alcohol to be one of the most dangerous, particularly, abused -- and every drug, there is a difference between use and abuse, that often gets lost in the hyperbole. and alcohol can be used safely but when alcohol is abused, it can use many, many problems, from drunk driving to liver disease on down. and, many studies have attributed major social problems to alcohol abuse including domestic violence. so, i would agree on that point and, yeah from the veterans i interviewed, many actually prefer, discussing the discrepancy, many prefer like going on a mission, if they were asked, you know, would you prefer to go on a mission with an alcoholic or somebody who smoked marijuana, they often, you know, prefer to -- marijuana because as you pointed out, it doesn't have the hangover effect and, is seen as... there are mixed studies but is generally seen as relatively harmless if

not abused. so there was, you know, some did use it for self-medicating effects. and actually what i found interesting, in my research, i think i came out with something of an open mind, was that a lot of the reports actually referred to good performance -- and there's evidence in the book -- those soldiers who were using drugs weren't necessarily parts of their unit and a number of reports, and army reports, that, you know, this guy was cited for heroin possession but he was among the best guys in the unit. and veterans i interviewed said, you know, use -- the factor was, we'd use it in our spare time or knew how to moderate their level of intake and didn't want to risk their own lives especially if they were in combat and might use a little bit, but wouldn't use at the level that would, you know, in any way impair them. so...:

>> marijuana may have certain

damaging consequences, but is considered by most specialists to be relatively harmless. so that's my sense. but again i'm not a scientist or pharmacologist, but i think it is illuminating just the testimony of veterans in the war and the medical psychologists whom i rely on for a lot of the evidence. >> one more question. also as you go straight in your speech, walter cronkite introduced john steinbeck in the 1967 introducing the communist are battling american troops, not only with firepower but with drugs. however, years later cronkite conducted a journalistic piece entitled the war on drugs where he took a far different approach. at times was contrary to his original statements. what do you think caused him and for the most part the rest of the media to change the reporting position in that 40

year time period? >> well, i guess i mean there was some commitment to the truth, and the evidence did come out. i mean, and it shows that in 1967 he's probably said that report. there was a deliberate campaign on behalf of people like edward lansdale within the cia to drum up support for the war and to demonize the coming us. and part of the cold war environment so maybe originally he didn't think much about it, he probably end you'd many cold war ideology at the time. or he was just fed the information and took it from the military and took it to be back. but then when all the evidence came out years later at least, give him credit for having some commitment to the truth. because mccoy's book on the politics of helen in the cia complicity is a very well researched book. actually the cia in 2006, they wrote an intro history of the

secret war in laos. and it was only declassified in 2006. and their synopsis was that indeed the cia was involved, caught up in the drug traffic and even refer to mccoys research as being excellent and on the mark. internally even though at the time to ask a harassed him and tried to prevent publishing the book. that well researched book came out nearly in the '70s and a lot of additional information came out that it was hard to make those claims years later with any kind of credibility. but at the time it shows up media sometimes operate as they just rely on a briefing by the military or maybe just their own assumptions from that time period that eventually did get discredited. but that's interesting that i didn't know that about cronkite's specifically. the "washington post," i cited a quote in 1980 that they acknowledacknowledged that they exaggerated this fear of

veterans coming back. so some of them did print retractions, which is nice to see. but the damage was done already. and it provides good evidence for the argument that it was exaggerated the sources for doing it were admitting that they exaggerated. >> i just want to follow up to the original question from the gentleman, you know, and it's kind of a, but also a question to you. i would say that probably the type of marijuana that these soldiers were smoking in the, is drastically different than what is commonly available today. >> it's much more potent. >> is now? >> yeah. >> were as alcohol is probably come out call was the same thing today, but is probably a very different variety or type two what is commonly available

today. is that covered at all in the book? >> yeah, and that was one of the fears of the military and others, the level of purity in both the heroin and marijuana was so high, especially when the come back to the u.s. they would be creating stronger and stronger drugs. so that was a big fear of the policymakers. yeah, i mean, i interviewed veterans that expenses were they freaked out. but one point i make is the environment of the war that they freaked out when taking the substance because they were already, the experience of soldiers was often a terrible one and fearing their lives. and they were already in a state of paranoia. maybe in some cases marijuana are taking some substance put them over the edge. but it's not to say that marijuana causes people to go crazy, even in a relatively high potency. but it was used. that was one of the fears. because the purity was high in the non-that it would cause

