scary and fooled their interrogators and went on to become suicide bombers. so i think one of the things that s hard to predict about the release of this information is whether it will actually change anything or whether it will, instead, just sort of ratchet up the argument, where with each side will find new ammunition to fling at the other about the guantanamo prison as it increasingly looks like a permanent institution in the united states government. one of the things that seems so interesting to me is something you could glean from the interrelationship of these documents, the number of times that individual prisoner sources were cited as giving information about other prisoners. the way that information was used so intensively, even by some sources that had, in other circumstances, had doubts cast on its voracity. what do you think that explains about how guantanamo works? well, guantanamo, you know, you either like guantanamo or don t like it. one of the things that occurs
and went on to become suicide bombers. so i think one of the things that s hard to predict about the release of this information is whether it will actually change anything or whether it will, instead, just sort of ratchet up the argument, where with each side will find new ammunition to fling at the other about the guantanamo prison as it increasingly looks like a permanent institution in the united states government. one of the things that seems so interesting to me is something you could glean from the interrelationship of these documents, the number of times that individual prisoner sources were cited as giving information about other prisoners. the way that information was used so intensively, even by some sources that had, in other circumstances, had doubts cast on its voracity. what do you think that explains about how guantanamo works? well, guantanamo, you know, you either like guantanamo or
for us but i don t understand that. gregg: i have to ask you about the controversial preamble which republican senators were deeply concerned about and recognizes the interrelationship between strategic offensive and defensive arms. does that, in your judgment, give russia a de facto veto over u.s. missile defense systems? it does, it is one reason why we rejected exactly that kind of language, when we negotiated the treaty, moscow with russia in 2002. and the obama administration created a political construct that gives russia a veto over missile defense for the united states homeland because they said they ll withdraw from this treaty which you had the president saying is the greatest thing since sliced bread, they ll withdraw if we build up national missile defense and i don t see the president throwing his wonderful treaty away very quickly, unfortunately. gregg: i was reading one commentary and i m looking at it here, over my shoulder and says, really all the russians have to do
month, he agreed to open and explore nato cooperation on russian missile defense. we still disagree over georgia, for example, so there s a mix of issues on which we can cooperate and issues we differ. happily, the trend seems to be moving more towards cooperation than difference. gregg: one of the things we differ on currently, today, is the interpretation of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty which is being debated right now in the united states senate. i talked to john barrasso, u.s. senator, moments ago and he along with a bunch of other republicans say, hey, if you read the preamble, it allows russia to link offensive and defensive strategic weapons, thus limiting our missile defense systems. is that how you read it? um, i ve actually read the preamble and can the treaty and the protocol and the annexes. the preamble says there is an interrelationship, but it s a statement of fact. it doesn t bind anything. and, in fact, even in the previous administration, george west
that gave ammunition to senator kyl, don t like to be pushed around by russia. do you have any doubt the president will intends to live up to the commitments about missile defense and his hands are not tied by anything russia does in the future? i believe his hands are not tied the language that exists is self-evidently obvious stuff. if there is an interrelationship between offensive and defensive weapons. it is in the preamble which is not a binding portion of the document. thirdly the president has been very clear and i have no reason to doubt him. there was nobody out there that advances more than what one could call a kind of peripheral side argument this casts a shadow over the agreement. i feel confident on that point. ambassador, let me quickly ask you about the korean peninsula. the north koreans did back down