host: in the meantime, the president's nominee for supreme court, sonia sotomayor goes up before the senate judiciary committee tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., live here at 6:00 p.m.. in the meantime, the shuttle endeavor will take another crack at launching this evening after 7:00 p.m. eastern. the naacp is celebrating its 100th anniversary this week.

sarah perron has done an interview rejigger palin -- palin, says she has shunned the politics stuff. our question for the first half are deals with this question b.j. it is a headline from several papers, saying that former vice president dick cheney ordered the consumer and of the cia program. the first store came out on the website yesterday. we will get your reaction. here is the headline on all of this this morning, according to an official, dick cheney and tenet hid the cia program rigid talking about the former vice president and former cia

director. it also is making this on the front page of "the new york times" which says that dick cheney is linked to the concealment of the cia project. congress was in the dark. leon panetta is said to have told direct -- it says that the cia withheld information about a secret counter-terrorism program from congress for eight years of direct orders from the former vice president. it says that two people with direct knowledge of the matter said that on saturday. the report with us that he was behind the decision to conceal this program from congress and it deepened the mystery surrounding a. it suggests that the bush administration put a high priority on the program and its secrecy. it says that the current

director who ended it when he first learned of its existence on june 23 reached two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day. efforts to reach mr. dick cheney were unsuccessful. i want to get your calls on the store. but top bush officials opted not to brief congress on a secret program belatedly disclosed last month to leon panetta all. the official was asked not to be named because of the classified nature said the decision to keep the details secret in the past was made in part because the

program remained "in the capability stage," meaning it had been developed but not necessarily of a minute. detroit, you are up first on the independent line. hello? are you there? let's hear from long island, new york. caller: personally, we are all the gigolo? yes, we are all liars and cheats a little bit rigid well, we all live little white lies here in there. have you watched fox and msnbc? fox goes after acorn, and msnbc is up to this house are in c street that congress are living

in rigid they are lying and cheating. the cia, you expect them to lie and cheat to protect us. now i do not believe quiet dick cheney did was right, but i am sure that every government has done this to us. rigid i do not believe that he was right. let's go to the line for republicans to mobile, alabama. here is the henry j. dick cheney ordered the cia program conceal. many papers are picking up on this. what is your reaction? caller: i am not really too surprised. the cia is supposed to operate under cover. if you look back through history, i remember richard helms back in watergate helped to overthrow the graph back and chile.

then one went to jail of the that. there was another incident with another fellow who almost went to jail over. as far as dick cheney goes, they cherry-pick the intelligence to begin the iraq war. we have inspectors on ground and they said what a big threat saddam hussein was. we have people looking for weapons they could not find. bush decided that if they kept looking at which they had no weapons, so he decided to call the inspectors often begin the invasion. this sort of deception has put the country into a bind over the years. i'm not surprised. host: philadelphia, you are on the line. caller: my thoughts on the whole subject is dick cheney, i do not like him. he should never have done that. i never liked dick cheney at

all. i thought he was a bad pick for vice president. host: going to let you go, caller. that was the paper from new jersey, dick cheney had secret cia program, sources say. also making headline news in the "denver post." they are picking up on that story from "the new york times" which says that the law requires the president needs to make sure the intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of any significant anticipated intelligent activity. but the language of the statute from the amended report of 1947 leaves some leeway of judgment saying that such briefing should

be done to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. moving on to north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, we know the bush administration was a rogue administration. they live us into the war and it is time it got put up on charges. a tanker. thank you. host: this official was quoted in the new york times and hinted that this hinted that assassinations overseas. another official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the classified program was known as a special access program. saps our intelligence activities so secret that even those with highest clearances do not know

about them and their access is reserved for only the most senior officials and officers directly working on the activities. the next call comes from california on the independent mind. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. now we have a new administration and the director of the cia, the director, is saying he has just found out about it. the other administration is long gone. that is a little scary to me. on top of that, i think that there was a caller who said, yes, well, it happened and all the business going on on fox. when are the people of this country going to be outraged and demand that people who are elected officials are doing their jobs? dick cheney most definitely should be at the very least there should be approached in congress about this lis-- but i

