i've been surprised. i had a chance to go to a, kind of an off the record conference with some of the top people in the legal advisers at the cia and some of the other parts of the intelligence community, and some of them are political appointees in the obama administration, and they really don't like the press, and i thought it would be different somehow in a democratic administration, but they really think that we are -- weakening the country by writing about some of these issues, and i think, you know, what's troubling to me is there's a very fine line between writing about things that might be national security concerns and writing about stories that are just embarrassing to them, politically. >> right. >> and i think it's very important -- i mean, like everybody else on this stage here, i think the bottom line for all of us, probably is that

we really believe in telling the truth and getting it be to the american public so they can make smart decisions about their own democracy, and that's what we're all here for, and so we really believe in getting that information out there, and i can just tell you that it's not a completely unanimously held position at the top of the national security community. >> thank you. yeah. my name's matt, i'm a working journalist. the doctors who appeared in your film stated they were kind of working impartially, treating whoever needed medical help, but the military who cracked down on them seemed to be saying, no, they were kind of working actively hand in hand whip proester est eprotesters? why were the doctors targeted? speaking with you? did you see any evidence of what

their activities were? >> i think that the doctors and nurses -- the first thing they that upset the government was they were assisting the protesters who had been, you know, beaten or shot by the regime and allowing journalists to come in and film that and document it. you know, they let me come in and friilm all of that stuff, which was incredibly embarrassing for the government. they were very angry at the doctors and nurses for allowing journalists to come and document what was going on. the other thing that they did was, they defied the government. the government issued orders and things telling them, no ambulances. we're going to send our military ambulances. you don't send any ambulances. we decide who gets help and when. so the hospital staff defied those orders and went and sent ambulances anyway. that's why you saw -- you didn't see the film. some of the doctors in the film get beaten and stuff like that. and then, you know, i think another thing that upset them

was that some of those doctors and nurse was politically opposed to the regime. i mean, some of them did go around about and participate's in protest during their off hours. and in general, there was a -- there was kind of a mood in bahrain for a time of a revolutionary move, where it was kind of like everybody was with the pro about protesters except a few loyalists. i don't know. i think it was the hospital was kind of a free space for a -- a safe space for the proetestersp. that really upset government. at one point the government issued charges against the doctors and nurses, it was that they fabricated injuries and had actually created injuries in the protesters and then invited journalists to come in and film those injured people just to make the government look bad. so that's the kind of level that the government was dealing with the doctors and nurses on.

>> thank you. yes? sir. >> hi. my name is seton troy and i'm the chief editor at my high school newspaper, and i had a question for the whole panel. last year when i was watching a phillies game the crowd started cheering and is would wandering why and find out they were cheering the death of osama bin laden and i know all of you fight for justice and morality in society and whatnot and was wondering, me as a person, personally, did not think that humans should be celebrating the death of another man, but what is your take as journalists that see the turmoil that terrorism causes in society? >> hmm. well, jane? >> i had this conversation with my daughter. she was out -- she was in high school last year, too, and she was out as a cree member on the

potomac river, and i think cannons were being shot to sort of celebrate and she went to a quaker school and was very disturbed by this. and so what can i say? i -- i -- first of all, as a reporter, i feel uncomfortable in some ways opining about things anyway. you know, i was -- i think was -- i don't take a great pleasure in anybody's death. i have to say personally, but, you know, i thought that -- stow wasn't something that i felt like i wanted to jump up in the streets about, but i sort of think and i told her i thought it was a justified death. >> i mean, i would, you know, as a journalist, i think my reaction to that would be to try and cover the neem were clapping for osama bin laden's death and try to find out why are they

celebrating his death and try to look more deeply into, you know, why do they think that way? is that consistent with the values that americans say they represent that are different from osama bin laden and that kind of behavior. i mean i wouldn't really want to answer that question as a person. i would more investigate it as a journalist and use it as a chance to understand and help other people understand. >> can i ask you a question? where did you say you heard this? you were watching -- my hear'sal not very good. >> a phillies game. >> where? >> a philadelphia phillies game. >> a baseball game. >> it was a crowd reaction and people were already assembled in respect may be some sort of mob element to it, but i don't know. i think there's a good responses to that and reaction is figure out why you have to take a pretty broad survey and reflect on it. i'll give you my answer's my experience was different than yours. i was in the middle of a siege, getting shelled. i say, "we" really i immediate the mean of misradha.