problems back in the u.s. >> i thought the quality would have been lower in the non-at that time spectrum, it was grown by farmers. some of them resisted when the u.s. tried to spray their fields. but the level of purity was very high, both for the heroin and for marijuana. because it was locally grown. [inaudible] >> is there any truth to the myth that a lot, or soldiers brought back varieties of marijuana to the u.s. and that became part of the new drug movement of that time? we hear about the bikers that were veterans that started and really that's what it all exploded. is there any truth to that? >> my sense, yet. the film american gangster made the claim that, i forget the individual. anybody remember the name, the

gang? what's his name, frank -- frank lucas. they claimed he was smuggling coffins of dead american soldiers. there is one case where that was revealed. the three american soldiers, one of them african-african-americans out of thailand we're trying to do that. there were also cases where soldiers were mailing trucks back until about 1968-1969. they tried to crack down on that. but that got exaggerated because the major source of heroin into the united states was mexico which was estimated to be about 80%. yes, it may have effected supply rates to a certain degree, but i don't think the explosion, there was an influx of drug use in the '70s although he did get exaggerated. and yeah there was a wide variety build in many cities including new york. and it may have been a small measure because the golden

trying to traffic was making its way into the u.s. but it was for the most part hair went from mexico, from what i've seen. that's gotten greatly exaggerated. even though lucas story. dea agent who are often quite candid and many have come out, written books about the corruptions of the drug war about the complicity of the cia, have said that there is no evidence of these smuggling rackets by veterans from thailand. it was trumped up in films like american gangsters. my sense that it's another thing that got exaggerated, the length of the vietnam war. because i think the problem of drug use had developed in the '70s and late 60s, particularly hard drug use was a product of the breakdown of the inner cities and the structural problems that the country was experiencing. and supply rate again was largely from mexico. it was going on at best had only a minor effect.

so and there was never the level of purity in new york that there was in saigon. at the back, yeah. >> i'd like to eat from personal express to the question of the potency of vietnamese and thai weed. the high potency marijuana that is available today that comes to us through the breeders in amsterdam, that marijuana started with seeds from, among other places, southeast asia. very high potency cannabis types because of the equatorial growing conditions where canada's predominates. also from afghanistan, the mountains of tibet, getting her afghani varieties. but the we that was available in vietnam and thailand, laos, far

exceeded the quality and potency what was available to americans in america at the time he. i know that from personal experience. the other question i've got is both in frank lucas' movie, american gangster, and in the movie about charlie wilson, concerning the afghani adventure. and in the documentary about charlie wilson, all three places, none of the drugs are mentioned at all. and yet, we know that the majority of the money that funded afghanistan was from hair when. not from the u.s. congress provided by charlie wilson. could you speak to that? >> thanks. i think that gets to the point, earlier about public knowledge is not very good. because these kind of popular depictions just totally whitewash you. and jack, i should've mentioned that as a major precursor. and there was an editorial in

1979, david work for the state department as an expert at you. >> university in drug policy. he wrote an editorial like warning the carter administration, you know, don't do what we did in laos and support drug traffickers. of course, they went ahead. that was one of the terrible things that the u.s. did in afghanistan was to arm the extremist elements in afghanistan against the soviet union, and the cia favorite was the head of the islamic organization who is known for throwing acid in the face of women. and he was also a major heroin trafficker. and now he's fighting against the u.s. the u.s. may be trying to recruit him, i don't know. [inaudible] >> really? it wouldn't surprise me because they are working with all kinds of warlords who were involved in those earlier campaigns. but there's a lot of evidence about his corruption, as well as the pakistani.

most of the afghan cia operation was funded through the isi am a particularly when the reagan administration cozied up to the pakistani military dictator in the early '80s. and corruption within the isi is through the roof, as it is today. the isi may also be funding taliban. so it's a mess, u.s. policy there. but these are factors contributing skyrocketing. and that's become the center of the world drug trade that many have pointed out, the real experts in the field are alfred mccoy and peter dale scott and dave pointed out where the u.s. intervenes often becomes the center of the world drug trade. in part because of who their allies are and in part because of the conditions of war are conducive to black market operations. and, you know, people need arms and need money quickly.

