LG: Well, that is, yeah. And as a matter of fact, being a sailor it’s great to be in South Carolina, and I feel like I am with my own kind here. This has been a great stop and a great Navy place over the decades.

HOST: Now the impression I get from the release that we got is that you and your fellow military folks are out I don’t want to say dogging, but certainly going after Democratic and Republican presidential candidates in the hopes that somehow you can impress upon them the need for a commander in chief of the future to be a little more cognizant of what you all feel is a better way to treat prisoners – war prisoners or whatever you want to call them - everybody wants to give them different names. Detainees or whatever you want to call them. Now, have I got that right or can you explain it a little better?

LG: Well, you do have that right and I would be happy to explain it a little further. For the last three years or so many senior military officers have been concerned about the direction we are going in this conversation about the treatment of people who are under our control – whatever you call them, as you indicated. The folks who have spoken out on this include five previous Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our group which numbers 40 or more came together in late ’05 over the issue of the then McCain amendment, which was in Congress which effectively would outlaw the use of torture by any branch of the US government. This is a national security issue, Steve. The people who are on the front line in uniform around the world are the folks from South Carolina and Myrtle Beach. They are the people who have chosen to wear the cloth of the nation. They are people who have chosen to work under stressful and difficult circumstances, have to make tough choices and they deserve clear guidance about how they are going to operate. And we in the military consider it’s our obligation when young people choose to join us that they go back to society, at whatever point they choose to do that, better than they were when they joined, and so we should not require them, we should not allow them to violate their principles and the principles on which this great country is founded. And so, that kind of concern is evidence itself in this very large group which includes several four-star officers with command responsibility in the past, and we’ve been privileged to talk to a number of presidential candidates and we’ve offered to talk to them all.

HOST: Okay, now this is a very high-minded thing. That’s the way I have to describe it, because the reality of the situation is that I think our intelligence services will say a certain amount of, I don’t want to call it torture, persuasion, interrogation, I guess is necessary in order to get vital information for the very protection of our people – of our soldiers. The question is, in your mind, is there a line that has been crossed, or are you concerned about that line and can you say where it is?

LG: Well, I am concerned about that line, and you’ve really gotten to the crux of the matter. The Army Field Manual specifies the interrogation techniques that are permissible under US law, which reflects the Geneva Conventions - that by the way the United States had a real leadership role in creating in the first place. The several Geneva Conventions, the most recent being in 1949, and adhering to those conventions is important in our sustaining relationships around the world that gather us intelligence from friend and allies and that garner us support militarily from other nations who work with us because we are, for goodness sake’s, the United States. The line is the subject of debate only because I think that at the moment uncertainty has been introduced by the kind of conversation that we have. And as a matter of fact, that very conversation, the damage that it causes to our relationships and our effectiveness around the world I think is profound.

HOST: So what are you recommending here? A clear delineation of what we can and cannot do? Should that be known by our enemies?

LG: Our enemies know what we do. The idea that we can somehow keep to ourselves the methods that we use--whatever government agency that puts them into place-- is specious. We do not retain people indefinitely after we apply these methods to them and after they return in any way, and by the way, many of our captives have returned to their native countries over the last five years, they tell what happened to them. So, the idea that we can keep this to ourselves is, I think, nonsense. The idea that we could allow one sector of the government - the CIA is the one that is being discussed now – to behave differently from the Defense Department and the FBI who abhor these techniques is also damaging. You know, many of the interrogations that have taken place in the war on terror, a very large number have taken place collaboratively between the defense interrogator and the FBI interrogator or CIA team and so to say that some of those folks can operate under one set of rules that is more lax than the ones we impose on the defense team and the FBI is adopted I think is in-advised also.

HOST: Okay, now, and we don’t have a whole lot of time, but what are you folks actually doing to impress the candidates? Are you meeting with them directly? What are you doing?

LG: Yes sir. Absolutely. We have met with them privately in New Hampshire in April and in Des Moines, Iowa in December. We’ve met with eight of the candidates. The offer has been made by us to meet with all of the candidates and one of our purposes in being in South Carolina this last five days is to hopefully catch up with the ones we haven’t yet met with. But, it also gives us an opportunity to talk to people like you who represent the views and talk with these issues with folks around South Carolina. It also gives us the opportunity to talk to student groups. We were at the University of South Carolina yesterday, we are at the Citadel today, and the audiences have been attentive and inquisitive and interested and we’re pretty excited about the degree of interest in what we’re doing and we’re grateful for the opportunity to be here.

HOST: Well, it’s a good thing for you gentlemen to do because of your extraordinary experience. I am afraid we’re out of time but I do appreciate you coming on the air with us this morning; it’s a good subject and I am sure we’ll get some calls on it. So, thank you and good luck to you today.

LG: Thank you very much and it’s a pleasure to be here.

HOST: Okay, Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, US Navy retired. I’ll just give you the other names here of who else was involved in this. Lt. Gen. Charles Otstott, Lt General Harry Soyster….trails off.