber, everybody comes through as that is the one we have to we have thee greatest dependency and most vulnerability in terms of our. Yber we have created this incredible basis of how we do business in this country and is something , we wouldi system out be sort of helpless. Ink how helpless florida was a recent hurricane, how puerto rico is today without power and a grid. When you talk about the solutions to the problems of dealing with those things and others, you will find washing has failed us in coming up with rules of engagement on how to deal with so many things. We deal with publications, leakage, all these things are out there. As mike has underscored, there is a deep divide in this country right now which is causing us not to get into solutions we need to be what we are, which is the greatest forced on the continent and the whole world. Amen. I am sir you have got to follow that. Sorry you have got to follow that. I am ready for anything i think i am not far off from my concern. For thestent threat years i was there fell within the pattern of intergovernmental relationships, which in my obstacle toented an our doing our work effectively. It was a problem on both sides of the aisle. When i came on board, i came on board because the congress had doubts about the credibility of what they were hearing from us about such things as the iran c ontra deal, arms for hostages, issues of that time. We decided to address that issue. This one came out well. We decided that part of the problem was that, when our people spoke to the congressional closed committees, the closed hearings, there was werern about some of them concerned about the gargoyles they saw sitting around the room they did not recognize and did not trust. The distressed was mutual. Distrust was mutual. They danced around the questions in a way that caused considerable lack of trust with the members of the congressional committees. With the help of some others, we took it on in a simple way. We said, from now on, all our testimony must be accompanied by correct, candid, complete, and consistent. You are a question here a question you do not feel comfortable answering because you do not know who is in their, do not say you have an answer does you do not have an answer. Say you are not authorized to give it. You will take it back to headquarters to satisfy their needs. It is amazing how that criticism and him ended for that period of time. Looking for solutions that were interfering with us doing our work. Later on, we got into the issues of desert storm and Desert Shield. Where would we go from Desert Shield, which was the aerial attack to the ground attack of desert storm . Whendent bush had said, you have degraded 50 of their hardware. The problem was, we were not seeing it the same way the pilots were saying it. And we were relying on space imagery. What we can see from the sky about what was true on the ground. To president ed it bush during a briefing. I said, i think you ought to know we are having some problems agreeing. You have got so many points every time with percentages went up and we gave our reports on the kills for the day and so on. He said, you mean pilot euphoria . Pilot in world war ii was the then director of the cea cia. I said, president , those are your words. We had a hard time at credibility because that determined when we would launch the ground war. We worked hard on it to try to get it. A lot of people thought we had a policy interest in it. It was important that we were not making policy. We were providing the intelligence upon which wise policy decisions should be made, and that should never be questioned. ,hen we work through that one because we were not trying to dissuade them from launching the ground attack. Saying we were not getting their as quick as the ballots wished and thought we had. That, over the years affects our ability to serve the government leaders. It depends on the level of trust and how they feel we are being square with them, and just as importantly that they are being square with the American People about where we were. So i think that will always be a recurring challenge and the nature of their jobs and the nature of our jobs. It is a serious threat if it is not addressed. As i suggest, there are solutions to it. The factattest for that the Intelligence Community has the same view of the andty and importance it is exactly as difficult as you suggest, to continue to maintain that. Mentioned china, russia, or korea, north korea, iran as issues that were vexing you then and are present now. Anything surprising about the threats or activities of those large persistent threats that you see today . Anything surprising about what russia is doing, what china is doing, the expansionism from china, russias move into perception management and managing their reputation, anything surprising to you . I will start by going to something that i recently read in a book by Graham Allison which reminded me. This is not new. This has been going on since recorded history that you have one group in power and another group starts to spin off. Can they work out an accommodation to share the planet together or not . I think that where we are with the hegemon of these other great, what i will call aggressive powers, because they are clearly aggressive ,putin is a person that many people think about and many have forgotten that putin has not forgotten and we divided the ussr worked hard to undermine russian influence with the cia for Confederate States after the law came down and all that. So is it surprising that we have a side war operation going on against the United States of america and our free democratic, open society which is about as exposed to anything anyone wants to put out there and social media, which is in no way regulated or verified, just gossip, so to speak. Are we surprised . We are not surprised. Has the Intelligence Community forgotten this . The Intelligence Community is on top of it. The Intelligence Community has a limited number of capability resource and that is one of the jobs all of us have, to make sure American People understand it is a great investment to have Congress Give sufficient amount of money for the intelligence people to do their job. I think that is very important for you to keep your eye on that wall. Ball. China is clearly doing many things. These are clearly things you have to worry about, but do i see a dustup tomorrow morning jinping sayingi the ultimatum is now or obliteration . No, i do not see that. When i see is a long, gradual working that will corrode or even rode our influence and provide an alternative which we may not like, to other people in our world who are controlled by authoritative governments of one type or another. That is an important background item. Am i more worried about the grid going down this afternoon and all banking stopped or Something Like that . That could be on the president s desk very quickly. Those are the kind of differences i would make and i obviously do not think you would want to say we only do one at a time. To johns point, that is one of the great challenges. Johns point is very well taken, and he served at a time that makes my job look very easy. I just had a war to fight. He had lots of wars to fight. Mike, you describe one of your greatest threats as us, and im going to