and easy way to make money in those regions where there are limited resources and opium is an important cash crop. that's a big way of funding these military operations. so yeah, thank you for pointing it out. that operation in the '80s was another example. also in central america, it came out that with the iran-contra scandal that oliver north was involved with the contras and drugs act as his that gary webb exposed that. and there's quite a bit of evidence that's come out about how those wars, dirty wars in the '80s were funded. we may be seeing -- it doesn't get reported, but colombia as well, the corruption, the areva government. we know the u.s. is pouring a lot of money in colombia today but there may be also illicit means of funding some of those paramilitary groups that are

loosely aligned with the lumpy and military and colombian operations against the farc. it's not necessary by coincidence that these regions of conflict that the u.s. is involved in becomes centers of trade. so if we're really concerned about eliminating drugs, we should focus on that problem and stop funding these wars that are very destructive. and also contributing to the boom of the drug trade. since you asked already. >> a big outcry against the war was based in the universities from the college students. was any part of that towards the invalidity of the dark were? >> that's a good question. i'm not sure. i think most of it was against the war. actually that was used and i go into this a bit in the book, is they actually use that as evidence of how corrupt and tainted this war was that even

the soldiers were becoming addicted and the cia was applying them. i think that was used. and ironically that's one thing i argued is it's one way in which the antiwar movement ironically kind of played a little bit into nixon's agenda. because they use some of the same rhetoric as, you know, politicians even on the right. they exaggerated at times the scope of drug abuse because it was part of their antiwar criticisms. and even senator george mcgovern who first sponsored a bill in 1965 calling for the withdrawal, if i can find a page i can briefly read. he employed quite a bit of exaggeration himself. it's in this chapter. hold on. i will quickly point to -- mcgovern, he said, you know, quoting mcgovern, he said america's foreign and take him it was coming through the

addiction of american soldiers. and he claimed that 100,000 were using drugs, which was an exaggeration. and he said i challenge you to the point of the north vietnamese are a greater threat to our national security than the crime, violence and internal decay caused by narcotics. and then he said the next president can act to end the war and crackdown on supply affair with from southeast asia. this is the fight america should be pursuing, which is the war on drugs. so the democrat -- it was a bipartisan policy and many in the antiwar movement actually tacitly at least supported it. but yeah, in later years i think many students and others would come to criticize it. but in that period, their focus rightly i think because of how horrible the warvietm war and te irony is, is how vietnam war led to the escalation and other disastrous wars. >> you speak a lot about the production end of drugs, heroin,

cocaine and a lot of combat zones in which the united states has been involved. what can you say about the receding and? things like, for example, the airport, that was rumored to have received narcotics under governor clinton. >> no what? >> the airport in mean that i believe in 1991 or so that was rumored to have received narcotics spent where is that? >> it's about 100 miles south of here. >> okay. >> it's in western arkansas. i guess it was chosen as a location because remote us and that it's not well-known to the american populace. what can you say about the receding and fork covert drugs through the cia? >> that i don't have any evidence myself, so i can't say positively or negatively. yeah, my sense is -- you know,

some cases it may be exaggerated, the role of the cia. i don't know. i mean, in terms of their direct role. i mean, my sense as it's often more of a quid pro quo of lives they make with regimes or groups that they are allied with. they're not necessarily directly transporting into the country. at least i haven't seen that much evidence. certainly in the realm of possibility but i've not seen any direct evidence so i can't answer to that question. but yeah, i mean, a lot do breed suspicion. so i don't blame people for being suspicious. and it may very well be that there is corruption, a lot of corruption going on. i personally haven't seen the evidence to be able to comment one way or the other. >> another thing also is a lot people say the drug industry as

far as pharmaceuticals company, is fighting merrill won a basically because they don't want consumers to be able to grow their own medicine at home. could nixon have had any sort of maybe special interest groups that pushed towards the drug addicted army? >> again, it's not something i export. but i think certainly the case that special interest, you know, i mean, it's a question of why are certain drugs legal and certain drugs illegal. and it's often politics or connections, or the interest of the pharmaceutical companies. but i haven't done much direct research on that. that would be an interesting, you know, project or course or thesis to explore the influence of the pharmaceutical company across time perhaps. it would be a great thesis for anybody who wants to write a

