band of people, most nobody would want to see a child appear unrepresented but that can have been. it doesn't in in new york city with probably the most advanced city in the country with immigration and attitudes that there are many places along the border in arizona and new mexico and utah and places where conceivably children face charges without a lawyer. it is unfathomable but presently they are not constitutionally guaranteed as a free attorney?

>> mentioning zeno phobia without the cases that came to the court system people think immigration on the deals with central america with the border but painted picture what we've talked about in the immigration encases. >> guinea york city we deal with people all over the world and our caseload between 60 and 70% comes from china. there are juvenile is from china who raise the same concern that we have a very large group of people from china. we don't have as many central americans says you

would think a lot of west africans and people from india, pakistan, bangladesh so it is the diverse group of people. certainly we see enough central america is where we are aware of the country conditions with chaff have been described it is extremely difficult especially for the young people to flee game violence and unfortunately the of law is not on their side with asylum but there are other big user avenues that are available to them. >> to interject 1.it is important to recognize central and south america but the fact is the broken

system of immigration affects people's throat though world. i had this very conversation with senator kennedy about the number of irish men and women that are here without documents and illegally. it is not just third rolled or latino but people from all over the globe to come here under illegal status used under the student visa then we go back home so you have a lot of people from the developed world who are here illegally. so if you look at the issue there is a diverse population but as we debate it is important to recognize one of the big components

has been to build more walls across the southern border. i remember having debates on the floor in the number of senators who were not satisfied to build one strand of fence there one in three or four to move the immigration reform package for word. so that manifestation is part of the debate also of the larger question as a diverse population. >> if you talk about that civil-rights movement for latin america was not just let americans out there so i was wondering would it be helpful to the constituent

groups to be joined in the dialogue? because you cannot trust the media. you know, that. [laughter] >> there is the over simplification with a homogenization that feeds into common sense so one-third of my a church is chinese. so that reality of the people that have the privilege to serve is many chinese human adults are undocumented so the first time i went to advocate

because we don't lobby we had irishman and women with shirts on their back they joined a group of latinos and koreans in the theological terms with the beloved community as a one world house with these two visions chips agents than europeans and asians we are all in this together we will swim or sink together research to see that from the shared humanity that elevates the conversation it is just us. just ask. [applause]

rigo k2 go to preston's? said chamber of commerce has been mentioned several times in looking at the high skilled workers would is the moral component? >> that is a long question. then we have to talk about though living wage and the fair wage. the chamber of commerce knows their growing edges of business immigrants are establishing high percentages of business development especially in the stem area is science technology engineering math.

is their self-interest? i would be hard-pressed to see where there is not. but the moral argument in this case the economic argument and the moral argument coincide which it is good for the economy and morally right. not to either/or. >> would only add to that that the coalition around the country may be motivated by self-interest as the chamber of commerce provides members but i have participated in many places around the country on this issue the most around colorado with rallies to bring together the coalition you'll see those dairy farmers because they want to

have the system to produce the most that nourishes so we see that face community to be a part of those rallies as well and high-tech because they understand they need to have the business skills and to fill the jobs in the high-tech world. what is most befuddling is the coalition of though willing that is powerful somehow we cannot get to the leaders and i know john boehner and i are not on speaking terms. [laughter] i have known for a long time and i would think he wants to do the right thing here but there is the element to

the house of representatives who is absolutely opposed to have him lead in efforts to to find a common sense solution. so there was the bipartisan bill that passed last year in the united states senate it was stuck in the house of representatives was that this beakers fault? some people say absolutely because he is in the house but his membership as their right to bring teapartier people. >> so with safety and security one person said is

that realistic that addresses security concerns? [laughter] >> the part of the argument is framed in that way? >> but you need to have a comprehensive system. will whole journey takes maser different chapters if i was the lead law-enforcement officer in the elected attorney general at a time with the guide named spencer before he became governor. -- elia spitzer but looking at security perspective it is true some law-enforcement officials that see this as a security issue

with good comprehensive reform package but a most reasonable one to be part of the organization to talk about the badges and business and bibles put understand there is a recognition that for us to make sure we are safe to know who's coming in and who's going out i dealt i was attorney general with 9/11 and was involved to put together protocols to prevent 9/11 from happening so i don't see there is the inconsistency with comprehensive immigration reform and the security values we want to enhance. achan we done and through new technology we're much

better positioned to do it now than at the turn of the century. >> anything about the f notion of the year the flood gates would be open to a chair restore st. criminals with aspects of reform? >> a thing terrorist, i have no idea. frankly i can count on one finger the number of people i saw before me charged as a potential terrorist. they do not even come through the court there handled separately. criminals, i guess. people who are not citizens commit crimes who comes through the court and the immigration laws are harsh and have gotten harsher with people convicted of certain

crimes. they can put forth any form of relief their eligible for but that is dealt with and i don't see that as of problem. i think we could have immigration reform to and fall all the components that you suggest and is a lack of courage and lack of leadership. >> this may seem counter intuitive but it is what would help with issues of security. most officials i have worked as is that we need immigration reform so we don't spread it so thin that

they go after families whose try to earn a living to integrate and we can better having a deleterious effect but if anybody wants that to be under as a legal separation and it is the communities because we're disproportionately represented. so most people say how would reform act negatively is actually the opposite a more modern reforms will bolster security and let them target those that commit heinous crimes rather than children. >> should the u.s. have border protection efforts to help the latin america and

nations with that instability there? the i can talk in number of times. [laughter] don't tell him that. >> is that a fair question? but to help people there in the homeland is a little over simplifying bet we'll understand what the person is asking. >> is a long debated question but we have been out of balance of funding to support comprehensive immigration reform is focused on the security aspects. to me there is a larger

question would is driving the debate this children and families with the comprehensive foreign policy that works in a bilateral way in the western hemisphere way to create but you don't wake up in the morning wanting to leave your home. i don't think anybody in the united states wakes up to the their home but there is tremendous economic hardship with very limited economic development. they put their lives in their own hands to gain opportunity for their

desires and we have to invest in the right security systems but that is a reality of the rope we live in today but but we have had a 40 year failure to look to our neighbors to this house to understand it is important to lift them in a good way. >> there are some who are right on family matters is a better to redress something than those coming in the? >> churches have historically done this through mission san developments like world

vision and world relief with the economic. >> i think that question is if we don't won't read pay for it? a lot of border governors are signing bilateral agreements with mexico. just last month said there virtus the adjacent states christie to that people are aware there is a way to develop the americus that is bent - - deck as the evangelical leader is is this same? does it protect them from

certain but if we can invest billions in military development it seems to me that jesus would say we can invest billions of dollars into the safety of children. >> to edge, someone asked if it could be changed due juvenile civil laws that could help in terms of the children receive original question is there something specific that congress can agree on when it comes to his children? >> there are a and never of things that can lead to an i think that would be a very good start also of not proceeding san not have been the but with to terminate

those cases that those there being done as we speak by the judge's. but there is something called prosecutorial discretion which teeeight tests made public comments up to two years ago they would participate in the prosecutorial discretion to say someone who was stopped for speeding but they will just put the cases that. but if there was immigration

reform it would be dealt with. but those with regard to to denials if congress would consider the entire process and i guess that is my problem with congress it has historically stopped with that enforcement area and not thought through how to deal with people and children in these proceedings the with regard to the earlier question in my experience the reason people come to the united states is economic or they come from a country where there is no rule of law. but the government cannot protect these children.