paraphrase, the lack of Global Leadership or certainty where we are going. If you take what porter said about china and russia moving in aggressively, does the fact that there is a little more space for them to take some of that more imperative, is that a concerning issue . Sure. I teach across the river at george mason and occasionally i have david sag or come over. David sager come over. He has written the first draft of history for the Bush Administration security policy. He spends 75 minutes laying out all the ok, that is very. Two sentences, what is president obama trying to do . The answer, he was trying to better align the definition of American Interest with the realities of american power. That is an unarguable proposition. Participate in arguing that he was getting the mass wrong as president math wrong as president. Now we have another president ande America First is not nine iron away from retrenchment. It is at best, a chip shot. There are surprising continuity in policy in america pulling back. , i know they guy most difficult of all maneuvers as retreat because it can turn into route. I will not say we are retreating, that is not the right word. If we are recalibrating, balancing our interests with the reality of our power, we need to do that very carefully and i do not think we are. I think we are leaving the space you have suggested. I think there is a bit of a vacuum, the lack of a push back in the ukraine involving the russians to do certain things. We certainly left a big chunk of the stage vacant in syria that allowed the russians to go back into the region for the first time in half a century. I get the balancing, and im looking at john because he was most recently in government. The things he is delivering to the policymakers that try to set the framework so they can get the balance right, and i do not think we have gotten the balance right and i do think we created space and other states have pushed into the space. Sue, that is very different from young, that is our line, cannot come across, we do not need to accommodate the growth and power of the peoples republic of china. Of course we do. I think we are getting it from time to time, very wrong. John . Yes . Bio,did not recount your but you as well as others in this panel have served both in the Intelligence Community and the policy community. You in the Intelligence Community, you legislative judge , fbi intelligence, but john, lets start with you. Talk about the intersection of intelligence and policy, and then we can add in intelligence and the other elements of the american system. Cia spent 25 years at the trying to learn intelligence. It was a sexually reward exceptionally rewarding. And i had a chance to be on the policy side and i must tell you, policy is really hard. Governance in the 21st century is really hard. All the issues we pointed out, they are all challenges and problems that are fraught with all sorts of National Security implications. Whether one of them, you go for north korea, syria, ukraine, all of them defy easy solutions. My time on the policy side really made me appreciate just how difficult it is to try to strike that right policy balance with going to protect u. S. Advance interest without making some situations worse. I think we have had experiences , andtime where u. S. Might power was exercised across the world and it did not go that well. I do not want to defend policies of the Left Administration or vious ones, but i found last administration or previous ones, but i found it enlightening to be on the policy side of the table. Intelligence did a great job of pointing out all the risks and challenges, and for the policymakers, to be able to do what is necessary. Having worked at the white house as president obamas assistant for the first term, there are one ways that decisions fall the president s shoulders that entails the u. S. At risk. All of the president s i served for, from obama to reagan, i think all of them exceptionally seriously took their obligations to put u. S. Lives at risk only when it was necessary, and in order to protect u. S. Interest. Getting back to mikes point, the world is very unsettled. There is turmoil for a variety of reasons, but the uncertainty about the u. S. Role, particularly in places where our partners and allies have relied on us for so many years and now they are concerned, what does this mean as far as u. S. Support . Under what conditions and scenarios . Questions about article five obligations on the part of nato. Im not going to defend or criticize policies, but i must say that trying to figure out exactly how to do with conundrums, that is what they are, whether it be north korea or afghanistan or others, they are not easy policy answers. That is why intelligence needs to do the best job it can pointing out not just the pitfalls and calamities, but also opportunity analysis. What are the things the u. S. Can do that might in fact help mitigate some of the threats out there . Intelligence professionals frequently can see these issues more clearly because they have worked them so indepth. With most impressed policymakers who really went to school on these issues, read the memos and papers, absorbed it, understood their are some real sect and and third and fourth second and third and fourth order effects. That is really important. , take the same question and talk about intelligence of the congress. Theooking at it from combination of experience i have had on the hill and executive branch, what i would come down to is a meeting i remember in the white house. I was asked by important people sitting around a table in a secure room, do you have the capability in the Intelligence Community to get this information . The answer was yes. Do you have the authority . The answer again was yes. A pause. But, sir, i do not have the policy. That was a huge problem in 2004 and 2005, about rules of are these here it terrorists . Everything was a new question. The whole problem of trying to come down to our role and say, these are the facts that we have and we can do this and this if you want a response, but we want to inform you you make the policy and we will tell you what should be part of the response. That was a very hard lesson to seem to get through because there was so many things happening, as mike and john said, day today that were taking your eye off the ball because you had to deal with what was happening in iran or somewhere else. Is, thei express it Oxford English dictionary word of the year for 2016 was p osttruth. That is where we are today. It happens when you do not have truth . You do not have a lot of trust and you do not get things done. You back that up a little further and say, how has this damaged the Intelligence Communitys role to do policy . It is pretty clear because there is so much politicization of everything that is going on today that it is hard to have the trust that gets you to a point where you have confidence in the answer that is the true answer. Am i talking to the right person . Am i hearing the right thing . Do i believe this . Crisis. A the last three president s have pointed out there is a crisis of confidence going on and it has gotten worse and worse and worse. I think perhaps it is important to say that there is a partner in that, and that is one that gets me in trouble a lot, called