phd. so it's very interesting question. yeah, i just don't have all the evidence but i would surge suspect it's a factor. and it is sometimes hard to document because it's not always, you know, it may not make its way into an archive or any official government hearings. but as we know, lobbyists play a very powerful role in you can. so, yeah. >> you seem to talk a little bit in the recent articles in the book, there's a focus here on government policy, government action, and drug policy and where we stand as a nation. and i was wondering if, in your future will, if you plan to continue to delve into this topic? you also mentioned, and i think this is another, call it a myth, but it might be in fact, a fact that the same way this was. people said ms. and then this is

now a fact, that this was not the reason that we lost the war, let's say it was the drug use. so another question i have for you is, you know we've heard about for years the cia spreading crack cocaine in inner cities, really catapulting that problem and making that, spurting drug use to cripple or worsen our society. is that any any inclination in your future research to continue down this path? >> well, thanks for the question. for crack cocaine i haven't seen the evidence -- emmy and me, the web exposé showed and other works that clearly the contras were involved. there was certainly a cover-up. involving the cia and there may have been people like oliver north directly involved in using drugs to fund the contra operations. whether there was an overt cia plot to flood the country with

crack may be a bit far-fetched. i don't think the cia deliberately wants to spread the drug traffic that i think it's a byproduct of their interventions. and they get caught up in it because of the kinds of activities they are carrying out. so that would be my perspective, but yeah, i mean, there may be more evidence that comes to light on that. personally, yeah, i mean, i plan on continuing in this area. i'm curly writing a book on american police training, training police for many counterinsurgency. i'm trying to show a continuity in policy for the u.s. occupation, the philippines at the turn of the 20 century through the cold war years and how these programs often lead to a lot of human rights violations, skyrocket out of control. so that's my current focus, but it does tie to what we're discussing here because one reason the u.s. was trained police was for drug war

purposes. but a lot of cases that was just public reason, that really they wanted to train police to go after guerrilla groups. like in colombia for instant that it was convenient to say guerrillas were involved in the drug trade which is how they can get congressional funding for programs like police can. but, in fact, it was for the most part cartels. there may have been some involvement with guerrillas, although it was likely mainly relegated to taxing coca growing and there is that they control. the cartels were on the right wing of the spectrum, and often had connectioconnections with the government. but they use that narco guerrilla to justify police training programs which are really designed for counter insurgency and to fight these, you know, the u.s. historic as opposed left wing social movements for a variety of reasons, ideological, economic, the fear of threats to u.s. investment opportunities. so that's my current focus, more

on the police training, military. but yeah, i will surely continue to keep an interest in these areas. and there are other scholars working in the field. >> great. i think -- great, well, thank you very much for your excellent questions. [applause] >> that was very good. very good questions. thank you. good questions. i appreciate that. >> jeremy kuzmarov is an assistant history professor at the university of tulsa. to find out more visit their website.

>> here's a look at some upcoming book fairs and festivals over the next few months.

>> thank you for the kind introduction. i would like to give about 20 minutes more if you like. you talk about things such a young graduate of the new york bar, it reminds me when my first book came out, i was very young at the time. and i was asked by my publisher

that i want to be listed as a brilliant washington lawyer, or a young washington lawyer? i said of course billion. [laughter] >> now of course if i had the option i would think i will take young. but we all seek what we don't have. anyway, i'm delighted you always come out on such a sunny day to talk about something as serious as the questions of confidentiality, privacy and secrecy. a quick show of hands. who believes that one of the overriding issues that we live with on a daily basis now in the new century is a privacy? and who among you things that one of the necessary things for our society to improve is transparency and openness? therein lies the conundrum of this book. we all want privacy. we all want to control. we all want to share our secrets

but we want to control the narrative and decide who does and doesn't know the information that we have. the publisher of this book bill, yale university press has a very thoughtful jacket, an old fashion stamp of secrecy. i think if i had it to do over i would choose as the cover of this book a wonderful new yorker cartoon that has a picture of two pairs on a perch. and what is saying to the other, if i tell you something, do you promise you won't discuss it with anyone else? [laughter] >> because we all from childhood on, need to share information with people. there's almost a primal need to do that. and novelist have written about it and analysts have analyzed it and jurors have dealt with it. but at the same time, there is the desire to want to control what to do with that information. the most formalized version of that conundrum takes place in the professions that it was