think it is about the american people who like to complain but do not stick together. we talk about being a democratic republic but we do not even like to be citizens and demand that our elected officials do their job. host: new york city on the line for democrats. caller: think you for c-span. you do a nice job. we completely overreacted to 9/11 at the time and i knew it. we now know we never should have gone into iraq and are still not out. perhaps some bombing of al qaeda training camps in of dennis ting, bombing them and doing things we could do after 9/11 in afghanistan rigid and of training camps back then is what

we could have done. we're probably in a quagmire and they're in afghanistan. one more thing about health care, the next time you have a guest concerning health-care if you could address the secrecy of corporations behind health-care -- i have a job and cannot control my health care within the company that i work for. host: thanks for calling, back to the topic at hand. this is making headlines concerning dick cheney concealing a terror program. it has varied according to the significance of it. most of those interviewed says this paper, said it was an important activity there should have been disclosed to the intelligence committees. officials have said the unidentified program did not

involve the cia interrogations program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. they said it was begun by the counter-terrorism center charlie after 9/11, but never became fully operational. he also read in "the washington post" this morning that democrats may investigate a secret program, spawning off of this "the new york times" story. montana, on the independent mind. caller: i am never ok with secrecy. it helps in some areas, but you cannot let them get the photos out. a few weeks ago when obama said he would protect those photos, america should have seen them. they were the end of journalism. as far as dick cheney, he is one

of the most secret people and the world. he is holding back so many secrets which have been so detrimental. when you look at the iraqis have they suffered under the light perpetrated. the c.i.a. calls themselves the christians and arms. i know because i used to work for them in central vietnam. i protected and was a bodyguard for a while. i saw them, so be interrogations' and the murder. they did not let anyone go. everyone came in and got murder. that is the cia. as far as dick cheney goes, he is protecting them. we need to have this man brought up on charges. he is a real criminal. if we do not begin to prosecute these people we will be retaliated against by the rest of the world. host: you can also use twitter and follow us. we are also getting comments on

this topic from twitter. richmond, va. on the republican line. caller: i think that this news article is a total lie and a farce. nancy pelosi got herself into to go much trouble region-- into so much trouble. obama's stimulus program is horrendous and i think that he should be impeached. i think it is false to blame president bush and keep the bush/dick cheney. when. i think they have tried to ruin them both. i think they did a fantastic

job in the middle east. the places over there are turning totally democratic. they have done a fantastic job. they have tried to butcher the names of bush and sarah palin. our newspapers are total lies. you cannot trust anything but fox. that is basically all that i have to say. host: here is another message from twitter. back to this story, house democrats say they will launch a formal investigation. it will be a probe that could untangle senior bush administration officials who oversaw intelligence issues. democrats on the committee said the inquiry will examine but the

nature of the still-secret program and the decisions to keep the congressional oversight committees in the dark about its existence. "this was not an oversight." it says there was an order given to not inform congress. they write that lawmakers learned of the program from leon panetta at closed-door briefings on june 24. the day before the cia officials informed leon panetta of the program and told him that congress had not been briefed. he then cancelled it. philadelphia, good morning, on the line for democrats. caller: i am beside myself. where is the killer ability? rigid accountability? -- accountability? since when has the cia become the third tier of government,

and who acts on their own accord without informing the house, senate? also, it it seems like the media is finally catching up to what many of the american people already knew. maybe it is because i watch other networks, "democracy now." but these are things we have known for years, that the cia has lied and that we should not be in iraq. suddenly it is in the papers now? i do not know, it is just this heartening. where has the media been all this time? the fox network news, my god, that is not news. i do not even know what it is. it is like or right-wing nut anger fest. there's really not much information you can pull from that network.

host: max, an independent caller is on the line now. caller: i just think this is another reason that both the bush/cheney group are violating our constitution and laws. it goes along with the wireless searches, and the violation of the freedom of information act when they refuse to produce the map used in the meeting with the three oil companies when they divided up the, or tried to divide up the iraqi oil fields. i think that to bring these people up on charges is sort of a divisive action that destroys the unity of the country. but i think it is necessary to do that in order to prevent a

future president from believing he is an emperor and does not have to abide by the law of the constitution. host: here are a couple of other comments from twitter. in a separate story, here is this league r-- it is a belt the attorney general eric colder. he is leaning toward appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate cia personnel who tortured terrorism suspects after 9/11. naming a prosecutor to probe of alleged abuses during the darkest time in the bush era would run counter to president obama's repeated desire to beat