the media. I would dare say we are talking intelligence,s of which i think is strong and good and beneficial. I cannot say the same thing about the media, and i used to be in the newspaper business. I will simply say this i think we gave way for accuracy to get speed. We gave way from speed to get sensation, and now we do not seem to worry about whether it is true or not. Is it an important subject . It does not matter if it is true. Do i have an example . Sure. How about duke lacrosse. How about the university of virginia with rolling stone. , october gary sick surprise . That was a total scam. These are the things that have caused people to doubt the veracity of what they are seeing on television and hearing on television and reading in the media. Thishas created part of problem because now when the intelligence guy gets up and says something in public, is it politicized right off the bat or is it credible because he is a person of the intelligence ethos . [applause] i am not campaigning for anything but i feel this very deeply. Let me take that a little just thetical and say reality of the openness of the world. I am old. Talk about the soviet union we were the first ones that knew about launches of missiles that no one had ever, did not know existed as it happened beyond the horizon and no one could see it. Now i know when north korea launches a missile first when cnn reports it. So there is so much more soormation openly available, many former intelligence officials out in the private sector bringing the craft of intelligence to the Business Community and the world. There are so many other, not just the media, but other opinions that sound a lot like the same truths. So lets talk about the dialogue that the Intelligence Community needs to have with the American People. That this reasons event exists is because that is one of the one things that you were trying to create. There was more confidence and what we had to say. Justerspective was not born of someone commenting on it. So how are we doing in that conversation with the American People . Judge, i want to get to you but i want to start with john because he started this thing. Alk amongst yourselves the general is by far the most articulate spokesperson for intelligence and i take nothing away from anybody else, but mike has gotten a lot. He could not figure out how to get out there. Do you want to start . We are a very Democratic Panel here. Am i on . All you are doing is you are a warmup act for judge webster. I think you need to parse this in two layers. There is number one, the portion of our craft that remains a government monopoly, and a portion of our craft that is no longer a government monopoly. Chunk of the big old craft. I think johns purpose in launching this is that we need to better explain the portion of our craft that is a government monopoly to the broader american society, that they are no longer willing to outsource legitimizing what we do to the committees. They want to know more themselves. That is part of a broad societal trend. There is no interest in pushing back against it. That is happening. Box, weour monopoly have to better explain it, more fully explain it, and i fully understand that will probably shave points off of effectiveness, but they will not let us do any of it unless they have faith in what we are doing. The other part is the stuff we used to do, that used to be a government monopoly and is no longer a government monopoly. We now live in a much richer Information Age and here i think our challenge is, how do we create a membrane that is more permeable from our monopoly circle out to the no longer a monopoly circle . So that we can harvest, take advantage of the wisdom being created in the Broader Society without putting at undue risk the stuff that has to say stay secret. That is kind of the metaphysical challenge we have now. I think the trust and confidence of the American People in the Intelligence Community, intelligence professionals would be stronger if the first customer of the workligence communitys accepted unambiguously the unanimous position of the Intelligence Community in terms of russian interference into the election. [applause] customerthat first does not accept that and when that first customer denigrates that work and the work of the professionals in the Intelligence Community, how then can the American People embrace the work and mission of the Intelligence Community . There is a real disconnect there that has unfortunately undermined what the great women and men of the Intelligence Community who put their lives on the line and work 24 7 and their family sacrifices . Was greater acknowledgments of the professionalism and integrity of that work and those people, i think the American People might be more accepting of the value of intelligence. I am sitting between john and porter and those two thoughts just got connected. You brought up post truth which is decisionmaking based on feeling and personal preference rather than objective reality, which is what we deliver. If we deliver objective reality, it is one thing to argue the objective reality. It is quite another thing that i do not have to make a decision on objective reality. Posttruth is of i can make a decision based upon feelings and preference. And that is really an existential threat to the craft. Well said. Of theink one unfortunate realities as a current member in the Intelligence Community is, john, you are youre incredibly well articulated point about when the first customer questions what we do and our manner that we do it. We are used to having our work questioned. That is the nature of intelligence. That makes intelligence better. Western and the motivation is difficult. What i can say questioning the motivation is difficult. We probably spend more time in the Intelligence Community with this president that i have actual time in conversation, in presenting it. The respect for the craft of the women and men of the Intelligence Community and the role in those settings is very well recognized and understood. It is the coupling of the public and private truth that i think we have to work on the American People. It is not meant for you, that im going to say it. Did you wiretap trump tower . [laughter] no, i did not. I did not think so. Judge webster, this conversation with the American People i am barely heard hearing. I need an interpreter. This conversation with the American People. Conversation of the american touch with the American People. We should have a conversation with the American People about the need of intelligence and the credibility. Another thing you have to take into account is, in our work, the importance of the availability of secrecy to get our job done in the right way, sometimes that is mistaken. Intelligence is the intentions and capabilities of our adversaries, not the sole purpose, but the important function we are talking about today. We have to do that in a way that the American People can have confidence in the objectivity with which we have approached that assignment. And i had some disappointing experiences with top leadership on the political side, on the policymaking side, for people who assumed if you do not agree with me you are cooking the books. Regardless of how accurate it might be. I remember that worst experience , on whether to go to