actually the examination of how it works in the professions. it's called privileged communications, attorney-client, priest-penitent, doctor-patient, analyst, and has been and what. and how that plays out. when i went to law school 100 years ago we had to memorize the rule. yes, certain relationships are so important that to preserve them we want to keep, maintain the secrecy. and even in a legal proceeding you cannot force a doctor or lawyer to impart information that's come to them under the promise of secrecy. otherwise, that relationship couldn't go on. and i was prompted to kind of review the logic and rationality of that will reading about a terrible case in new york were a priest had one of his, in his pastor at confessed the crime to him and he couldn't impart that information to anybody, but two

other people were standing on trial for the boomer and were convicted and served 18 brutal years in prison, until the young man died and the priest came forward. and it struck me, cuba you know, where's the quote unquote just as appalled as. and i started to kind of re-examine those old rules that i just memorize and called myself as a practicing attorney. the boy looked into it the more i realized a rational and reasonable as those worlds are as society has changed, those rules need to be modified as well. take for example, a husband and wife privilege. the notion that it is the marital relationship leads the conference of privacy so that intimate relationships can be fostered. and yet we now live in a world where half of the marriage is end in divorce, half of the people are living together are not married. we have surrogate mothers, don't

bother us, stepparents. i call it the cleaver, you know, the cleaver version of want to have become is has nothing to do with what the reality of what's going on. and similarly in terms of going back to this case of the priest. as i looked into it, you've all read about the scandals of the last 30, 40 years in the catholic church, where, so i don't get my numbers wrong, 13,000 victims so far, and we are still counting, have come forward and have demonstrated that they were abused by priests. and 300 priests have been convicted. a thousand have been dismissed from the church. and it's cost the catholic church so far to $.6 billion, whole diocese had been wiped out. part of that, never should have happened except either the offenses took place in confidential settings or even

worse, and one could write a book about this, the cases were settled with confidentiality agreements. for those of you who are not lawyers, almost 80 -- almost 90 percent of civil cases end in settlement. and every one of those settlements has a confidentiality clause saying the parties agree not to discuss this. the idea is to encourage people not to go through the expensive and stressful experts of a trial. and it is a wise rule of judicial economy to do this, but in cases where you have recurring offenses like in the catholic church, like any asbestos cases, like in pharmaceutical drugs that are wrong, it's very much against the public interest to shelter the wrongdoing of the corporation, the pharmaceutical or whoever involved, albeit dangerous cars, another example. and get that happens as you have repeated offensive. so the more i got into what

started with a priest, and led me to the spouses and my own profession of law, it occurred to me that this is maybe worth re-examining in the light of changing times and new century, new sets of values. you know, what are the realities? how do we keep these, how do we preserve the confidentiality of the settings? and at the same time deal with the needs to make those, some of that information in some situations public. classic example is a famous case involving a psychoanalyst in berkeley, who treated a young man who had a homicidal fixation on a young woman. and he didn't say anything about it, and this young man then went out and killed the woman. and the family then sued the psychiatrist, tyco are puzzled in a psychiatric setting where it is crucial to the very relationship of the patient and

the doctor, you know, freud said that the whole notion of psychoanalyst depends on the ability of the patient to feel that no matter how bizarre or terrible the thing they had to say, that it would never be released. in fact, in this case, the court found that rule cannot be absolute. and so now psychiatrists are mandated in certain situations to come forward if there are, you know, cases of domestic violence, child abuse, other such things. but psychiatrist and analyst all say we don't really know. people come to us all the time and express dangerous ideas, and there's no way for us to know that it really is the case or isn't the case. and we can scientifically prove it. similarly in the medical profession, doctors now are told on the one hand under the hippocratic oath they are not allowed to testify about information that comes to them from the patient. on the other hand, they are mandated in cases of hiv aids