"looking ford and not backwards th-- looking forward and not backwards." fresh disclosures have come about. this was the lead story in "the washington post." good morning, iowa. but you make of everything that you are hearing this morning caller: i used to work in intelligence. all i have to say is to all of these people up there, wow, you think this is new? i worked under the clinton administration in the same stuff went on then. this is not anything new. bush became vilified so that people think, oh, all this evil

stuff, this hidden stuff just happened that under bush. i know that happened under clinton. people do not understand the right now, even under the obama administration, just like it did under the clinton administration, right now our government is doing things you think only governor princother . that is the nature of intelligence. it is complicated. you really do not want to know what it takes to keep our country sick. water weeks ago you could not shut jenny up. now when you want to hear from him his predictably secretive and silent. if you cannot shut dick cheney up. hi, caller. caller: hello, thank you. this is the hypocrisy of the

republican party. during the election you were talking about how you have to have republicans win the white house because the democrats on the congress. and you need to have that operation of powers that one party does not overtake the other. here is another example of the bush administration just doing whatever they wanted to. it began with iraq and then dick cheney began his rope program. he had the group's image of his -- jenny have hisrogue program. it is getting to the point where we feel like a lawless country. host: republicans in the paper here say they have rejected the call for an investigation and have said the program did not rise to the level of requiring a briefing for the congressional committees.

now after listening to leon panetta is june 24 presentation, some republican committee members said they wanted to know more about the program but were not overly alarmed. tennessee, you are on the air now. caller: good morning, i think that it is rums feld, -- rumsfeld, powell, all these people should be held accountable. the last eight years have been a lot of paranoid white men. i am not a racist, but that is the mentality if you read their histories. they are very isolated. it is totally ridiculous. this goes way back. they really should reopen the investigations of 9/11.

the cia confiscated the department of transportation document showing that the airplane heading the pentagon, there was no plan that hit the pentagon. then all the cookies will crumble. host: it promises to be a busy week here in washington began with the supreme court nomination hearings which begin tomorrow. you can follow it on c-span, c- span radio, and on our website. we will be there live all week long on those various platforms. later today we will talk with two house republicans both active in the health-care debate and that is on "newsmakers" to which you hear is a short piece from the program. >> i think the whole deadline

has been driven by political purposes. the reason the clinton health- care plan fell was because everyone went home on august break said one senator. it is too bad. the political process is driving something. i cannot look into the crystal ball and said it will go this way, or not. but think the american people are smarter. they're letting representatives know now. that is why we see this division in the democratic caucus. we want something different than we are hearing about. and maybe that they figured it out and removing pressure up. host: that will be at 10:00 a.m. eastern right after this program on this network today. it will play again at 6:00 p.m. eastern. the republican line, what you make of these headlines? caller: let's begin by saying, as far as i know january 20

obama took over. so this is obama's cia now. of course, this would come out. because of obama's numbers are dropping. we have to come out was something bad about those dastardly republicans. it is quite amazing that no one knows anything about this program, but everyone already knows that dick cheney did it and he is killing people in other countries. you can obviously see that the democrats jumped at the first chance when obama's numbers begin to drop. quite amazing. this is obama's administration, his economy, obama's energy, his fiscal responsibility. obama's took over on january 20.

it is his problem now. host: 1 other viewer sends this message. a couple more calls on this topic. this is north carolina -- south carolina. i hope that my comment is a proper. you cannot respect someone when you are robbed. you have to make up excuses. if you have to force someone to be on your side or give information, if that is what it takes, then that is your excuse. i do not speak well in front of a large congregation, so i hope that you will forgive me. host: the last call is from tulsa, okla., on the independent line. caller: good morning.

it is not surprising to me about dick cheney. you have this guy steve about two months back reporting that the cia was carrying out the death squad overseas. this is not a surprise. many people call and want to hear what they want to hear. i have international news at my house. you can see on different programs, a lot of things that americans would not believe. that is what i have to say. have a nice day. host: we appreciate your column. we'll take a short time out and then spend the next hour on the supreme court nomination. we will hear from either sides of the nomination with our guest. plus, more of your calls.

♪ >> on sunday, on president harry truman and his position to recognize the state of israel. >> no one knew until may 14 what truman would do at the press conference. but he had already decided and told only height and staff, said that he was going to support the jewish state at its creation. that is sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

you can also listen on cspan radio and by satellite radio and online to the broadcast. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearing starts monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and on the web at c-span.org. we will also show them weeknights on c-span t2. >> taxpayer dollars? >> private donations? >> consumer funded, i guess? >> i do not know. >> private contributions? >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate. no government money.