and as victims of prolactin of governmental oversight in terms of the gangs and other corruption in the country. i don't think anybody leaves their country wanting to relocate a on a permanent basis. desperation either economic or safety. to bring people to the country. >> talk about broader implications 1% just laid it out what to suggest for families to are deported my

husband lived here nine years we have a baby boy what resources are out there? because it does not look like before the midterm election but with the immigration reform there are some relief possibilities with a good immigration lawyer now made people have i had to say you don't have a lot of options. sova to add to what the judge has said today sending a letter to the president the national association of immigration and lawyers to close artesia is us center of new mexico retried to

visit it it was incredibly hard and that has given all of our help it was very hard. there was an 11 year-old u.s. citizen held there for months. months. so the issue of legal recourse for juvenile i think, we're at a point to have u.s. citizen children being detained in ayrshire of uses said it will become public to the president why they feel it should be closed but not keeping with the best offense but but the truth is that is why we ask. because we cannot do anything.

so what the just thing to do it is not always coinciding. we do better than most but in this case it is very little absent relief from those where the spouse can find relief so if the parent has the case. but if in fact, is the adult with the kid they'll lose their case they all lose. now talking about one parent the in proceedings somehow the rest of the family isn't and that person loses.

that is extremely difficult. and as a country to sink it may be the only breadwinner for the family in which case the family may have to collect public assistance. let's not defect on the children if they lose a parent who is geographically separated. their arbitrary and naked scenario enter though lot the family has a harsh choice because of the other adults says the have a case then they either have to say here or to follow that other family members iraq but to

that you are facing. >> the looking at the charity's says exceptional. but a u.s. of places but especially if the parent is undocumented to have those citizen children which is often the case of a mixed statice family. >> right. because then clearly the other adults in the family once the children to remain in the united states for

benefits and educational and social benefits and does not want to return to the native country. >> the question is how you get a lawyer if you were in a situation like this? if you have the money you can hire a lawyer. but especially here in new york there are a number of law firms to provide help to people that are in that circumstance. . .

i think as hard at this point in time to see what the outcome of his decision to defer action until post-november have on the turnout in this election. there are whole host of other factors. i do think whatever decision he

does make whenever he does make that decision david whether it's a december decision which is they have been meeting in the media about, it will be interesting to see how that plays out across the country. much of that may be impacted by the rosove so this november election. it could galvanize the country in a way in which immigration reform is put on steroids than obama does happen because there will be this period of controversy in consternation and people trying to figure out what to do when i galvanize the country to put together the kind of immigration reform package that congress needs to put together. on the other hand it could backfire and you could have people -- there's a huge coalition of what i call they enter comprehensive immigration reform. people in congress could galvanize to fight comprehensive immigration reform package in which case you look ahead and

you continue this decade of inaction and irresponsibility beyond the 2016 election when you have national elections when this issue was finally dealt with. hard to tell. >> i think secretary salazar has summed it up well which is it's a risk. historically -- historically latinos across united states have not had high voter turnout in the midterm elections. they just kind of an electoral fact which i regret deeply but for me i don't want to get into political calculus. mine is a moral calculus. for every day there's a delay there are 1000 families were more being impacted. that's the arithmetic i want in the house and the senate and the

white house, the moral calculus. i will leave the politicians to do their job but my job is to say everyday there is a delay somebody's father or mother is going to be separated from their children. that's the calculus i want people to start doing, the moral calculus. the political calculus is for another constituency. >> in looking at the questions, many people have the same ones. i will just combine this last one for all of you and give you a chance to think of it in summary, what would be to reke rekey -- two or three key points that needs need to be included and i would like this one from a point of faith. someone said what are the points of light. the stories of human goodness and generosity that have come out of this process. sum up those together and tell

us what this could be that fai faith? who wants to go first? i realize judge for you you are coming from the position of law. >> the higher moral order. >> i feel like i'm repeating myself but i am. i believe that immigration reform should address the issue of right to counsel. there are a number of smaller issues that i can think of that are really very technical but i think also we have to -- immigration reform has to deal with the very large number of undocumented people in this country who at this point in time do not have relief in court and i don't want to use the word

amnesty but there have historically been forms of relief such as registry which gives people status in this country if they have been here for a certain number of years. work, pay taxes etc.. i think immigration reform has to address that very large number of people who secretary salazar are living in the shadows. finally i think that immigration reform has to deal with what we are seeing, very large increase in the immigration court which i would say generally are vulnerable populations which are not only juveniles by people who are not mentally competent and that's becoming increasing in

the immigration court. that is what i would like to see. >> reverend, two or three things that must must include in a point of light that has emerged from the crisis. >> i would agree with judge burr on legal counsel especially for minors and legal counsel that is linguistically compatible and culturally competent. family unification as a principle to part of the immigration. that family stay united as a principle. secondly an errant path to citizenship. there has to way -- the way for these 12 million men and women and children to have a path to citizenship. i think just from raw political analysis is you have to deal with issues of future to get bipartisan support. there has to be some way to

modernize the system to do that. my top thing would be family unification earned path to citizenship and legal counsel. of course also dealing with the issues of future flow which means foreign-policy that helps with development and economic sustainability. in terms of hope, 10 years ago the majority of white evangelicals were not for immigration reform. we have won that argument so there's massive conversion