desert storm from Desert Shield or not. Wisely toh address your question contacted his chief advisor to summon a meeting of all of us and all of the political fact people who were making policy judgments about the question of how far along had we gone and how far had the government gone in accomplishing his requirements to engage in desert storm . It was probably one of the worst meetings i ever attended. They summoned in my first on space imagery. A general officer, who would not know a political issue if he saw one, and accused him of not wanting to go to war because obviously, his reports did not jive with the totalitarian that was coming the other direction. Not one, i am talking about people i admire. Not one of them stepped in to speak for the general that i am talking about, who is still a very good friend of mine and i respect him completely. Whats reporting accurately the totality of our Intelligence Community did. He didnt understand what they were talking about. We have to be able to break through that kind of distrust and uncertainty before we can take a case to the American People about having a conversation in public. Fortunately, that is history. I think that basically, we are ,ack to a better relationship radicular early some levels in the Current Administration if i could speak that way. The best example, when President Trump said isnt it wonderful we can go back to waterboarding . Said, it did not to me. Hing that kind of honesty in relationship has got to exist at all levels and until it does, i do not think the conversation with the public will go very far. I started off by saying credibility is our greatest threat, and we have got to work at that seriously. Sense. That make whether in involves bringing outside committees in or bringing other avenues of presentation, i do not really know the answer. Realistic in understanding that people tend to assume if you do not agree , you must have a different policy position, not that you have facts to take you in another direction. Very good. One more question. You are going to respond in a tweet. [laughter] characters. Then we are going to open it up to you to get your questions ready. We have a bunch of emergent leaders in this room. They may not even know it, but they will one day be sitting and talking about the world they have led. What is the most important lesson you learned in your tenuire, and what advice would you give to these Young Leaders sitting in this room . Tweets are now 280 characters, arent they . [laughter] just saying. This is how funny this is. This is how apolitical i am. I did not realize i was walking into that. Humility. Sons, one is a Real Intelligence professional who understands the craft you realize how much you do not know, how much there is to know and how much there is to learn. In my career, there was many times i was amazed at just how little i actually knew and how much knowledge, and from knowledge comes wisdom. Wisdom is something that is acquired over time. The second thing is teamwork. Mike came with a lot of great sports analogies. I played basketball growing up. Some teams had hotshots but were not champions. Empowered one another, those were the teams that excelled and were champions. The same thing is true in the Intelligence Community, in the cia. To i was in the cia i tried make sure cia officers could work as much as possible as teams, because their responsibility was to make sure their contribution would empower the rest of the agencies, community, and the u. S. Government, and they have to understand how the rest of the Agency Community can empower. Hem playing as a team humility and teamwork, that is going to be the things that will drive success. Webster, best lesson and best advice. Prongs draw from two , theto my heart truth foreveryears of god wounded foster earth and dies among its worshipers. Secondly, on the walls of the truth, you shall know the and the truth shall set you free. If you were guided in those are rendering a Significant Service to your country. Sorry, porter. You have to follow that. [laughter]. I cant rhyme of the Ancient Mariner is about the only thing i can remember. Of the Ancient Mariner is about the only thing i can remember. Something i learned a long time ago when i signed up for the agency in the 1950s, that is the quality of the people in the intelligence world that we have is absolutely exceptional. There are very few exceptions to that but always you will find a problem somewhere. The dedication of people who allow, without any promise of public reward or something coming along, is to me a remarkable thing. I found that still when i went back to the agency as a director and i thought, i do not know how we have been fortunate enough as a country to have this but it is something we need to appreciate and nora. As you do that, you run the risk of exposing them to public censure and things go wrong, and that inevitably happens. I think by and large, i am so positive about our country and our ability to do things and lead and do the right stuff and be the force for good, and a large part of it is our Intelligence Community. That is the most important thing i learned and i still follow it very closely every day and i am proud every day. Mike, bring it home. My extended tweet would be take heart. American espionage is not just compatible with the with our democracy but it is essential. Frightened people do not make good democrats and begin to gnaw on their neighbors latest liberties and privacies. Perfect. Welldone. [applause] the you have any questions for this Remarkable Group . Let me adjust my eyes. There was discussion for the need to secrecy. There is also need transparency. How do you balance the two . The committee in the house for a long time. Jobas always whether our was to overlook or look over. It came down to both actually. Building that trust. Way, there it this is a perception in the public that there is a right for everybody to know everything. Right, theas a public has a right to know. There are laws that say there are some things that are classified and you dont have a right to know that right now. Maybe sometime later, not right now. Client privilege. Transparencyf the on the one side, its great. We would like to have that information out there. But without doing damage to our operations in capabilities over here. Thats a judgment call. It isnt always right. You actually need both. Transparency if i can. I am careful about mentioning names. I dont want to low anyones cover. I agree. Its a condition to be managed and not a problem to be solved. Is fulcrum of that talent moving in the direction that we are required to be more transparent because we just in a Broader Society and we cannot accommodate us. Were going to have probably be more trans air in the future then we were comfortable with in the past. That is to get the validation of the population we serve. That his in the trend over the years. Someone is coming to you. Percent, this information has been pivotal for any country launching a war. They did not have social media back then. Now we see this information in the form of fake news. What is the role of the cia is typically in the Intelligence Community . I will try entrance late. It. Nd translate where ever there has been propaganda, we havent seen the reach and the volume as we havent