someone overseas who is placing a call to someone in the united states? >> yes. if you wiretap a mafia leader and he calls someone who the court does not have an approval of, you can listen in on that conversation, isn't that right? isn't that part of the approval? if you have a lawful tap on a foreign person, i think the principle is the same. .

and have demanded the terrorist interrogation memorandum. actually, they have had the legal analysis facts for some time. it bothers me you had no real concern, or the president didn't, to release portions of those memorandum that deal explicitly with techniques that could be used, which i think could be helpful to the enemy. that is the way i would see that. >> the decision the president made was based on a couple factors. the information was largely public. the techniques that were

described in those memos had been banned by the president. the continued use of those techniques, or the thought that there would be used, gave a propaganda victory to some. we thought the release of those memos was a proper it. >> it was disapproved by your predecessor. he did not approve of it at all. it makes your opinion that your has and to release internal memorandum concerning the d.c. voting deal less persuasive. >> i disagree. they are fundamentally different. >> one is political and one has to do with life and death. they're different in my opinion. >> we use neutral and detached principles in making decisions. it was not a political component in the decision to seek releasing any material and

withholding others. there was no political consideration from my part at all. >> one involved nothing but a matter of important legislation of a political nature and that is what you do not want to release. you were willing to believe what the attorney general believed was damaging to our national security. >> i am the attorney general of the united states and it is this attorney general's view that that was appropriate. i respect your opinion, but i had to make the decisions holding the office i now hold. >> with regard to guantanamo, we do give them now initial review, a throw initial review. we give them an annual status review. i am not sure what tells you are going to add to that.

we are doing those things to try to make them effective and appropriate under case law and statutes of our country. with regard to this firearms' question, do you think that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right under the constitution? >> it is the second amendment right. >> and it is a fundamental right? >> the supreme court has indicated as such. >> actually, they haven't. >> i'm sorry? >> they have not. it is a matter of some significance that in the heller case, they simply held that the second amendment applied to the federal government. the ft noted they were not saying whether or not it applied. the test is to whether it applies to the states and whether it is a fundamental right. >> it is a good point. i need to go back to law school. you raise a good point.

>> the second amendment will be eviscerated if it is not considered to be a fundamental right and made applicable to the state. thank you. my time is up. i look forward to working with you. we will disagree on some things. you are a good advocate on your views. i congratulate you on that. this is a serious matter. we are dealing with national security. >> sure. you have been supportive of me when you thought that was appropriate. you have been a teacher for me today. thank you for that. >> i know you have to go to lunch and i appreciate your patience. you have done a good job of testifying. i talked with the white house a moment ago. rahm emanuel indicated that the president will not let these photos see the light of day, that he would prefer the congress to act. have you seen the lieberman- gramm amendment that prohibits the release of these photos for three years?

>> i have not seen that. >> fair enough. i will get it to you. do you agree with me that the preferred route in terms of impressing the court that congress would act on the subject matter rather than executive order? >> yes. i think having congress act would be preferred ways -- >> would give us a stronger hand and better way to deal with the issue. >> yes. >> my beef is not with the court. unless the documents are classified, the courts are making a reasonable interpretation of the freedom of information act as it exists today. i want to applaud the administration for acting them to stay and have the supreme court review that case. i would not be surprised if the supreme court decided not to hear this case or honor your petition and let the order stand.

i think it is imperative that one of us act. the congress and administration has been assured by rahm emanuel and yourself that the president's position is not to let these photos see the light of day. the majority leaders do not give us another vote in the senate and i would ask the administration after that vote to urge the house to take it up. do you agree with that? >> i do. i think there are compelling reasons why these photos should not be released. >> i would like to introduce into the record the statement of general odierno and petraeus indicating the danger to our troops of the photos were released to back up what you are saying. military commissions act -- i am amazed. we are eight years into this war, since 9/11. september will be the eighth anniversary. we are still talking about how to do it. it is complicated.

most of your questioning today has been about legal matters surrounding the war. i will continue to call it the war. the military commission act the administration would like to make some changes. i agree with that. i am working with senator levin and mccain in the armed services committee to make some changes in the next few weeks for the defense authorization bill. i urge you to get with us soon. will you do that? >> we have been discussing this internally. we think it is time for us to share those. >> i would like to do more than amend the military commissions act. i would like to deal with the third bucket, the people that are too dangerous to let go. we are losing -- whatever damage we are trying to repair with the international community, we are losing the public hear about

closing the facility. when you look at the polling data, there has been a change against the idea of closing guantanamo bay. have you noticed that? >> believe me, i have noticed. i believe it was raised by one of the senators about the notion of having our plan out there. i think that is something that we're planning to do and need to do as quickly as possible. we need to have our views on the entirety of -- >> exactly. >> comprehensive views on the related things as quickly as we can. >> habeus review, i want to congratulate you for appealing the decision to apply habeas corpus rights. why did you do that? >> it is our view of the law. i think the judge is wrong. i do not think habeus applies