>> secretary salazar we have come full circle with you. >> thank you very much david. i came to colorado to see this great institution i want to say thank you to dr. jim carter and dr. sierra fisher and all of you in this great jesuit university and members of the community who came here tonight to hear and engage in this lively discussion we have had here today. it truly was extraordinary and i hope it's something that would happen across the country and maybe with respect to your

second on the points of hope, i think pope francis being the jesuit is one of those things that gives a lot of us that point of hope on a lot of different fronts. and your specific question david i would say two things in terms of action items that i would like to leave this audience with in this country. the first is comprehensive or gration reform in this country for all of the matters and policy imperatives that we spoke about here tonight and that's to have an immigration system that works in this country. that's point number one. point number two copper think when you call of action relative to our hemispheric relations in the western hemisphere and neglected 50 years since john kennedy announced progress in most presidents have not focused on latin america. i think we need that so that would be my two points. let's get conference of immigration reform happening here in the u.s. and let's have

a new foreign-policy for latin america. in terms of points of hope i would give you two. one is that unlike 10 years ago or 25 years ago we have become much more of a one world community. that's both from a communications point of view where you can communicate through the internet what's happening quickly from one end of the world to another. it's also true from an economic point of view. if whether it's mexico or argentina which we visited we are much more interconnected economically in this point in our world history than we ever have been. i think those interconnections will help us deal with these issues that go beyond borders. i think that's a point of hope, the creation of a global community in all the conversations. the second for his here specifically on this bill or this legislative initiative on conference of immigration reform

i echo what gabriel said. the coalition that exist today no one could have ever dreamt in 2004 when we were fighting for this issue when senator kennedy would call me in 2005 every sunday morning for a 15 and a half hour conversation about how we would move over the next week to try to get conference of immigration reform done. we didn't have a coalition so it's the dairy farmers the business community law enforcement lots of people who have come together on it and it transcends partisan lines and that's why one of the mystifying realities for me is given this strong coalition to support the american public why it is we can't seem to get washington to work. i think that's why we need to hit congress over the head that the people of united states wanted and that's a good point of light that we have in 2014.

>> ladies and gentlemen i turn it over to dr. fisher but thank you for such a riveting discussion. [applause] >> here are a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> i want to comment on the debate that i saw between bruce fein and amanda and john u

regarding the declaration of war and the war powers act. i was quite interested to watch the legal debate and it also demonstrated some of the ineptitude of the neocon proposition that in the beginning of any word the president has the ultimate hearsay of the country's ability to go to war. >> i would like to commend c-span2 for airing information from the writers on greece and the military. it was excellent information that gave depth level interaction in dynamics and nuances and the reality for

instance that post-traumatic stress disorder can climb up and can be resolved if you continue to try various interventions. >> i think the american history tv on c-span is one of the best programs ever. i wish we could do it more than once a week. >> intended to let us know what you think about the programs are watching. call us at (202)626-3400 or e-mail us at comments at c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span.

this event occurred shortly after the fatal shooting of a canadian soldier near parliament. it is two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> hello everybody. hello everybody. my name is bill owen. i am the organizer. a little help or i should say a lot of help from open media

which were instrumental. a little bit of history here. the reason i am -- glenn is a friend of mine and i believe his message is an important message in canada so i asked him to come to ottawa. thank you glenn. tonight you might be interested in how i met glenn. i was commenting and they were great commenters there. glenn would always jump into the comments and talk to us and insult us too. people lived in dread if glenn was coming down and said no, no. over the years glenn and i would exchange comments and a couple of stories and i was really

happy. we started sending e-mails and things like that i'm back in 2012 i brought glenn here for the first time and a few times since then. contrary to the image you see on tv a lot of people think glenn is this ogre that we have seen on tv smiling at people. he's the nicest -- nicest sweetest guy you have ever met. i don't want to talk too much because i know nobody came to see me. i'm holding my hand. rubik's cube. the rubik's cube is central to this story because when glenn went to hong kong he had no idea what snowden looked like. snowden did not tell him what he looked like. you couldn't because that would be bad operational security. so he told them him i will be carrying a rubik's cube and that is how you'll recognize me.

when glenn into the lobby in the hotel in hong kong he's looking around like where's this guy guy? is expecting a senior nsa guy. he looks over there and sees little edward snowden this tiny skinny guy. he has the rubik cube. i'm looking for a senior nsa guy by the skinnier. to make a long story short they talk and this is where we are. we are almost ready here. our house for the evening, our actual hostess jesse brown. jesse brown is a real journalist unlike me. i'm just a guy with a big mouth and he's had a lot of experience. he has worked at cbc and has his own web site called canada land. jesse is going to do an interview with glenn after glenn's talk so he will talk for 30 or 40 minutes and then just england will interview. jesse has promised me a probing interview.

that is basically the thing so i guess i'll just leave it at that. jesse is going to introduce glenn. before i go out there to thank everyone for coming and i thank my sponsors and my wife are helping me. she has been instrumental and also turn off your cell phones and put them in the refrigerator. i don't know how people got that joke but it's a joke. right now we have jesse brown has coming out. give him a big hand. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> thank you. it has been a hell of a week. i was following along on twitter as things are unfolding here and you know amid everything else i was feeling all the confusion and the shock of it in later the sadness. i felt something else. i have a selfish thought. i thought this is bad luck.

what bad timing that this had to happen so soon before the greenwald event. everything that i heard as the events unfolded in the days since affirmed that sense that the timing is off. we hear these things. we hear that canada lost her innocence on wednesday and we hear that we have to say goodbye to the old normal because now it's welcome to the new normal and we are told that things just don't feel the same anymore. all of this gave me this growing pervasive sense that this was not the time for this conversation. and then i thought about some other things. i thought about the bill c. 13 the lawful access legislation protecting children from on line predators act and people were not so happy with that. then it was rebranded and rage induced as the

anti-cyberbullying love. this is a piece of legislation that makes it very easy for law enforcement to call up your cell phone provider to call up your telephone provider and get information about you, all kinds of information without warrant which they do any doubt that this would make it legal. this is a bill that we had been beating down. 73% of canadians oppose this bill and privacy advocates and commissioners are against them the supreme court has ruled it's probably unconstitutional. we have been beating it back for years and this week that passes third reading in the house of commons and is off to the senate for a rubber stamp. after the shooting something else happen. our prime minister promised us that he would expedite tough new antiterrorism legislation that would make certain kinds of speech illegal and would make it easier for authorities to detain suspects of terrorism. this is not a new normal. this is the old normal. we have seen this before.