social media. Centralthe role of the Intelligence Agency in helping manage the perception . What is the role of the intelligence Immunity Community encountering this . Would the heroic saying this is whats going on. Dont conduct diplomacy. The nation is trying to manipulate the political process here. Its a classic intelligence function. The most important agencies that are going to have defend this country in terms of the domain, and the digital they worked so closely together and helping to understand, uncover, and report what the russians are doing. There are many manifestations of their act 70. Activity. Now we see more things about the , itonas and those rings just demonstrates how honorable that environment is to those who want to do us harm. A lot of these Public Services have the ability to do that or they are tapping into entities that can quickly put things on platforms and purport to be a u. S. Organization. Its going to be a challenge. That is the challenge of the next decade, trying to ensure the security of that. Our future security may depend on it. Our adversaries are taking bullet outage of the openness of our society. Spec, this per demonstrates respect, this. Emonstrates this is for state dialogue and wrecking mission. Recognition. You are seeing what facebook is doing to be part of the solution. You see awareness about this happening. Those decisions to make things open and public so that the community, particularly in the digital environment, can be involved. Im going to go to a different section. This site is going to be very upset with me. Worked for you back in 2004. Since you were able to be the director of nsa and cia, where do you see our cooperation going in the future as far as us getting information out there. We were need to know and then need to share. Where are we going with all thats happened western mark happened . Can i get you to sign my book . [laughter] days, if wehe dark were marking on the curve, are in community was pretty integrated compared to the best. Market on a curve. It was insufficient. I think weve made remarkable progress. You set in motion a couple of things to make this better. We had the joint duty initiative. That changes us over a long amount of time you. You have the i. T. Integration. I think the trend lines are good read. This is the problem. Human we are not hiding the ball on anybody. There is a certain point at which information becomes relevant, that the dots come together. There are dots down here that dont come together in that cylinder. If i can somehow supposed them to this cylinder, i could have a eureka moment. This is a forever problem. How do we get the points of light available to the other customers without overwhelming them in noise . Thats a continuous process. It is fundamentally. Talking people, where did you start in the agency . Ints what we have counterintelligence and counterterrorism. We need more that integration of effort. You need to understand at the working level the value and relevance of the other intelligence agencies capabilities and assets. You can see, you can do that . Great magic in many respects. Last question, front row. You have 30 seconds. I work in the information technologydge he sector. There is always this suspicion that we are too close to the Intelligence Committee. Anyway we can assure our warned customers we are not too close to you . Has their own interest. A foreign industry sometimes need to believe that. I think there needs to be a leader policy. Wrecking dies there are always going to be imperatives. , what and gentlemen amazing panel. [applause] thank you. I could not echo you anymore. That was in readily insightful and awful. Thoughtful. Thank you for that. Final coming into the throes. We are into our last panel. This will touch on the difficulties. This was one of the questions asked. Moderating this is an ambassador from the Elliott School of international affairs. The Panel Includes the chief of privacy at national intelligence. The privacy and Civil Liberties and thefor the cia codirector of the National Security program. Please join me in welcoming the panel. [applause] good afternoon. Im the dean of the Elliott School of international affairs. George washington university. We are delighted to have you or this last panel of the day. We are conducting as the knowledge and eight transparent world. Espionage in a transparent world. One allens the issue of transparent the that is incumbent on a them a craddick society with secrecy necessary. We are talking about the safeguards Intelligence Community. This is an increasingly interconnected world or in world. The sharingiscuss of intelligence information and context of. In the stellar panel of experts. Chief of the the Civil Liberties at the director of national intelligence. Next is the office of privacy at the cia. Finally, codirector of the center for justice and National Security. Thank you very much for joining us day. Let me begin with you. As we are having this conversation today about the balance between the secrecy and transparency, this debate has been going on as long as weve had an intelligence function. It is inherent in a free society that also has to conduct espionage for National Security. I would like to hear from your per spec to you respect. Per spec to. Perspective. Does this with us at eight this is a antigen . At advantage. It has to be done properly. I think what most arms of the telogen Intelligence Community, a lot of information goes out. That can really be extremely damaging. I want to distinguish an unauthorized disclosure. We carefully review information to make sure we are making available response in the matter of Public Interest and it has been carefully reviewed for information that would compromise sources. Transparency,bout we hear questions and concerns regarding whether or not we are putting intelligence personnel in a difficult position where we are telling them to guard against unauthorized disclosures but promote transparency. The dutywants is its to protect intelligence sources and methods and to handle classified information properly it is our obligation to have accountability. We need to find responsible ways to get more information to the public to they can understand what we do and what our authorities are and how we implement those authorities. There are reasons why it is challenging. It takes a painstaking assess. It is with Intelligence Committee for as long as we been in distance, we must have see receipt to be affect. Secrecy to be affect you. Effect to. Effective. We have to maintain the secrecy of our source. Trust,r to retain public they must have confidence that they understand what we do and be consistent with our expectations. That can be very difficult. One of the things we have in colleaguesing to our in the addressee advocacy it is a slow process. There is no magic bullet. Theink we will cut through line by line review needed to anger out what information can be put out. I have one additional note. When you are doing transparency with this you care, you have to pull unlimited resources. You have people who are doing the work, they are the analysts, the Program Managers on the front line carrying out that authority. They are in the best position. We pulled them in, we are pulling them away from their operational and kidneys. That