they weren't shelling me, the people of misradha. i happen to be sort nf that postpost postal code, if you will, where it was happening, and i woke up and we were sleeping on the side of a building. kind of figured where the shells were coming from. we put ourselves on the far side of a building we thought we could take a direct hit from a rocket or from some artillery and survive it. the city was in terrible shape. food supplies were still okay but worried about fuel. worried that alliance was going to break. worries about getting a lot of african immigrants to libya. laborers out, and a whole mess of tactical and humanitarian problems that were pressing, and i woke up and the guy next to me, ryan dentin, read his mail and said -- i can't repeat what he said on tv, but he said is choice words. bin laden dead. i think i looked at him and said what the hell does the that have to do with anything now? we're busy.

this place is busy. so it was a strange -- i had been at 9/11. i've seen a lot of the costs of 9/11. the costs of the western reaction to 9/11. government reactions, anyhow, kind of seen the world get upended, and still in a big state of disorder over this. so i had both an intellectual and emotional to be a degree of personal stake in all of this, and i was sfruk by struck by where i was in the relevancy of the situation. i couldn't imagine cheering. i didn't want talk about that any more that i wanted to talk about the phillies game. >> my observation that day was that i found in my own, in the city where i was living, and really, from reading other people's coverage, a lot of those people were young, and i think that what chris was saying about mob mentality might play a little bit into the it, but i also think that you have to remember that i'm that age.

so those people -- those young people were old enough when it happened to remember a world before 9/11, and also young enough to see that their lives going forward are going to be tremendously changed by that, and i think that -- i think that plays into it. i think that they feel even if they had no -- well, i'm sure every american feels personally attacked, but i think, you know when you're young -- i think if you ask some of the people that go out, went out that night and cheered, in 25 years if they would do that again, they might say, no. i know -- whb i covered joe paterno -- the riots following joe paterno's firing, a lot of people who i asked, you know, i interviewed during those riots, why are you out there? they had -- they, you know -- because my friends are here.

because it's a historic night. because -- oh, i was in his front lawn. very silent. a huge contrast. about 20 kids on the coach's front lawn staring at his house, a lot of them crying and you could hear the roar downtown of the street lights coming down and the riot that was happening. 5,000 kids downtown and 25 on his front lawn. i said to some of them, what made you come to his house instead of going downtown? they said i'm going downtown next. i just wanted to see this. so -- i think it has something to do with youth. i don't know. that's my personal opinion. >> yes. i'm afraid we're in overtime. maybe time for two quick questions, if you can do it quickly. >> great panel. wonderful to ask you all a lot of questions. i'll direct one, though. to mae yang. you work for an interesting harvard beast. could you explain how that

works? could you explain who al jazeera english is and who al jazeera is and what the overlap is, whether they're shared content? different objectives? wonderful work, but what is this beast? >> so there's al jazeera arabic, the founder. al jazeera started as an arabic channel in 2006 al jal zera english was launched. al jazeera english and al jazeera have separate staff. they are based more of what is an arabic speaking audience and the other based and more of interest to, i don't want to say western audience. we have a lot of viewers in the philippines and different parts of the world. english-speaking audience. >> astonishing what you could do

in al jazeera english couldn't be played to the interested parties all over the arab world. >> well -- i mean, it was in a way, but not through the -- the institution itself. >> yeah. i mean, i don't work for the arabic channel anymore. so i don't -- i can't speak to their editorial decisions at this time. only about our decisions at the english channel. it's true it was only aired on the english channel. that's the case. >> yes. >> chris, my name's -- simpson, a trustee of the university. chris, i'm a world war ii and korean veteran and those wars, the objectives were very, very clear, and when we won in germany, we put our military colonels and captains in charge in every town and village. the germans being -- they commented in all cases and it was over.

now you have a situation where religion is involved in these wars, nas iraq. the shiites and the sunnis have been fighting each other for 1,000 years. anything we've done there is going to be successful, why wouldn't they at least stop fighting each other now? i have a funny feeling that everything we've done there is a complete waste. in afghanistan, one more question about that. we went into afghanistan for good reason. we defeated the taliban, and we had them on the run. now we leave 10,000 men there, concentrated on iraq. i just felt that, and i want to see how you feel about that. we hadn't gone into iraq and put 60,000 men in afghanistan we could have defeated the taliban completely, by decreasing our troop strength, we let them off the hook and now they're back. and i think that they'll always