we have seen moments of trauma and fear that have come with the subtle messages that it's not appropriate to have certain conversations during those times and we have seen before that while they are getting a subtle and not-so-subtle message that those conversations are not appropriate our rights get curtailed at that exact moment. this is happen before. so seeing this auditorium filled with canadians tells me that this is the exact right time to have this discussion. this is the exact right time to talk about things like surveillance underwrites. i feel incredibly lucky to be in producing glenn greenwald in a moment that i feel very lucky that there is a glenn greenwald. [applause] i think about that, yeah. [applause] consider for a second that the edward snowden did not have a glenn greenwald to contact if there wasn't a journalist to

encrypt the communication. imagine if the nsa heard what edward snowden was trying to convey. imagine if the journal of the edward snowden contact it was not as committed to rigorously and aggressively and responsibly reporting the revelations as snowden was brave enough to come forward with. imagine we would all be the worse off for it. i don't know where edward snowden would be. glenn greenwald has paid a price for revealing these truths. he has had his patriotism questioned. he has been called a criminal, an accessory to criminal. he has been called these things by journalist. he has had his boyfriend detained. he has had his freedom curtailed but he is here with us in ottawa tonight. a warm round of applause for pulitzer prize-winning journalist glenn greenwald. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you so much. good evening to everybody and thanks for coming out tonight and thank you as well to open media and rabble ca for sponsoring the event and thanks to my very enthusiastic long-time reader below and organizing such a great event and for helping me be able to come this week to canada where i have had a very eventful 96 hours. [laughter] in an interesting way i feel like i have had despite how tumultuous it's been a rather productive week because i feel like i've accomplished something on my list of life objectives that a lot of people who believe in stereotypes about the country would say that would be impossible to achieve which is i have gotten to spend the entire

week with my e-mail in a box full of enraged canadians. there a lot of people who would have said that's impossible to achieve so it's something i got to check off of my list. the reaction to the article i wrote this week which i wrote after the québec attack but very shortly before the news that the ottawa shooting broke actually did provoke among the most intense and polarizing reaction of anything that i've ever written. in a lot of ways i look at that as a sign that it was actually a piece very worth writing. i do think ultimately the role of journalism especially at the most difficult times is to question and challenge the assumptions that people cling to most fervently. i have heard from at least as many canadians who were supportive of the arguments i've

made and were appreciative of the fact that the debate ended up including those arguments and perspectives as i did hearing from enraged canadians. this underscores an important point which is that the offensive this week as tragic and horrific as they have been to watch and to watch unfold really do provide the perfect framework in a lot of ways to think about all of the issues that i have long planned here to come and discuss. these issues pertain to the messages and narratives that western democracy, the governing of western democracies have been sending in the post-9/11 era about terrorism about threats about the nature of our societies and they pertain to all of these policies that have

been ushered in as a result of those claims. in a lot of ways the events of this week we have gotten to see unfold piping here are almost like an perfect laboratory for understanding how countries in the west have responded to these kinds of attacks like a policy perspective they have been able to interns as a result. the very first event that happened upon the first attack that i immediately noticed and recognized its extremely familiar and significant was the instantaneous injection and i do mean instantaneous, injection of the most inflammatory but also the most meaningless word in our political lexicon which is terrorism. almost instantly before anything knew anything about the perpetrators of the isis event

than media and political class in this country in the united states and throughout the west all agreed by consensus that both of these attacks were adequately and necessary described as being terrorism. there is no discussion as usual of what that word means or what it has to do in order to qualify. it was simply a label that inslee got applied almost reflexively without any reflection or deliberation or discussion of any kind. that word is they said is meaningless in the sense that it has no definition but it's inflammatory in the sense that it's incredibly consequential. happens over and over again that these attacks it is worth thinking about what that would means and the effect we have allowed to have on us as citizens. that was followed by the remarkable agility of how government responded to the attacks.

i am not a particularly enthused fan of the harper government. [applause] but you know i think it's important to give credit where it's due. this speed and the aggression and the brazenness and the shamelessness with which the prime minister moved to manipulate and exploit the emotions around this offense to demand more power for himself was almost impressive. a mean i think you have got to give them credit. if you look at how other governments have responded they usually have the decency to wait an interval of two or three weeks that they are exploiting these fears to justify. prime minister harper is unburdened by those kinds of qualms. really it's amazing. less than 48 hours, less than 48 hours after the ottawa shooting

city stood up in the house of commons. this is yesterday and this is what he said. he said quote our laws and powers need to be strengthened in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrests. they need to be much strength in. i assure members that work which is already underway will be expedited. and again the only thing unusual about that is the nakedness with which it happens. this is in the process within the 9/11 era for attacks are seized upon as a way to further dismantle or protections of civil liberties and core principles of representatives. another really visible and familiar dynamic that i was able to see this week is what i refer to as the toot toot tactic. i had a lot of people that wrote to me and said i agree with a lot of what you said in the

article. i think it's important for you to say it but i just feel like it's too soon. apparently they're some kind of time limit that you are supposed to wait before you start talking about this. while i understand the sentiment behind that claim the problem with it is that there is no such thing as too soon when it comes to how the government and their allies in the media start politicizing these events. it was as i said instantaneous data got labeled a terrorist attack and that they were all kinds of claims, very debatable claims made that came out of these attacks. you are a journalist or a citizen is actually responsible to see these critical hours when citizenry is most engaged in an emotional and very riveting way. to see that and let the government messages go

unchallenged. they don't wait before they start politicizing. not just the event but even the well-intentioned emotional rituals that spring up around them and it's worth talking about that as well. the most significant part of the dynamics i want to spend the bulk of my time talking about is the way in which we have been persuaded to think about the world in a drastically different way than reality ought to suggest. by that i mean we have been persuaded to think about our own society and their own government in the world that there is very little resemblance to the reality of what we have allowed our society and government to do in the world. to illustrate that as best as i can i want to share little anecdote. the very first story from the archives that i was able to report on specifically involving canada and all the stores in both canada and the sense that

they are all about the internet we all share the same internet that the first or is able to report about surveillance in canada was back in october of last year. i reported the story with the large brazilian television network and what they story revealed that use documents from your version of the nsa which is the surveillance agency in canada and what it revealed was the communications of the personally and industry of mines and energy which happens to be the agency of greatest interest to the canadian timber and logging crew. when i reported this story before it reported it i knew was going to be huge story in brazil in part because they are very concerned about doing the way in which surveillance is being used to essentially cheat and to gain an unfair economic advantage and also because it smacks of a kind

of colonialism and imperialism with which that country is in place for so long by its neighbors to the door of bar and i knew would be huge story in brazil i didn't expect it to be a big story in canada. the reason i didn't expect it to be a big story in canada's or experience what i've done reporting along the lines of the country spying on country bay, country b cares a huge amount but typically country m the country doing the spying doesn't really care at all. people care about the stories that show that they are being spied on and they don't care much about the stories showing their government spying on people around the world. my expectations were thwarted once we did the reporting periods a huge story in canada. it made the nightly news for five consecutive nights. i was deluge to do interviews and to help them do reporting.