to theaters of war. >> it would really disrupt the war effort. commanders would be subject to appearing before federal judges, calling them off the battlefield. it would be disruptive. >> that was the reason we decided to seek the appeal. >> senator leahy and specter introduced a reform bill allowing detainees at guantanamo bay to not have habeas rights. they could not bring money damages against our troops. are you supportive of making sure that any habeas petition does not allow the accused terrorist to suit our own military members? >> i have not look at that bill. i have a visceral, positive reaction to that view. clearly, we want to have habeas rights that protect the welfare of people being detained, but the notion that our troops might be the subject of a lawsuit is something i would be very aware of. >> lawsuits were brought

against an army doctor for medical malpractice by one of the detainees. we have streamlined habeas procedures in other areas of domestic law. is that correct? >> we do. >> there is no right of anybody to a habeas appeal. >> that is true. i would like to look at what the specific proposal might be. >> i wanted to consider that since these detainees have habeas rights, if we can consolidate their cases, we will not have different standards by different judges and to put the burden on the government to make sure that we have a uniform way of looking at this. this is something we need to talk about sooner rather than later because as the armed services committee moves forward on amending military commissions act, i think there will be a comprehensive proposal coming out from senator mccain and i would like to work with you about how to do that. >> sure. >> final thing. if we are following a satellite phone in afghanistan and we

believe the person in question as a member of the enemy force, what is your understanding of the law if they are talking to someone else in afghanistan but due to the routing system, it goes through an american interchange? do we have to get a warrant in that situation? does that make sense if we do? >> we have two parties overseas in afghanistan. >> being monitored by our military. >> right. >> their active combatants being monitored by our military intelligence services. they're talking to each other in afghanistan and the only connection to the united states is that this is a phone system that goes through an interchange in the united states. what is your view of the law as to that extent? >> it is not my view that we would need a warrant in order to intercept that conversation. let me make certain, i do not think we believe -- i do not think we need a warrant.

>> the only reason i mention this, and i know i am running over my time, is when we have the two soldiers kidnapped in iraq during this whole debate about wiretapping, they picked up communications from one of the kidnappers to someone else in iraq and because it went through an exchange in the united states, it took two hours to get approval to monitor that conversation. we lost the legal time. please look at this and make sure that we are not coming in the name of making ourselves to be a rule of law nation, not doing something that is quite frankly stupid. i do not want americans to be monitored as being members of al qaeda. if you think i am a member of al qaeda, and what to to get a warrant. any american in that situation. when it comes to battlefield communications, let's not let this hamper our ability to protect our troops. i'm afraid that is where we're headed. >> if we have two non-u.s.

person speaking to one another, i do not think there is the need -- >> i can tell you in this case, because american phone companies interchange was involved, they lost valuable time. please look at that. i'll talk with you further about it. thank you. >> let me ask you about voting rights cases. we have not touched on that too much during this hearing. section 5 of the voting rights act, we all know that this is on appeal -- this is on hearing the for the supreme court. i was there during oral arguments. the pre clarence thomas has felt was of very valuable tool to deal with potential and actual discrimination against voters. congress recently reauthorize the voting rights act. i just want to get your view as to how important you think free clarence provisions are and how you will be monitoring with the supreme court decision might

restrict. >> we await the supreme court's decision, but that portion of the voting rights act is a key for our efforts in trying to protect the voting rights of all americans. if you look at just the numbers, even though we have made great progress in this nation, the number of cases that are brought under that section have not dwindled. the fact that congress unanimously three years ago, two years ago, reauthorize the recognition on the part of congress of the need to still exist, we argued very strongly for the continued viability of that section. it is our hope that the court will agree. we will see what the supreme court decision is and will have to react to it. it is our view that this administration's view that section 5 is a critical part of the voting rights act. >> i am glad to hear that.

i strongly agree with you and i and most of the members of congress strongly agree with you and that statement. we hope the supreme court will likewise see the relevancy of continuing the voting rights act that is in pre clarence. it needs to be monitored closely. one of the issues i have raised in previous hearings with you is the aggressive action of the department of justice in protecting the fundamental rights of all americans to be able to cast their votes and have those votes properly counted. we will continue to monitor that situation. i want to also add my support for your statements in regards to the hate crime statute in response to your initial statement and senator schumer's comments. we really are looking for an opportunity to levant's the statute for all the reasons that you have said in your statement and response to questioning. lastly, i want to make sure i

have put on the record legal services and pro bono. i mention it frequently and i do not want this hearing to go without a strong effort to make sure the department of justice is the leader in access to our legal services by all of the people of this nation. i think the attorney general and the department of justice can play a very important role. >> i agree. we talked about this during my visit with you during my confirmation process. the concerns you raised are extremely legitimate ones. i think the attorney general has to take a leadership role in this in a way that president clinton did and attorney general reno did. i think your concerns are very serious ones and ones that we will try to work with you on. >> we thank you for that. it has been very refreshing to hear from the attorney general