is another thing we must carefully balance. If we dont have the trust of haveublic and we dont foreign partners confidence we our legitimacy, if we cant do that, we are losing public trust, which impacts our ability to conduct direct to read we cant have the flexibility we need as a community to carry out our mission. I think you given us the quote of the day. As we said, this is a debate thats been going back and forth since the creation of the Intelligence Community. The reason i suspect it continues is the lines moving with regard to how transparency and secrecy in the era of snowden disclosures or Chelsea Manning or whatnot. Issuean be pushing the towards more secrecy. What is the current debate with the reauthorization . It affects the roger rotter debate broader debate. What are those pillars of the debate that policymakers ought to be thinking about how to balance . Specifically, most of the dont relate table to transfer nancy area transparency. There are some areas where the Intelligence Community can provide more specifics about activities that are conduct did. Conducted. The Intelligence Committee should provide the number of americans. Since this conversation has dragged on. Congress may want to its, on the scale. There are some reporting issues as well. I think for the main issues around section seven out to 702, and allows the government to target foreigners overseas without getting a warrant, even if they are communicating with americans. Has is an authority that been used to great effect as a Counter Terrorism tool to monitor terrorist overseas and disrupt their plots. Tore is a serious effort disturb the core functionality of 702, to conduct surveillance of foreign threat. Concern among of Civil Liberties advocates and lawmakers and that impacts 702 on americans, this is really the scope of communication. Detections backend if they are sufficient. Thats where youre likely to see Congress Take action. On the issue of the scope of thedental election, permissible targets is extremely broad. Its essentially any foreigner overseas. The intelligence is defined quite rightly. On paper, this law could levy targeting of an ordinary citizen overseas who is not this acted of any connection to terrorist. I dont know if that is how its being used. I hope it is. Its allowed under the statute here in statute. The problem is not just the privacy rights of foreigners. They do have rights under treaties. Of foreignhe poll targets, the wider the role of americans who will be incidentally surveilled. Its likely this could just be innocent conversations between americans and people they know overseas. The question being asked about whether or not the scope of surveillance could be narrowed to people suspected of connections to foreign powers or information about security threats. Consistent with the National Security discussion. I will try to be brief. This is referred to as back door searches. Agencies,ce that went they can search through the information for the americans a are interested in. Some from a Civil Liberties perspective, that is problematic. They usually have to go to court to get a warrant. In order to avoid getting a worn under section 702, they must that they are not interested in any american target. You can go looking for particular americans. Times. Said it many its a bait and switch. Inconsistent with the spirit if not the letter. I think we are to see some action on that in congress. In youk you for that are are at the epicenter of this balance. Might give your nonpolitical, professional of what is at stake as reauthorizees to 702. In a wayreauthorize that more nearly constricts the authority. Implications . Implications if these need toes be mandated to make these . It authorizes the targeting of nonu. S. Persons located outside the United States. Its a large program. It should be put in context. Were 106,000 targets of 702 collection. Thats a substantial program. More 106,000ot Internet Users read users. Year, 250,000 people were struck i lightning. Of emailshe number you sent to or from a person outside the United States and was also struck i lightning last year. I 2. 5. That does that mean it never happens . Persistent procedures about the targeting, regarding their attention and dissemination. Information. The there is going to be an active debate. There should be. The agreement is in or misleading effect. 2014, thereck to was a comprehensive review of the program during program. At green onthem something, youve got the spectrum. There were proper protections. They include the dissemination of information. A intelligence purpose and they must audit those purposes. Views, therese ofe done zero incidents attention on the use. Aats not to say there isnt problem of abuse. , if there is a restriction to probable cause. Example, we have been able to do one. Collections. D based on that collection on the thant, they saw less 200,000 eminently leaving the United States and being shipped to eight country of concern. Thats what we knew. What we didnt know was whether that manufacturer was part of the network, if he were being you by the network. Probablehad been cause, what they were able to was wary using the manufacturer. They were able to look through it. They were able to determine they were not aware of where the going to go. That allowed them to go reach out to lawn or cement and stop shipment in a protected our natural security. It protected the company. If we thought there was a chance ,hey were part of this activity the knowledge they werent allowed us to proceed. When we asked the broader question about individual responsibility, i want to give elizabeth the floor. I was reading your facial its russian area russian. Suppression. Expression. I was wondering if you had a thought. Targets arent just individuals. They can be organizations. In 2011 that was 250 million internet communications. The number of americans who fell under that, even the most conservative a mess of it is still hundreds of thousands of americans being targeted every year during. This is having an impact without a doubt. When it comes to the civil relief oversight, rachel brand and the judge read that this came both the line of constitutional reasonableness. They said it was a pretty close call as to whether it was constitutional or not you. I think we can do better than that. Whethere dissented on protections in place were sufficient. They recommended stronger detections. Protections. The fact is we need a worn to look at american communications. They are going to keep this. And i jump in . Ishink what this illustrates and i will go back to the transparency team, how much progress has been made . People can talk about certainty does it review the we would not be in a discussion. We have large volumes of information. For those of you who dont know where to find the information, its on the record. Just google it and youll find weve beenand posting on that night that only information that we are exposing but information that will be in the freedom of information act. To leanure has been forward. Sees the problems will it can be very complicated to sort through once on there. Weve been dealing with the challenge for quite a while. I dont know if we have the answer. Hand, we have to relieve the documents so people can see for themselves what it is were doing. We also