"washington journal continues. host: joining us for this segment is a ed whalen, president of the public policy center. what would a justice, sonia sotomayor, mean to you? guest: that is the big question. my concern is that she would be another hard left activists who will work to entrench their agenda on issue after issue. but our constitution leaves it to democratic process. one example is saying-sex marriage. the constitution leaves that to the people who worked out, not for justices to impose on us. yet i fear that sonia sotomayor will be a strong supporter of inventing those rights for the same-sex marriage and will provide us vote. for that.

what is the proper role of the court and a constitutional republic? i think that within broad pounds, the constitution leaves the bulk of policy issues to us to work out through elected representatives. they have gotten courts to impose their vision of policy of the last quarter decades rigid the last four decades. host: ed whalen has served as a law clerk to supreme court justice scalia and is here to take your questions and comments. our guest will be here for 25 more minutes. give me some other examples of what you look for in the hearings this week?

guest: i am hoping the questions from senate republicans will focus on this issue of the role of the court. we will highlight president obama's empathy standard. when he explains his vote against chief justice roberts when he was center he said "it is proper for justices to resort to their deepest values, core concerns, and the depth and breadth of their empathy i deciding the truly difficult cases/." that is a remarkable conception of the judicial role. president obama is looking for justices to indulge their own subjective sense of compassion. the traditional understanding of the rule is that they exercised dispassion. their job is to state the law

and applied neutrally. host: tell us what you think that is wrong? guest: that traditional understanding of judging and what is reflected in their oath is that they should be impartial and should not favor the rich over the poor or vice versa. they are not to take sides. president obama has directly challenged that proposition. when he campaigned for president he made another statement of selected empathy. he said he would be looking when he selected his justices for who has the heart, empathy to recognize what it is like to be a young, a teenaged mother, to be poor, african-american, disabled, or old. empathy or compassion is a virtue, let me be clear. we tried to live it out in our lives as individuals.

but whether we can implemented in public policy reject the notion that supreme court justices have a free-wheeling ability to resort to their own sense of compassion in deciding wall upsets the rule of law. host: here is a heaven. she is an elusive target as hearings are set to open. what does that mean to you? as far as how the gop will go about its business tomorrow? guest: i think the theatrics of the confirmation hearing can often make it difficult to get clear answers from the nominee, that is true. exactly what ground rules will be worked out where she will judge, draw the line, which he can and will not talk will-- we

will see. you have a lot of time taken by democratic questioning. the composition of the judiciary committee is 12 democrats, seven republicans. that makes it difficult to get a rhythm and get deeply into some matters. host: we can linger on this view of the paper there. the first call for our guest comes from maryland on the republican line. caller: hello, i have a couple of commons. for example, we have the comment that she could make a better choice than a white man. the fact that she, on video has said that judges make law

-- these two things would disqualify any republican. isn't theaba group the one who rates judges? i like to know if the guest knows, how many times have her rulings been overruled by the supreme court? host: the aba? guest: they gave her their highest rating of highly qualified. on the question of reversals, as i see it her opinions have been reviewed 10 times and been upheld 1 time. i don't want to make too much of statistics, but that suggests that in some important cases her reasoning has been rejected.

she has made a number of controversial statements and speeches. not just a particular passage about a wise latina, but the whole series of propositions in that speech that call into question the does our ability of in porsche ability as the judicial norm -- the impartiality as theorm. she celebrated in that same speech the fact that judges can develop novel approaches to take a lot in new directions. when you look at her various statements there is concern that she does not have a bounded view of the role of judging and they viewed as another form of policy-making. host: chicago, on the line for

democrats. good morning. caller: i have to say that i used to have a lot of respect for the supreme court, but do not have any respect for the roberts court. if you look at what they're doing and the decisions that have come down, it is a white supremacist dream. host: give us an example. caller: they are taking all the civil rights cases, voting rights cases, and all the desegregation cases that we worked so hard for in the 1960's and are overturning them are making them so weak they are totally ineffective. you can look at, just look at the cases they have decided. the one with seattle and kentucky, desegregation case, totally of return. they say that the schools need to be desegregated. rigid they have been -- they