and such candid responses to our questions. i think you have restored the confidence in the american people love the department of justice being there for all the citizens of our country. we look forward to continuing the work in a constructive way as we deal with difficult challenges, whether it is how we handle detainees in guantanamo bay or how we deal with the surveillance programs of this country. these are all issues in which we have to work together. we will not always agree, but it is important that we have these candid discussions and we thank you very much for your attendance here today. the record will stay open for questions. with that, the committee will stand adjourned. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> where is the accountability [inaudible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> there is still time to get your copy of the 2009 congressional directory with information on house and senate members, the cabinet, supreme court justices, and governors, plus district maps and how to contact committees in congress as. it is $16.95 online at c- span.org/products. call 1-877-on-cspan. >> people to not want to think of roosevelt's conservation is a mess of policy as much as a passion. he put aside almost 240 million acres of wild america. people are talking about environmentalism and grain movement. roosevelt is becoming the key figure to understand. he was still a politician of his day who absorbed darwin and understood biology and migratory habits of birds and mating

habits of a deer and elk and antelope and actually did something. >> sunday, the first of two hours with douglas brinkley on "wilderness warrior." that is tonight at 8:00 on c- span, or listen on satellite radio, or download the c-span podcast. >> this week on the prime minister's questions, prime minister gordon brown discusses public spending and proposed parliamentary changes. nicolet criticizes the regulatory role in the financial crisis. this is the last session for speaker michael martin, who resigned today, june 21 come in the wake of issues. that is tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. now, and reporters roundtable on the news of the week from "washington journal." this is just over 35 minutes. communicators." >> "washington journal" continues.

host: we want to welcome jon- christopher bua, white house correspondent for british television. tony blankley is here for the summer. [laughter] what is next for iran? guest: this is a moment where the years of history are changing. where it will go into high gear, or out -- not to get lost in a metaphor, but i do not think that the iranian relationship to the people will be the same, even if the regime old son. -- holds on. this is potentially a transition moment for the iranian people. host: you posted on your blog, the world is watching.

guest: these protests have gone from protesting election results to protesting the behavior of the supreme leader. the entire region, going into dangerous waters, that is where the rubber is meeting the road. although it is getting less measured as the days go on. host: you wrote in your blog that it would be like a conservative candidate swamping bellcore in all for a liberal -- al gore swamping in a liberal county. guest: i think that mr. mir hossein mousavi, in his own town, was swamped. that makes no sense at all.

guest: i was talking to end iranian experts this week in washington. his guess, fairly inform, was that the ayatollah khamenei wanted a big victory from -- for ahmadinejad. the word went out. they all became overly successful, getting into the 60's, when they probably needed an election of 57%, not 62%. they overplayed their hand. all of the thousands of people who are responsible, and the boat got higher than the regime expected. -- vote got higher than the regime expected. it strain plausibility. you might not have had people in the streets were not for a small percentage. guest: 1972, nixon decided to

manipulate that election a little bit. guest: i would not want to comment on that. guest: i am saying that the over the top behavior is something that the government wanted to do and it has come back at them. host: basically, according to this, "we cannot fight their battles for them nor, as conservative hawks fantasize, trigger regime change." saying that the president is doing what needs to. guest: we are all guessing. not just republicans and the old guard feria -- old guard. . the secretary of state has been urging all week that the president changes town. we will see. part of it depends on how much

value new place on a chance that any american president was going to negotiate with ahmadinejad and did the end of the nuclear program. you would not shift earlier. this is a moment where the american people can seem to be friends of the new order in iran. guest: it is against the nature of our country to not stand for freedom. host: "president obama, caught in a political version like many european leaders, caught by surprise. the paramount goal of keeping alive the chances for nuclear goal in iran." guest: we do not know what the government there will look like in one day, two days, three

days. the measured and pragmatic response, henry kissinger and madeleine albright, saying that this kind of response is warranted. there is a huge unknown factor. the thing that you do not want to happen, these thugs, which is kind of like the brown shirts, the revolutionary guard, banging heads. they are assuming that these people are foreign invaders. when that happens, it becomes a nasty situation. host: it is interesting, henry kissinger, jim baker, both real politicians. they have been criticized within their party and by the other party for that. the idea that the liberal democratic party would be relying on henry kissinger's approach to politics?

the argument against the real politicians by liberals and conservatives has been that they failed to measure the concerts -- the power of the people in diplomacy. there are moments when that applies. a lot of the time, real politics makes sense. it may be a time when you do not want to be too cold recalculating in public. guest: there was similar language from the president yesterday afternoon. some saw it much more than hard work much more opposed, but what can you really physically do? guest: is not a pervert

comparison, but when reagan spoke, we have talked to people who work in cited the time and their hope was kept alive, even as reagan successfully negotiated. guest: i agree. it does it symbolically give hope to people in the streets, they think that maybe now is the time. some of the folks i have spoken to, they are pleased that the president is not coming down to hardly. host: speaking of regime change and elections, let's look at some of these headlines. when you were there last week, from "the daily telegraph."

"the london times," "the guardian," "i could walk away from this tomorrow." that is available from "the guardian." guest: lots of fun. a few brits may not have been asked to join his cabinet as ministers. but that is shrinking under the campaign. there is a 2004 law for the additional cost allowance, and this was the downfall. they wanted to balance out between haves and have-nots. it is about two houses. it is about two houses. 3,000 miles away from in great britain, it is the same. it is all but mortgages and tax. "the