have the release a statement you better ask wayne and put it context the document area the statement is one we are working to make more readily understandable to the average person who might be interested in the subject. Cant give time, we an enact statement. We have released some things which i have been promoting it every opera unity opportunity. Take theattempt to documents about these authorities we discussed here and put them in categories so you can more easily find it. Website, youthe will see a link to that particular document area document. The statistics being talked about are important. Years, we put together the transparency root or are we try to gather statistics and present them, including the numbers we have discussed here. Act ofreedom act was an congress, it codified that transparency report. We have published two years of transparency were arts since then. If you look at the reports, we try to its line what it was we were releasing statistics about. I thought we have a long way to go to make this easier to understand. The guide on that, you can the annual report and find these Key Statistics yourself. Let me ask you one more. The title of this conference is the egos of intel ecos of intelligence. What members of that immunity should do beyond what a are legally required to be. I am wondering from your experience in the Intelligence Community, how should an individual analyst or collector somewhere around the world be they ought to be balancing transparency and secrecy. Yes. That is the title of the conference and something we have on our minds quite a bit. We have to abide by the law. It goes beyond that. Ethos ofhe fos an intelligence professional western mark professional . I did not bring enough copies or did copies. Thats really small. For mission, we serve the American People and it requires dedication to the security of our nation. Truth is we speak the truth and obtain intelligence. Lawfulness talks about our duty to support the constitution. Thats part of who it is to be an Intelligence Officer. Agencies do that on the yearly faces. Basis on constitution day. We all renewed to support and defend the constitution. So what we are trying to celebrate among the Intelligence Community is what is already there which is a commitment to perform our duties in the way that reflects the values of the nation. The way i think of the transparency work as well if theres one way to think about it. We are providing information as as the importance to defend the constitution part of the functioning of our democracy to make sure we have public accountability and the American People understand what it is that we are doing and can either supported or not supported. We can have a discussion like we are having right here. I cant undersell how important that is. The first day you go to our Memorial Wall and the four of those you swear that oath. Its not to the agency and is not to the president and its not to the director. It is to the constitution and i have had many officers tell me that first day in that first moment of the day was the point which they felt how it is to be an officer. Thats fundamentally different than Intelligence Officers and many other countries. To say that we are going to define how we practice intelligence within this constitutional framework and the constitutional framework that when i speak internally i remind folks is a set of laws but also a set of normative behavior. Their freespeech norms that extend beyond what is required and if you were not aware it is absolutely part of every aspect of what we do and it makes us somewhat different then certainly our adversaries and sometimes even from our allies but none of those would trade it it. If i could just add to that, part of your question, so thats a general highlevel principles situation. You have your statutes in your laws and executive orders, the legal requirements. Are there also requirements that the agencies oppose on impose on themselves to address different kinds of concerns and considerations in the answers to that is yes. There are internal policies and procedures that each agency puts in place that we also put in place at the Intelligence Community level with the Intelligence Community directives to govern the activities even in situations where the law might allow raider flexibility and expression. We are going to put in place a set of procedures that are more detailed and specific. Part of the receiver that is to make sure we dont get too close to the line that liza was talking about so we have in place a more careful approach to doing things then maybe a creative lawyer might interpret or an Intelligence Agency that there are issues that come up without and different kinds of reviews where people worry that we have too many rules and that the rules are two different across intelligence agencies and once you put in place a rule is difficult updated with changes in technology. We did experience that with the executive order 1203 the executive order that governs that lays out the framework for conducting intelligence. Obviously as we follow the constitution and the statutes in addition it establishes a set of requirements and for example to protect information about americans and lawful residents and u. S. Companies and u. S. Associations. Each agency has to have procedures under that executive order that detail how its going to do that in those procedures come each agency has a different environment and they have different procedures. He recently went through that with procedures in terms of the dating them. They havent been updated and i dont know how long. They havent been updated since the 1980s and we change them for two primary reasons. One if you are getting a sheet of paper they told you exactly what to do. When youre talking about the digital environment they were not terribly helpful. But the second and it ties in to the first question there was more transparency. Those guidelines are posted on the web site in their entirety, no reductions. We had to effectively blow them up and rewrite them but we thought it was critical. If you are talking about he cant always talk about the methods of collecting information but we can talk about are the protections in handling that information. That was critical for us to do and we are proud that we did. Elizabeth i would wonder if i might ask you the same question in reverse. As a Civil Society advocate for the qualities issues what is it that you expect as a citizen of our Intelligence Community and intelligence professionals beyond that but they lower choirs. You said we can be better than simply coming close to the standard of the constitution on wondering if you have a general response. I think the Intelligence Community needs to recognize that while it does have people like alex and ben mcadoo im glad they have the positions they have and im glad the positions exists and im glad people fill them and thats important but protecting Civil Liberties is always going to be secondary for intelligence agencies. Its never going to be the primary consideration. Thats not their mission. Thats not what they are at least on paper checks and balances to work selfpolicing is not Congress Needs to deal with its job and the courts need to be able to do their jobs and with the level of security that exists right now they