i was surprised, very surprised, at how much the story resonated in canada. i spoke to a couple of canadian journalists who i know pretty well. in fact i spoke with rear for them and i asked them why did the story becomes so they can canada this idea that canada's spying on this minister -- ministry in brazil. said basically there are two reasons why the story ended up being so big. they said number one there were a ton of canadians, probably most to didn't even know there was such an agency. canadians just didn't know that they have an agency engaged in this far-reaching invasive electronic surveillance. they knew the essay -- nsa did it but a lot of canadians did not doubt that there was an

agency engaging in this activity. secondly they said and i found this even more meaningful, they said the self-perception that canadians have nationalistic late is completely at odds with what the story revealed. essentially they were saying the ideas that canadians think we are canadians and we don't do that kind of thing. we don't spy on democratically-elected friendly governments are unfair economic advantage. i found both of those points to be profoundly significant. if you think about the first they idea that there's this agency that throughout the world engages in incredibly consequential behavior which the very existence of which has been kept from canadians let alone the broad source of what they do. think about what that means for the claim that we are living in a meaningful democracy. whenever people ask me and i get asked this all the time, what is

the most meaningful revelation have discovered from this archive and why we say is the threat to privacy posed by the surveillance. the vast amount of communications they collect every day is significant but even more significant than that is the threat posed to democracy. it is stunning that these five governments the u.s. the u.k. australia and new zealand and canada have instituted a system as self-evidently consequential with such profound far-reaching implications as a system of mass surveillance without a whiff of disclosure or debate among the citizens areas that are supposed to hold them democratically accountable. i did a story for months ago they came from the nsa archive. i was one of the most significant ones we did even though it didn't get a lot of

attention compared the other stories. the story was essentially about this magazine that the nsa publishes internally. they have a magazine that is top-secret. it's only for themselves. it looks like every magazine you by on a newsstand except that it's really creepy. they boast of the wonderful ways they have updated communications in their profiles on food technological nerds. they highlight them and it's like snoop of the week that kind of thing. one of the issues that we have had in the snowden archive is they do interviews just like every other interview in the interview was with a top official at the nsa in charge of form partnerships. he manages the nsa's relationship with the gchq and canada and european countries and every other agency with which the nsa corroborates. the interviewer asked him this

question. and if question. interviewer said here's this incredibly strange phenomenon that a lot of us can figure out which is in all of these other countries who have wild swings in the outcome of political elections. sometimes conservatives win and other times liberals on. you have the far right that can govern in at the far left and it almost makes no difference. nothing ever changes. our partnerships with these countries continues as strong now matter who wins or loses the election and why is that? one of the really fascinating things and then usual things about reading these documents in the snowden archives that you encounter this thing you never otherwise see which is government officials when asked a question actually tell the truth because they didn't ever think that anybody would know what the answer was. it was all supposed to be secret. what this official said in response to the question to me was incredibly significant. he said the reason these partnerships never change based

on the outcome of elections is because there is almost nobody outside of the military structure of these countries that even knows these partnerships exist. in other words the people that we go to the polls and elected as political leaders have no idea and never worry about the existence of the surveillance activities and therefore can't change them because they don't know about them. over and over and all the countries in which i did reporting i had top officials or members of parliament or congress say to me i was responsible for overseeing this agency and yet i learned so much more from reading your articles that were published than i ever learned from the oversight committees or from the government meetings i attended. it really is almost like a state within a state. the state within the state is

completely removed from democratic accountability or transparency of any kind. that experience in writing in a the way in which it resonated underscore that for me. think of how little we have learned about the most are one of the most profound consequential programs that are government has implemented in think about how genuine of the democracy we have. if you go to the polls and pick the leader that you want we have no idea what it is that they are doing. of course it's not just surveillance but all sorts of other policies implemented in the name of terrorism that have existed beyond this wall of secrecy. the implications for democracy are incredibly profound as is our ability of citizens to understand what our government is doing. now that leads to the other reason that i found even more fascinating which was although they were saying at half in jest it quite true. this idea that canadians have

the story because it's inconsistent with their supper section. we are canadians we don't do that kind of thing could obviously that procession was wrong. canadians do that sort of thing. documents demonstrate they did exactly that. when you think about what that means the reality of what our government is doing on the one hand is inconsistent with the perceptions we have about our government on the other. that's another way of saying that the citizenry has been propagandize. that is the definition of that term that they have been led to believe pleasant things about the government that actually is desperate to the reality of what the government does in the world. this to me is the crux of the entire post-9/11 air and get them to sell this week. i want to spend a little bit of time talking about that a little bit more in depth. i remember really vividly the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.

i'm talking about the days and weeks after the 9/11 attack. i was in manhattan and i had lived and worked there for 10 years. i recall that experience and i still recall it. vividly. the prevailing emotion that was triggered by the 9/11 attacks in the immediate aftermath not months down the road once the government began messaging but the immediate aftermath was not one of anger of vengeance or sadness. it was not those things. the immediate prevailing emotion was doubtful meant, shock. the question that was on almost everybody's mind is why would somebody possibly want to do this to the united states? why would somebody have such hatred for americans that they would being willing to blow themselves up in order to kill as many people indiscriminately that they don't know. what kind of causes could have

led them to that mindset? this is being asked not rhetorically. it wasn't a conversation of innocence or anything like that. most americans generally did not understand the answer. the u.s. government knew that it had to provide an answer because everybody knew there were some reason. everyone knew it was not random. a group that was responsible for didn't put the names of all the countries into a hat and happened to pick up united states. the government knew it had to provide an explanation. the explanation that i end up providing was one that we now 12 years later and got pretty readily but at the time it's what members of america believe because their government told them that in the media told them that. the answer was the reason they hate us isn't because of anything we have done. it has nothing to do with anything we have done. the reason they hate us is

because we are so free that they hate us for our freedoms. that was the genuine answer with a straight face of the u.s. government and the west navy to the american population. it was so extraordinary about that if you look back on it is that it was not difficult at all to find out the reason. there was a long list of grievances that not only the group that perpetrated the attack but a huge part of the muslim world have been openly discussing for many many years. you could have gone in red muslim newspapers. you could've visited muslim countries and it could have talked to someone and saw that any of that dialogue. the grievances were all very clear and they were all embedded into the culture for a long time. it wasn't just things like the u.s. putting troops on what is perceived as holy soil in saudi

arabia. it was substantial things like imposing the sanctions regime on iraq that have built several -- killed several iraqi children are over growing their democratically-elected leaders in propping up the most heinous tyrants such as the ones that ruled egypt and saudi arabia are steadfastly supporting militarily and economically and diplomatically the country of israel as it engages in violence against its neighbors in palestine and lebanon and elsewhere. this list of grievances was fully aired in that part of the world and yet remarkably americans didn't just reject the validity of those grievances. they didn't reach the conclusion that it didn't justify the attacks. they literally were completely unaware of the existence of that dialogue in that part of the world. they had no idea that their government was even doing this. the fact that for so long critical part of what the u.s.