cases, bullet wounds and number of other situations to come forward. so that there is no absolute guarantees. and maybe that's why, is you need a balanced rule for justice to prevail and to confidentiality where you need to have it, injustice where exceptions need to be made. accept those rules aren't so clear. in the last 100 years, other professions, accountants, social workers, journalists have all said why would you limit privileged communications should just these professions? it's just as important to me as a newspaperman, for example, to protect my sources. we act for the general public without being able to promise anonymity to our sources. and are going to get the information that you need. in the classic example i suppose of that is deep throat in the watergate case where the source

of the journalist performed a heroic role, but passport about 30 years and you get the case where robert novak outs a cia agent. and that was done for mr. this purpose is to get it was interesting to me that max frankel was one of the speakers are a, i don't know if you are all here but i quote him and other very responsible journalists who point out that the anonymous source is very overused and abused. its use by government officials to discredit people or to get stories out that they want out, but to protect themselves when they don't want the story told. so there's been a great push poll there about in what situations courts will protect anonymous sources in which they won't. now, all states have what's called a shield laws in which in some situations journalists are protected from disclosing the

anonymity of their sources, and in some cases they are not. in the business community, we have, again, and apropos of your raising your hands about privacy and disclosure. the business communities as taken the position it can't manage its affairs without knowing that what goes on inside is protected. and in cases of trade secrets and whatnot, that makes sense. but in terms of, you know, what bonuses, for example, certain officials are getting when we are giving them bailout as we are. is seems to me the public has a claim to know that kind of information. and the american business association has reported that in business settings, about two-thirds of all businesses monitor phone calls and internet of their employees. so people don't know what is and is not protected. we want these things. we don't want these things. not a day goes by in the

newspapers that you don't we destroyed it has a phrase in their in a very private meeting at the state department today, and ongoing negotiation with foreign country, anonymous sources, close to the hearings which aren't supposed to be public have told us that we can tell you. and this is so common that we accept it as almost a given. and just about every day, today was no exception, or yesterday, there's some sort interesting story about confidentiality. today it was a story of google map. i don't know if you'll read the "new york times" today, but people were complaining about the google map which can zero in on your little community and show you who is walking in and out of a certain place. we all use google every day. on the other hand, we are abashed that certain things that we do can be made public. but if driving home from this meeting today to keep this game,

as i go across the bridge taking pictures they're probably having photographs of us in this building. and if i stop at my 7-eleven and buy something, the data off of my credit card is collected. and is under data mining practices nowadays that it is used for purposes i never meant to be used. i go into my building and i go into the garage, pictures are taken. i go into the elevator, pictures are taken but there's really no such thing as privacy anymore, and yet we want all these things. we want to be able to know we are safe in our garage. we are safe in our buildings. that is something happens in the 7-eleven you know, we look at these burglars who are caught or robbers were caught all the time in 7-eleven essay how to read it, they walked right in front of the camera. the new technology has democratized the country and has given us much that we ask on a. on the other hand, is

mind-boggling and otherworldly to know not the obvious things that we are all aware of that if we go on the internet, there's no way to absolutely assure the privacy of our exchanges and communications. but that is such brave new world techniques now, there is rf ids, which is rather common. but the purpose is to which they are put would surprise you. and robo dust and all kinds of new techniques that permit invasions of privacy. we've all seen the movie the lives of others, which is a kind of terrifying society, but in our desire to employ new technologies, we are moving in that direction. so many of the subjects themselves you could write a book about. i've given you a fast flyover about some of the subjects that are covered in this book, but i promised a longer q&a time so that i could address any of those subjects that you all would like to get into at

greater length. ask you what interests you most, and what i can expand on. turn off the cameras. they don't want to be identified. [laughter] please expect have you thought of -- [inaudible] >> well, the way the courts have looked at it is a good place to begin. my feeling is, and there's a national science foundation, study reflate that said one of the problems that is most on people's minds now is the lack of confidentiality, like a feeling that they can have some

privacy in their exchanges. so it's on everybody's mind. its online. it's obviously on all of yours. so i would begin with the notion that where there's not a strong public interest in invading privacy, we ought to go out of her way to protect it. iif in a given instance the interest of justice require making an exception and you can demonstrate that that's the case, then i believe that no rules and should be absolute. and you can make exception. now the question is who makes those exceptions. i will give you one example, in a case that i have, i represented a writer who wrote an exposé about lobbyists. and there is one chapter about the irish lobby in washington. and he was sued by the irish lobby, and the lawyers who represented him want to know who his source was. he as a journalist didn't want to reveal his source because that was the essence of his