cant. The question of what the constitution requires when it comes to americans giving occasions that are collected under executive order thats a question for the courts to decide. Marbury versus madison. Thats the role of the courts to make that decision. The court can review executive order because of the secrecy and the courts are facing some challenges to reviewing section 702. When it comes to the procedures in the rules and the protections for americans information policy decisions have enormous impacts on americans. Americans are the ones deciding what they are willing to accept a paid thats what a democracy is so for americans to do that they have to be able to have the information they have to be able to write letters, to write a mouse to their representatives in congress and become involved through the democratic process. The democratic process doesnt work well if there is not enough information out there. Think the Intelligence Community needs to understand, i applaud the Greater Transparency that we have seen from the Intelligence Community in the last two years and i think its extremely positive. Any positive features of the oversight structures put in place are not enough. We need checks and balances that we need the American People to govern themselves and as they do in a democracy and for that we need even Greater Transparency. Thank you very much for this go to the floor for questions. We have a little more than 10 minutes. I have a hard time seeing that this gentleman in the front. Yes sir, please. Hi thank you. I am retired u. S. Army. I think theres a difference between to have crystalclear information to the community and to the regular citizen. You can never have crystalclear information that you collect from a country to the regular citizen. In north korea with nuclear, it is a crisis. Many of the citizens dont know its happening. The u. S. Government intelligence intelligence, no one is going to do now but many times you have information. I think that may have been directed at me and if you dont mind i will address it. You are absolutely right. There is tension between the need to keep and tell sacred and the need for americans to have the information they need to engage in self governance. There is a tension there and we have to understand with that tension means pray anytime information is classified and withheld properly classified and withheld from the public the democratic process works a little less well. And it is the key question and we have come a long way and the of course, from that classification perspective or any information if you have an important source and if you draw the of circle around that source from what you black out you are well protected what that course secret is the more information that you read these the better the adversaries will be. That i have to be very quiet. So there is no question so the more we released information to and for what is redacted in that document. It is necessary we have to manage carefully because we are a democracy and people do need to be informed we have to have an informed discussion and the question of where to you draw the line is very difficult with careful work in a step by step responsible way and it is important to understand that it is very tangible this for the Intelligence Community that they could be instituting thousands of those so does that mean we dont have to get this right . But there are two parts to their right. One part with that plan transparency of those issues but the second part of that that day in and day out classifications where we put our resources. Stowe very much with the i turning to the of classification. But that could be problematic for the Intelligence Community. Sometimes it prevents us from sharing information. So getting back right is a benefit. But what i would add over classification can lead to unplanned transparency. That is another reason. Because people lose faith in the system. So people take it upon themselves when people deputize themselves what they decide the classification that with those cities that will get this problem for decades. Since that classification began and every time they would get the problem there is still massive over classification. To be a Bigger Picture classification through accountability. For over classification but i will let go into detail. I applaud everybody on the panel to defend their positions in a respectful manner and tavis of classified a lot of information even though i dont envy any of your jobs individuals that have not been held accountable with that leaking of information of what is classified to the general public does not help the of argument either way and lets get them as individuals that have betrayed the other side to expose xyz with that same period of time every Intelligence Officer will classified those markings just to protect from the shock wave from just using the internet. How you tackle the budget and not put their hands over their eyes. And to take unauthorized disclosures seriously and risen plea a string of criminal prosecutions certainly Civil Society and others going to far in either direction and i do think in my experience over criminal prosecution it is appropriate. Once it gets out you would recognize very well there in a difficult position because of the one hand it has not been publicly discussed because that would confer legitimacy of the information. We could not confirm nor deny but when discussing a particular topic we do take that into consideration to proactively through proper channels. With the prosecution i think he made the point they will take it upon them selves it is an act of civil conscience for pro. At all like the fact i dont of blake unauthorized disclosures information that is not a good way to handle what should not be classified of wrongdoing by the government. Is it better to have that with the government can act illegally . I would much prefer a third option that the law provides adequate protection within the Intelligence Community and i think if there is adequate protection for whistleblowers to have a reasonable belief they were in place but bill whole system would work much better to draw that line between disclosures and those that should be protected. There is a whole other category where Administration Officials are leaking in operation jude journalist in order to put the governments executive branches on issue. With that selective leaking and anon enforcement is very damaging to the system to underscore the issue of classification because if highlevel officials as they try to further the interest then clearly it never should have been classified. I hope you agree this has been a fascinating panel. [applause] washington journal is live next rum kentucky. The will be working on hetero budget. The Kentucky Senate president about the problems facing state government. As a tech secretary state on the host good morning. Its thursday, october 5, 2017. The house returns on 00 this morning with the goal of completing consideration at 9 00 this morning with the goal of completing consideration. With talking to gun owners across the country about gun laws in the wake of the las vegas shooting. Appears to be gearing up for another debate on firearms. We want to know what new gun restrictions you as a gun owner would support. We have split the s