government were doing in the world were simply suppressed in most u.s. discourse to the point that americans literally did not even know the existence of it. if you look at polling data and other surveys of the muslim world versus the western world and by the muslim by the muslim world i mean shorthand for the melee muslim countries you find radical differences in how people in that part of the world think about things versus how people in our part of the world think about things. we often tell ourselves that the reason for this disparate view is because they don't have a free press and they get misled and they are propagandize. there's all kinds of polling data that shows if you asked people in that part of the world is polling agencies have done which countries are the greatest threat to world peace people in that part of the world don't say iran and china and russia and north korea. overwhelmingly they say the greatest threat in the world are

two close allies in canada which are the united states and israel. it may be true in some cases that sometimes it explains a disparate perspective of the world is that part of the world is propagandize and sometimes what explains it is that we are. i think it's critical to accept that fact. nobody likes to think of themselves as living in a society that's propagandize. i think the most vivid example demonstrating how this works that is a seemingly narrow one but to me a very powerful one is one that happened in 2009. in 2009 this woman who was an iranian american journalist was detained while in iran doing journalism work. the iranian government said they detained and arrested her because they suspected she was a spy. she was imprisoned in an iranian prison -- prison for three wee

weeks. during that three months that she was in prison in an iranian prison her cause, her case was one of the most celebrated cases in american media circles. almost every prominent journals would go on twitter every day and say free roxana. they would report on it. there was all this outrage over the idea that a country that is so true radical they imprison journalists. the same thing happened a few months later when north korea in prison for sure. makkah time to american journalist and ended up releasing them on al gore visited. huge amounts of anger and indignation that it country could be so trackless to imprison journalists. at the same exact time all that was happening, the united states government had been imprisoning

over two dozen journalists as part of what it calls the war on terror including the case of somebody named sammy l. path. sammy l. haq was an al-jazeera photo journalist and cameraman who was arrested and detained by the u.s. government when he was crossing into the border of afghanistan to cover the war for al-jazeera in late 2001. he was taken first to bagram in afghanistan shortly after he was taken to guantánamo where he remained for the next six years without being charged with any kind of a crime. given no due process of any kind where he was interrogated overwhelmingly about his work for al-jazeera and almost none about anything to do with terrorism or al qaeda. the reason that's so amazing is because the word was never

mentioned in american political discourse. to this day americans have no idea that their government imprisoned two dozen journalists as part of the war on on on terror are kept in al-jazeera photo journalist imprisoned in guantánamo for six years without any kind of trial. in fact i looked up the word roxana saberi and found mentions during the three-month period when she was detained in an iranian prison and was something like 8000 media accounts of her name. if you search the name saw me all hot for the seven years he was kept in wanton amount it is less than 100. think the number something like 71. americans had no idea for years. in the muslim world however he is a huge celebrity. when he was released to his major headline news all over that part of the world. people in that part of the world know it isn't just iran and

north korea which imprisons journalists but also the united states that does so. we in this part of the world something that has been largely kept in this disparity between what our government is doing in the world and what we actually ourselves are aware of the think is central to so much of what has gone wrong in the post-9/11 era. all of this was the backdrop for canada. what prompted me to write the article that i wrote. i remember the moment that i decided i had to write about this. i was reading a newspaper account of the attack in québec and i was simultaneously watching it canadian television program about it. the theme of the article in the television show was the same. the theme is this. it was people are stunned that this kind of violence could take

place in such a peaceful community like the one that took place. i remember thinking on some level it's really appealing to believe that that's true. it is of course true that the community is relatively peaceful. if you walk around canada as i've done many times over the past five or six years in many cities it seems like a really peaceful country. as a peaceful country when you walk on canadian soil. all of that is really true but what is it true is that the foreign policy of canada is peaceful. the foreign policy of canada is not peaceful. i say that not just mentally or in denunciation. i will get to that in a minute. [laughter] for the moment i say that only as a literal observation of fa fact. i think a lot of a lot of times i have seen americans who speak of canadians to play up these stereotypes and platter

canadians by saying our government is all true stick in his% of the administration we so wish we could be more like you, this nice tranquil diverse peaceful country but there is an extent to which that is not entirely typical. just from the obama administration alone in the last six years under president obama, this to me is one of the most extraordinary statistic that i have heard. in the last six years under president obama who by the way won the 2009 price the united states has dropped bombs on seven different predominantly muslim in addition to muslim minority in the philippines which is really eight countries that have been bombed just since the inauguration of the 2009 priests -- nobel peace prize winner. canada has not been a party to that. canada will refrain from some aggression. largely they are not entirely refraining from participating in

a war in iraq but canada is a steadfast ally and partner of the united states and all kinds of militarism and violence. the years of invasion and occupation in afghanistan, a bombing campaign in libya that left that country in utter and complete shambles and now what the canadian press itself is calling a new war in iraq which has spilled over into syria. you may have a lot of different views about those policies. he may believe that those policies are charitable acts of nation-building generosity and maybe they are. that is a debate that people can have and have had but there's a huge part of the world, hundreds of millions of people that required those wars much differently. they see them as acts of aggression and militarism. they see the innocent children and the women and innocent men who are killed continuously by those policies on which the

participation of canada and things like surveillance or rendition literally picking up people from around the world including one case citizens and sending them to be tortured. you cannot be a country that lets your government engage in militarism and violence in that kind of radicalism and aggression in multiple countries around the world year after year after year and simultaneously have the expectations that there will never be any violence brought back to the country perpetrated on. this is not some radical left-wing doctrine that i invented. this concept of what is called blowback has been the cia doctrine for many decades. it engages in military action and in a different sovereign country maybe it's not just a file but it's in that -- inevitable that violence will be brought back to that country. there is this remarkable 2004