have been totally of return. these people are shutting in the streets. i'm sure that the klan and the neo-nazis are very happy now. guest: with all respect the caller has a gross misunderstanding of the cases she is referring to. the question had nothing to do with segregation, but with a racial balancing plan that the school districts have adopted to achieve what they thought to be an optimal balance. the chief justice ratified the understanding of the brown vs. board of education that the court itself had expressed. look, i understand people will have heated political

disagreements and sometimes it will extend into some ugly rhetoric, but i think we ought to look at the facts and try to avoid the rhetoric with that we just heard. host: what is your sense of strategy on the gop side? based on the issues, how harsh with the questioning be? will there be any personal nature to all this? guest: there is every reason to expect that she will be confirmed. republicans recognize that. they will try to elevate the battle of principles and talk about what is truly at stake to make sure that the american people understand. but for this battle and any that come in the future. this will be a very civil confirmation hearing. more civil than the most recent where democrats when harshly after sam alito. host: that hearing will be

tomorrow on c-span. it will go quattro days, possibly five this week. louisiana, you are on the line. caller: good morning, it is a pleasure to see you there. i am an independent now, formally a democrat. the last straw was judge sonia sotomayor's nomination by our president. it is statistics you were talking about. i heard that it was nine cases before the supreme court that have been reversed, this latest 5-4. the remarks that the young man had talked about first, which i have listened to and saw on the videos totally repulsed me. i am a native-american and

irish. so i am an immigrant and someone who was there. my stepfather marched with dr. martin luther king, and after it was all over an alabama he was told, well your whiteness and money are no longer needed. i was blessed as a young man going across santa ana, taxes into a school had 7500 african- americans, and only a smattering of a few caucasians and asians. the racism that has suddenly cropped up behind the president's nomination, this is what has finally turned me off with the democratic party. and has pushed me into being an independent. if you notice, he has won native

american rigid he has only -- he has only one anywhere in his own motion. i am afraid of what justice sonia sotomayor will do with this court. being as radical as she is, that things she has stated. guest: well, some interesting questions raised by her nomination. one which connects to some of his comments is this whole divide between two different concepts of racial equality. one, the concept that equal opportunity under the law, a legal regime that does not discriminate on the basis of race, the american color blindness ideal, and the second which us become more prevalent.

one looks purely to an equality of result, a quota mentality and measures equality by numbers. so, i think that is the subtext for some disputes here. we see that in connection with the new haven firefighter skis. host: brian, the republican line, you are on the caller: i am one of your rear conservatives to disturbing of give me a minute here. -- one of your rare consumers. the proponents of calls come from the look. host: we do not know that, but we will let you go ahead. caller: first of all, sonia sotomayor belonged to an organization called rafa that happens to be a racist organization. from their own mouths they have

made statements, let's take back america without firing a shot. rasa means our race. abortion is a very important subject to people in this country. i want to explain something about it. mother teresa said abortion is the greatest threats in the world to peace. why did she make that statement? you have a very sick ideology in this statement, a left-wing one, where an abortion doctor was shot. every pro-life organization condemned the shooting, it yet here is the difference between the way that the conservative and liberal one works. "the new york times" called him a hero, the person who helped to abort 60,000 babies for a living. he came in in the morning and

brought in the first woman and put $6,000 on the table to abort the baby endured into the garbage, then the next one, and went home at night and washed his hands and had dinner with his wife and shot them. "the *" calls him a hero. chief aldermen calls him a great civil-rights leader. host: will would you like our guest to respond to it, specifically? caller: specifically, i hope the republicans, i hope that this one time they have the guts to get into it. i still have an open mind about this judge, but if she is for abortion and for this left-wing idea that has done so much harm to america, then i think she must have -- i think she will give it in. guest: the color first mention ed la rasa, and he is correct

that at some time she had been a member of that organization. but the whole question of abortion -- we need to understand in terms of the rules of the supreme court, will the court recognize this is an issue that the constitution leaves to the elected representatives to decide? or will perpetuate and perhaps expand the power grab which leaves many folks like our caller understandably frustrated. they are frustrated at their lack of a voice in public policy. unfortunately, when we look at her record with her education fund, she is very active in overseeing its litigation in took aggressive positions. it seems clear that she will be