culture. on the other hand, he didn't want to do it because if you reveal his source, his source would be killed. but there is no in a federal court, there is no shield law. in blue of federal law endorsed by the supreme court back in the '70s was that a journalist had no first amendment right to protect their source. in that case i knew what the general rule was. he was ready to go to jail rather than disclose his source. but that would've been such an unjust thing that i made a motion to the judge. i went to the irish embassy. i got an affidavit from the ambassador saying that this person worked in the embassy, witnessed acts. they didn't identify him. and yet diplomatic immunity. and it called to testify the misty when as a diplomatic immunity which you would be granted. therefore, only a mischievous purpose could this are by demanding that he be identified because the court was going to get his testimony. so why do it? the judge heard that and ruled.

that made sense. so he still preserve the rule that there is no first amendment privilege, but given the interest of justice that was demonstrated he made that exception. it's much harder in the catholic church. every other, the members of every other church than the catholic church i interviewed in writing the book all said they would have acted different in the case and the priest. the priest said i can't act differently. i can be excommunicated. the pope himself was shot as you recall years ago and refused to disclose his conversations with the prisoner when he interviewed him in prison. so if the pope is going to disclose, surely no parish priest will do it it. so what did you about that? i think that they will come where a prosecutor brings a priest in because he knows that the priest has exculpatory evidence. and the rule, summer is about to be executed, and the priest says

under the rules of my church i can't tell you who that is. and the prosecutor says this is a secular state. and i'm sorry, but i don't think any prosecutor would like to do that. but you kind of need an escape valve. and add every other religion has a. the real to them is in the catholic church. this particular case after these two prisoners served 18 years, he went to his diocese and they said we will treat this as pastoral as opposed to congressional and therefore we can get around it. well, why didn't they get around 18 years ago and keep these prisoners? there is an escape valve. yes? >> ladies and gentlemen, for the sake, would you please stand and walk over to the question microphone. i know there are many people who want to hear the questions and answers. we appreciate you walking up and

answer your question at the microphone. >> thank you for being here. i am a social worker, a license and social to coworker here in florida. and i'm constantly under pressure to be aware of and closely follow the hip of regulations. since about four or five years ago and i'm wondering if you'd like to comment about that and what kind of difficulty that grates for the health professions. it's interesting that you mentioned it. when i write in the book, i lectured at the medical school and a number of the social workers told me about the dilemma that they and possibly you have. and that is that for them to treat aids people, for example, they need to be able to assure them that are confidentiality because there's great statement attached to it. they could lose their jobs, et cetera. on the other hand, their mandated by the state of florida and other states to disclose in certain situations where that

happens. and in some cases, you could be indicted, for example, if you have hiv and you have unprotected sex with somebody else. so there's a team in this push poll under the hipaa laws which are about five or six years old. the idea of hipaa was to protect the confidentiality, what goes on in the medical setting much of what goes on in a medical setting is done by power professionals and social workers. and, in fact, one of the key cases in the supreme court, i heard it argued, involve a social worker who claim and was given the privilege that is extended in the medical profession for their work. because the reality was once said in a medical setting out is done by social worker. i don't have the formulas to answer that you're looking for because there isn't one.

accept that as i am told by those people at the jackson hospital here, they are briefed. they know the situations where they must disclose and it is mandated by the law. in other cases they don't. and i think what most of them do now is tell their patients i will keep our conversations in the strictest of confidence, but you must've there are some situations to where the law will require it. so they are aware of that. that's what psychoanalyst do now to untold it when you go in and sign something acknowledging that there are situations where the privacy has to be breached. >> do you believe there is a constitutional right to privacy? and if you do, how would you describe or define a? >> that is a terrific question. there isn't a concept -- privacy is not mentioned in the constitution. in the 20th century, i have a section in the book on if you're interested, a right to privacy