report that was commissioned by the george bush pentagon run by donald rumsfeld and it was given to the defense task force. the question that donald rumsfeld issued the task force to ask is what is the cause of terrorism and why are so many people in the world to want to do violence to the united states come he can go on my to read. it seems what i said in interviews with somehow controversial. it isn't treated as self-defense evidence. the report in 2004 concluded this. it said that key cause of terrorism aimed at americans as quote american direct intervention in the muslim world. american direct intervention the muslim world. then identified three different policies that comprise this direct intervention. one is support for the regions

worst tyrants giving economic aid and drowning in weapons, their regimes in egypt and saudi arabia. second link was steadfast support for israel which is viewed as enabling all sorts of aggression in that part of the world and third was actual wars and occupations, principally the invasion of afghanistan. canada plays a role in all of those policies and what they report concluded and this is not me saying this. this is an actual quote. it repudiated the u.s. government statements to the citizenry about when the 9/11 attack cap and thereby terrorism happens. quote muslims do not end our freedoms but rather they hate our policies. it is so tempting, so tempting to see ourselves as victims as pure and innocent victims. we all want to see ourselves that way. we get to emancipate ourselves from any kind of responsibility

or culpability or guilt. it's really tempting to say when our societies are attack rather than our societies doing the attacking the recent happens is there is an extremist religion in the world on extremist version of a religion that is just unbearably hateful and they just want to do violence for its own sake. they hate us for our freedoms. that just simply isn't the case. i think it gives us a responsibility as citizens and certainly as journalist to make certain that the dialogue, the goal should be to make it as rational and fact-based as possible so we are not actually susceptible to manipulation. so i just want to talk about one other point about the events of this week and how critical i think it is in its dynamic. this is actually a little uncomfortable to talk about but again it's probably a sign that

it's really worth talking about. i spent three or four days now like everybody else in the country watching unbelievably difficult to watch footage of the family members of the two soldiers who were killed in each of the attacks. i have learned their names and i have learned what their life aspirations were were. i've seen their parents grieving on the screen or their siblings. it is incredibly horrific and tragic to watch. i've gone to that exact same thing with all other canadians. ..

>> >> that is what leads us to believe there is then etiology out there that is evil and savage to kill innocent people in the most tragic ways we're nothing

more than the innocent victims or the bystanders because we allow ourselves to suppress the implication of our own actions and the things that cause them. so i think the reason for me it is the all-important to talk about these things is to fold. i think we become much more susceptible to the kind of fear maundering the canadian government in western government engaged in to manipulate our emotions to get us to acquiesce to greater police powers of surveillance and detention and arrest but even as the conservatives want to criminalize anything it is perceived as endorsing or legitimizing a terrorist attack that is alarming for me because a lot of people

falsely claim that i legitimized the attack by talking about it that is radical we are more susceptible to that manipulation when we don't face the reality of what our own governments to do. but the more important reason is a disease he learned to look back at past generations and the reason why they made illegal traces -- racist it is extremely difficult to do that to ourselves but wonder what the future generations will think about and it is undoubtedly true that future generations will look back at the united states is a the wake of 9/11 with the

path of endless war to put themselves in a policy approach with the war that had no end. i say that the pattern of what has happened that we do something in that part of the world that generates rage and fear that causes a tiny percentage who want to bring violence back to us. we really demand our government has civil libertarians that causes more violence to be brought back to us and a never ending spiral. how do they think we can never get off that path if each time this happens in our reaction is the same?

was too critical points we think about is the mere existence of a successful attack is not evident that government policy was wrong or that it should change its policy. would have privacy and security or freedom and still have terrorist attacks. perhaps a little safety is the goal. trying to achieve it will create more cars than the failure to have it in the first place. we all start immediately demanding the government lowers the speed limit we except that is the benefit of having automobiles that we will have the risk of

death and sometimes people will die. it is intrinsic and unavoidable. we don't demand it be reduced 3 miles per hour. we should be thinking the same way about terrorism. even after this week, even if there are more weeks like weeks like this one if you are canadian you have a greater chance of dying by slipping in the bathtub and hitting your head on the cement or being struck by lightning than you do to die in a terrorist attack. yet we have allowed the word terrorism to take a profound meaning that right before our eyes governments dismantle the protections of the attributes of justice.

and is critically important not to act that way every time there is an attack. but the word terrorism itself. and all the things i have written about every single issue from torture to detention to killing people whose names you don't know with drones of the government and its defenders use one word over and over they a better the word terrorism and expect it will end of the debates in their favor is the most consequential word in our vocabulary. what is amazing about that fact it is a word that doesn't have any fixed meaning you cannot provide

any definition of terrorism unhealthy to a consistent application. there is a famous supreme court case in the united states that the justices grappled over though word obscenity because pornography is legal but obscenity isn't the supreme court justice had to define obscenity and famously said all i can say i cannot define and but i know it when i see it which is alarming way for the first amendment freedom to be defined based on the sensation in your stomach about what the phenomenon is. it is remarkable that according to the government's own version of events the perpetrator of the crime waited for two

hours in his car waited to find a soldier in uniform and attacked this soldier. the one common usage it has it requires the deliberate targeting of civilians with violence for political ends but here is someone who deliberately avoided targeting civilians and the soldier instead clearly illegal but in what sense is that terrorism? although very likely seems to be driven by mental instability as religion how was that terrorism? the word as significant as it has become has no meeting other than violence and

gauge ginned by muslims against the west. a term to legitimize the violence we do ourselves and delegitimize what is used against us it should have far different consequences and analysts now is without anybody thinking about what it is. so the last point is not this week directly but dealing with edwards noted i just want to show one particular lesson over the last year-and-a-half and whenever i speak about it is a profound lesson.

when i first talked to edwards noted in the very first conversation i had with him was online i didn't know his name in which agency or how old he was but he claimed to have been enormous amount of extremely sensitive material from the most secretive agency in the world from the world's most powerful government and wanted to give that to me. but even with the tiny faction they want to hide. because they fear the consequences but he said the exact opposite i don't want to hide i don't intend to hide. once i give you this material i will come forward to publicly identify myself as the source to explain to you the world why it is cited what i did and why it

is the right thing to do that as i not have a need to hide. ira reiner had a mental image i know you have the mental images and it is never ever anything like what they are like i thought he was in his '60s or '70s i get to hong kong and there is this kid. 29 ... like any type of computer geek at all -- at the mall and i spend a lot of time with him to understand his motives why he would come forward knowing he would go to prison for the rest of his life. that he had discovered something he believed was a

profound injustice if i confront this that will produce severe pain i have to live with that and the pain is so much worse than anything u.s. government could do to and including prison for decades. of the reason why that is so stunning and profoundly affected however again everything is because edwards noted is the most ordinary and a remarkable person you'll ever meet he came from a lower middle-class background his father was in the coast guard for 30 years. grew up without a shred of position or prestige.