be back, and there again, religion is involved there a little. i don't feel in these type of wars we can really win anything. >> so what's the question you'd like me to -- >> my question is, do you feel that in fighting these type of wars like in iraq, where religion is involved, can we ever change the nature when the war's over? if they've been -- say shiites and sunnis have been fighting each other for 1,000 years. why would that changing? we still get situation where is they have bombings. >> i'll tell you this, you're a vet of world war ii and korea if you were 22 now and wearing the uniform that the men and women were wearing now you wouldn't sound a lot different from many of them. >> no. you're right about that. >> i also say this -- i'll rely on someone else's words, a photographer i work quite a bit with. he lost his legs in afghanistan. i remember being with him in iraq in 2006. he had covered both sides of

that fight, spent a lot of time with the shia and spent a lot of time out on the streets and a lot of time with the american combatants, and we were laying around one night. when he a bad run of days and were laying around one night. up know, on sleeping bags. he said, you know, we're just a passing dust storm. that's what he said. i think he believed it. i think a lot of people do. and your question is how do you -- how do you fight a war in a place like this? much different in a war you fought, fighting countries or political parties that fought like countries, anyhow. in this case you know, in afghanistan, you say you know, if -- there hadn't been we'd have defeated the taliban once and for all. it there hadn't been iraq you might have had the resources applied to afghanistan much differently and might have been

a different outcome. would you have defeated the taliban once and for all? i don't any that's possible. i'll tell you what the general once said to me that stuck with me, and he said you know, getting the taliban out of afghanistan is like getting the irish out of ireland. you know? so this gets to, what are you trying to do? that's a whole other conversation, and i think john would tell me we're out of time and i also won't pretend like silver i have a silver bullet to a question like that. maybe you don't want to sit on the hornet's nest in the first place and then you won't have to ask yourself why you're having a bad day. >> come to an end. you have question, maybe can you just approach the panel member after, but i'd like to propose a round of applause for our panel. [ applause ] all right.

thank you all for coming. you're watching c-span3. up next, former u.s. congressman mickey edwards on the u.s. political system followed by hearing on racial profiling in the u.s. and with congress on break this week, we're featuring some of american history tv's weekend programs in primetime on c-span3. tonight, join us as we take a look at women's history starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. former congresswoman pat schroeder of colorado reflects on women in politics and the 1970s. at 9:00, remembering first lady pat nixon who traveled to over 75 countries during her time in the white house as an ambassador of goodwill. and at 10:30 p.m., professor

helen left witts horowitz describes harvard's relationship with women since the founding 375 years ago. american history tv in primetime, all week on c-span3. and on c-span2, watch some of book tv's weekend programs in primetime. tonight a look at american journalism starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. christopher daley in his book "coving america" covering major news veents. at 9:55 timothy gaye telling the story of the war against hitler threw the eyes of five reporters. and at 11:10, jeff hemelman draws on post memo, correspondence and personal interviewers to trace ben bradlee's 45-year career. book tv in primetime all week on c-span2. this weekend head to the state capitol named in honor of thomas jefferson with book tv and american history tv in

jefferson city, missouri. saturday at noon eastern, literary life with book tv on c-span2. former senator and missouri first lady jean carnahan on family life inside the governor's mansion from her book "if walls could talk" also a butcher's bill, a provisions list from ancient meso po tainia to missouri's personal collections. the story of babylonian clay tablets. sunday, on american history tv. >> at one time in 1967 this was called the bloodiest acres in america. >> a former warden takes you through the missouri state pen ten shri and walk back in history to the governor's mansion. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and life of cities across america. this weekend from jefferson city, saturday at noon and sunday at 5:00 eastern on

c-span2 and c-span3. the u.s. political system was the focus of the politics for people series held earlier this year in new york city. former u.s. congressman mickey edwards talks about elections and the need to change the current process due to it growing number of independents. the politics for the peoples series was created in 200 ed id the new york's independence party. hoping to give an inside look from an independent's point of view. this is just under an hour and a half. hi, everyone. i'm cathy stewart. i'm the chair of the new york county independence party, and the founder of politics for the people. i want to give a special welcome to our c-span audience. let me thank you you for underwriting the cost of his evening's event. tonight we are going to be looking at the people versus the

parties. and we have with us two of america's leading advocates for a restructuring of our political process. jackie sa jackie salit and former congressman marvin edwards. jackie is the nation's leading organizing center for independence with a network in more than 40 states. she's a frequent television, radio and print commentator on independent voters and politics. jackie has a book coming out this summer entitled "independence rising." outside movements, third parties and the struggle for a postpartisan america. mickey edwards is a vice president at the aspen institute. he was a republican congressman from oklahoma for 16 years, and is the former chair of the