has evolves, and in different states specific situations are covered by a quote unquote right to privacy. there's a civil rights law in new york and in l.a. where there a lot of celebrities that say you have a civil -- of the right of privacy to your own likeness. and so somebody can come a long and have a picture of merrill streep and put on a t-shirt and sell it for $50 because that invades their privacy. there are other kinds of specific rights. as i'm sure you know, the supreme court and the contraceptive case about 30 years ago in the abortion case bent over backwards, i believe, turn themselves inside out to come out with a result they wanted which was to protect a woman's right to an abortion. they hinged on a quote unquote right to privacy. but it's a good result with a tortured law. and the short answer is you

could read the constitution and you will not find any such thing as a right to privacy. in the cases that have come up with it, they talk about him and nations from other due process. right, one could write a book about it. i think this is the limit that is the subject of this book plays out through the years there will be more of a developer of the right to privacy, and it will probably be situational. >> my question has to do with government protecting its secrets, and justice being delayed or denied as a result with the prisoners in cuba, with, we are now moving the prosecution of the terrorists, from 9/11 to new york. how is all that going to finally come out of?

>> i'm glad you raised that because i should have mentioned it in my talk. and i believe i skipped over it. and i do have a chapter in the book. this is a big problem now. and we have government records that are classified, or is it secret, top secret at about the rate of 70,000 per day. over the last, about, 50 years there have been five different blue ribbon committees that have reviewed our classification laws. and they have all uniformly stated that it's over, terribly overused and unnecessary. and it's now reached the point where probably 90 percent of the documents that we have are not necessary to be classified, but our. these are our records. these are public records.

so it was with some relief that at the very first minute after he was sworn in as president, obama issued an executive order saying that our government records and all executive departments are now ordered to develop programs of transparency and openness, and that our positions going to be changed in that regard. unfortunately, he has talked the talk. he hasn't walked the walk it. so we have seen some of these egregious cases of what's called extreme rendition, where people who are picked up in the wake of 9/11 flown on a cia contract plans to places like yemen and pakistan, all over the world, egypt, tortured, kept for long periods of time. and any number of cases after six months, released because they had the wrong person. suited, the case, perhaps just

read about is one the most notorious but there is another one going on now in california. suited. the government to do position we can't defend because to defend would have to disclose state secrets that it's against the national interest to do that and the courts have upheld the government's position without even looking at the documents to decide independently that, in fact, they agreed with the government. so the states secrets documents which is about 50 years old badly in need of change because in effect the judiciary has given away it it's independenced the first to the executive who has a motive to keep things secret, because usually what they want to keep secret discloses their own misbehavior. and invariably, when we have found out the situations that has been the case, the most adores being the pentagon papers case where erwin griswold, solicitor general argued to the supreme court that the pentagon

papers needed to be kept private because to disclose them would jeopardize the national interest. supreme court ruled nine back-zero he was wrong. about 10 years later griswold wrote an article in the "washington post" saying it really wasn't a national security issue, that it was covering your behind, that the government took that position. so as soon as the new administration came in, this extreme rendition issue came up in a federal case in california. the judge said to the new justice department representatives, i presume you're going to change her position from the bush department position on this. and they said no. so i don't know what's going to happen. there was a bill that was submitted by ted kennedy when he was alive, that is to in congress now that would require in the state secret case as an

independent analysis by the judges involved. i'm not saying there aren't cases where you do need to protect national security. nobody would argue that on d-day the "new york times" ought to be able to describe, you do, what time we are a arriving in calais. on the other hand, that's too easy. but in most of these other situations, i think there's been something like 67 state secret defenses recently. and in almost all of them i think it's to cover up this she was stuck. and i think as these cases come to the united states now, the newspapers today just talked about the fact that the most dangerous of the 9/11 criminals is going to be tried. and, you know, the defense will say we want is evidence. you know the government is going to probably say state secrets are involved. stay tuned. it's a very touchy subject.

and very badly in need of reform. well, if there are no more questions, i thank you all for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ronald goldfarb serve as a prosecutor in the u.s. air force before joining the justice department. he is the author of 11 books, including "the contempt power" and "jails: the ultimate

ghetto." for more information visit ronaldgoldfarb.com. >> annie leonard one of "time" magazine's 2008 heroes of the environment says that health hazards, environmental damage and social injustice all result from americans of sessions with acirin stuff. books incorporated in berkeley california is the host of this event. it's about 45 minutes. >> thank you. thank you so much for coming. i have so many friends in the audience. i am so happy. like a really, reallypp