he would just toil away in a massive -- massive national security corporation. but nothing more than an act of conscience -- conscience conscience, he changed a the world literally. he transform how hundreds of millions of people think. he radically altered the debate of who we are and what rights we have in the digital age can the role of journalism in society. all kinds of implications. one of the things i have encountered. this is the kind of temptation where it is easy to look at these policies

and say to yourself institutions responsible are so enormous and powerful that there is nothing i as an individual could do. it is a mind set of resignation that is pleasant because you have the obligation to act. there are so many examples of ordinary people in engaging in similar acts of conscience whether rosa parks sparking the unbelievable civil rights movement or a tunisian end street vendors setting himself on fire to a spark of conflagration i know what i have learned from edwards notion is that any institution built by human

beings no matter how formidable or palatable could always be attacked and reform to or even destroyed and replaced by even the most ordinary as long as the will and conviction and passion is there. that is of critical lesson to keep in the forefront. so with that, i thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you.

>> would you like some water? we will have a conversation for a while then we will turnover to questions from the crowd. we will start a lineup to the end of the conversation. it is true that canadians were shocked to learn that we were spying on brazil for industrial purposes. but we were not shocked by the revelations or not shocked enough to learn that we will come via nsa or to be spied on at an airport

through the wifi connection maybe we're canadian and it is impolite to spy on brazil and is embarrassing the way with the government is doing is not. and those better adamant where more deferential to power. where those have modified to regard this and modify. i am screaming at the top of my lungs we don't know as much as they do. they know about verizon and we don't know with any conclusive terms whether or not our government is spying on us. but you do know something about that.

you know, more what our government is doing in our name and to us than anybody in the audience today. is csec spying on canadians? >> we have already done stories and one in particular that demonstrates the answer to that question is yes with the store the reference that csec tracking people in international airports and tracking them as they leave with there wifi and connections. it is important to understand that there really is no such thing that can best buys with the alliance that is notable because of how indivisible is. so whatever reporting we have done about the nsa necessarily includes canada as well.

and then working inside of a surveillance agency. so the of vast bulk documents of the nsa there is already information on canadian soil and more reporting on those questions to come. you have a responsibility to do right to make sure the reporting is accurate. and there are significant revelations about canada. there is the difference with an essay that the message to americans was the companies to communicate through are indiscriminately spying on massive amounts of people to

say i don't know what airport that was in to get the metadata then we had an exercise in the commissioner said those laws were broken. suicide becomes a quintile that csec is buying on canadians because they are forbidden by law. so can we anticipate that kind of revolution? >> i was telling you that we need your own canadian edwards noted that despite that to take the documents that you are eager to you looked at to make them public through a journalist or another way. i hope that happens. >> if you're out there canadian headword is noted reach us at our e-mail.

[laughter] so i do think is that he will inspire other people to be partner countries to come forward. i've learned a lesson and a long time ago i will not preview what we're doing because then if i pre-be reporting to say yes the have these documents from the time i get back until the day i die i will be get e-mail saying where are these documents? you want to make sure what you are reporting is truce flyweight for the reporting to happen but there is as juneau's stories and though works on those questions that could be reported any times to make you are said to tease you say it is coming four months and

months. can we get a timeline? >> that will not play 20 questions it will not do any good. >> with all due respect i can understand why you would do so there are other factors that inhibit did your ability to report these stories. but stuff that came from edwards noted in your experience with the canadian press has been troubled. you describe your relationship with the globe and the mail as difficult the shocking resistance at the cbc for months and months after stories are reported and we have to get specific one that was

ideologically opposed. >> i let him do the dirty work. [laughter] it is a mixed bag because we did several stories with the cbc in cooperation with a reporter and a couple of editors somewhere very aggressive and steadfastly behind the story and did not capitulate to government pressure. each left to become the editor in chief of the globe and mail and and we were given a new journalist and put him to work and this individual seems to believe that surveillance is a good thing which she is entitled to think i guess of there four he does not think it should be reported because

canadians want the government to do these things and they said we want you to be committed to the reporting and i feel we get that now. let me say so you understand the process the documents that we talk about are in the eyes of these governments among the most sensitive material they have. it shows how they and bought -- invade privacy on the internet. so then they learn media outlets will report to publish these documents they fyi extreme amounts of pressure to intimidate and scare them. they say if you publish these documents you will

help touristy evade detection and that will cause the death of innocent people and blood is on your a good journalist and editor no governments say that every case when they want to hide what they're doing so you ignore it that everybody is a good editor or journalists and some are scared then it holds up the reporting a round of world and our former editor in chief said that is exactly what csec told his office that this was a matter of life and death and was ultimately revealed to be pochette. -- bullshit but we're still waiting for that moment and to correct themselves simak not to put everything on terry because cbc is a

public broadcaster and he was the point of contact with you and nothing was coming out so i don't know what happened there but he said he was ideologically opposed the he suggested strongly on twitter that is bullshit. can we put that to rest? >> i will just say that you can go on twitter and call a story bullshit it is not convincing but i don't need to review that to prove that the proof that the reporting has not come. >> pooley working with now? and realize and make things very awkward for you to talk to you the cbc as they try to kiss and make up. i am sorry if i make things weird. [laughter] the two will report this with you? >> i have spent a lot of time speaking about the role

of a journalist it is to hold people in positions of power accountable including media outlets that play a significant role. as a knowing as you have been though whole weekend as uncomfortable as to make our relationship with other journalists it is the right thing i am glad you did it the public has a right to know the media outlets are being bullied out of reporting or other corrupting influences. but yes we're still working with the globe and mail id cbc. so we expect there to begin reporting. >> consistent with the idea to hold people accountable as the person who has these files you are a powerful person. it is unfortunate but others are not sharing with anyone and that is shameful but i

suppose that is shorebird in but i do have ask questions to whole to accountable. once said he is puzzled by the process that you choose journalist to work with and it lacks transparency. of last year to account for that but he told me in a previous conversation things are changing how you are working because it is the slow process is not as robust a press as in the states that if you get into a bad relationship with a media source months can go by so tellus as much as you can to make it go faster civic people don't have any a idea what that process is voice opinions nonetheless about what it entails which is natural to do.

there is a lot of interest in the story so people want more documents to come. to the archive is vast and complex and pertains to pretty much every country on earth. . .