republican house policy committee. micksys ss ssy is a commentator columnist and authored several books. his latest book is also due out this summer and its title is "the parties versus the people: how to turn republicans and democrats into americans." you can see why i wanted to have them both here with us tonight on this stage to have a dialogue with all of us. before i bring them to the stage, though, i'd like to share a clip of each of them in act n action. we're going to see two very short pieces. an excerpt from a speech mickey edwards gave in october of last year at an event entitled "the constituti constitution, democracy and unintended consequences". then we'll see jackie sallette appears on "fox and friends" last summer in the midst. debt crisis. give us a moment, and we're going to have a look.

democracy is about process. it's not about policy. democracy is about process. when we talk about the institutions, our political system is not working. our election system is not working, and our governing system is not working. and i want to posit that the root cause of these problems is the amount of control over all of those systems, the election system and the governing system, that we have seeded and our governments have seeded to the private club, the political

parties, that coal access to the ballot, that control how district lines are drawn, that control who sits on what committee, that control the basic functionings of the congress. >> i'm a member of the anti-party. >> the anti-party. >> which is about what 40% of the country is today. see, the american people don't like partisanship. >> right. >> and they don't like parties increasingly that's why 38% to 40% have left the political parties in a system which is so dominateed by democrats and republicans. they don't like the tone of the debate and don't like the the direction our politics are going in this country. that's what they want to see changed. >> sure, michael. >> my group is no labels dot org. we believe in ideas over ideology. we're looking for solutions here, and i think both are right. we do want to get the dialogue moving but we want to find a solution to the issue. >> right, but jackie, there is no middle ground, it seems. >> there is no middle ground and that's such an important point. >> the president the other day said, look, shows up here i'm

going to veto the bill. >> no middle ground bought way to bring americans together, and the way to do that is around the issue of structural political reform. see, the parties have the system hard wired, and partisan advantage will trump every other issue every single time. i think the president, frankly, is trying to play at center when there is no center. what he needs to do, if he wants to connect with independent voters, is make a strong stand around structural political reform issues, independents will join with him if she does that. >> interesting. >> all right. let me ask congressman mickey edwards and jackie salit to join me. [ applause ] >> we have to be careful now. we're turned on. >> we're turned on.

fully miked. well, thank you both for being here. i'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak with you both and to have our audience get to know us more. i'm going to start us off with a couple questions then we're going to open up to all of you. but to get us going, the two of you are the country's leading advocates for the kinds of structural political reforms that move power away from the political parties and to the american people. and you both approach this from very, very different places in history. mickey, you were obviously a highly respected congress member in the republican leadership during your 16 years in congress. jackie, you've been a leader of the independent movement and a progressive for over 30 years. and yet here we are and you're both advocating for some of the same kinds of political changes.

same kinds of reforms. nonpartisan redistricting reform, nonpartisan open primary. i wanted to ask you to speak to what's going on in the country that brings the two of you together, asking for what i think would be some rather radical restructuring. >> thank you. hello, everyone. great to see all of you and spend this time together. i think that maybe as a place to begin, i would say that there are two things that are going on that bring us together. though, i also -- not to be contentious, but i did just want to comment that it says something about our political culture that we even

consider it remarkable in any way that mickey and i would be sitting here having this conversation with all of you. so in a way, just for starters, i think maybe it's helpful to reflect on that because in some ways that's the very issue. two basic things i would say as starting points. first, one of the things that's going on is that there is a massive political disalignment from the major political parties going on. 40% of the country consider themselves independents today which is a remarkable, remarkable number. particularly in a system which is so substantially dominated, and i love the comments that we saw in the clip from the talk

that you gave there, mickey, about how controlling the political parties are, how they control the electoral process, they control the governmental process, they control the political culture. and yet even with all of that, 40% of the country has made a statement in which they have said, i do not consider myself to be a part of that process. i might vote in that process, i might vote for those candidates, i might participate in various kinds of elections, but i'm making a statement that separates myself from that culture. i think when you have that kind of social political shift going on, which i think is substantially misunderstood and misinterpreted by the political class and by the media and so on and so forth, that tells you that something is happening. what is the thing that's happening? well, different ways to describe it. but maybe as a starting place is that the political institutions which are designed to be the