what president obama has said. a hard core the for an extreme version ofroe. here is a message from twitter. host: your thoughts? guest: i do not doubt the statistics although i have not studied those cases. there are many ticket appeal the have no merit. i would put more emphasis on cases where we have greater insight into what happened. and the strange trip in which she and her colleagues give the claim of the new haven fire fighters there, let me emphasize that it was the fellow hispanic judge who wrote a blistering dissent, saying this panel has not given these firefighters a fair shake, has not handled

their claims properly. it is remarkable statement. it means more to me than any number of affirmations of summary judgment grants. you read here, the path to the supreme courtr speak of we, that's a little. the refuse to state clearly on certain cases. they deal with the court's roe, racial inequality, and right to privacy issues. the look from 1994 until 2005. on the abortion example they say that in 34 cases where roe vs. wade was mentioned, the nominee refused to state a specific opinion. does that concern you in general? guest: it raises the broader question that deserves to serious consideration.

what does the senate expect from the nominee? people on both sides of the aisle have complained about this. i think there are some tougher issues people need to think through about the obligation on the part of the nominee to be candid, spell out his or her current thinking on the issue by making clear that he or she is open to thinking further. it is a difficult question. there are people who have a reasonable views on both sides. but clearly the practice has been one that has the nominee saying very little. host: greenbelt, md., a caller on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. to the gentleman who called about the abortion issue, that is a very divisive issue. there are people for and against it.

to judge her on her stand on abortion is ridiculous. you're talking about an activist court, let's talk about president bush's first election, how the activist conservative court, how that activist court selected. president bush selected. yes, his position was legitimized by 9/11 because once you have a presence in office and something happens people rallied around him. illegitimized his presidency. you're worried about democrats having an activist court, but the court is basically conservative. guest: well, a couple of points. first of all, the fact that abortion is very divisive is consistent with the notion that the constitution leaves it to

the people to work it out so that we can work out our differences amongst ourselves and not have the court impose a solution. the notion that it is a conservative court reflects a confused notion of what conservative means. the court has conserve many of the liberal activist presidentps so when that sense it is conservative. but when you look at the death penalty, abortion the pattern is that you have four justices on the left to say that the constitution entrenches the liberal position and four judges on the right to do not say it entrenches our view, but that it leaves this to the political processes to be decided one way or the other. that is a neutral position.

there are exceptions, but by and large that is the divide. justice kennedy sometimes goes one way, sometimes the other. you have a court that alternates between liberal activism and judicial restraint. host: sonia sotomayor was born in 1954. she is a graduate of cardinal spellman high school in the south bronx, a princeton and yale university law school. this writer writes what he thinks that the gop cannot block sonia sotomayor. he makes several points. he says there is no smoking gun. he says for six weeks republicans have looked in vain

for an issue to galvanize the public and compelled red-state senate democrats to vote against your. -- her. a landslide of americans have since told pollsters that they support her. there is no smoking gun. guest: we're not trying to promote her. i'm not sure, but look, it is clear that the numbers for her are much less favorable than with chief justice roberts. her favorability and numbers took a real beating when attention was focused on this new haven firefighters' case. there is a lot of well-justified concern among the public. the reason i think she will be confirmed has nothing to do with the lack of a case against her. but it is simply 60-40. it is due to the democratic majority.

you don't need to go beyond that to prediction is likely to be confirmed. host: here is a smart strategy he writes. this is his opinion about senator jeff sessions. any thought here? guest: i don't think you'll find any of those attacks borne out by the record on jeff sessions. the idea that one cannot criticize the judge sonia sotomayor without being labeled anti-hispanic is a vital one. she deserves to be judged on the basis of her record just like everyone else. that is what i hope that color blindness would entail. she should not have some special protection or liability because of her ethnicity. host: me add this, this say

republicans are boxed in politically with hispanic and female voters. we'll move on to fort worth, texas on the independent mind. -- line. caller: i think that she will be confirming the the numbers are there. but we do have a very conservative court. we have had it for a long time. george bush but the people in that he wanted and that is just the way it is. they have allowed things to go through the congress. look at the patriot back. that is one of the most on constitutional things i have ever seen in my entire life. they allowed that to just float through because of 9/11 and all these bogyman they have created. i do believe in my heart, and i

am a republican, that dick cheney and bush were behind the whole thing just so they could do what they wanted to. they put people in the court to allow them to do exactly what they wanted to do. guest: i don't know if this is another 9/11 conspiracy theory. this so-called very conservative court has left in place all these liberal activist presidents from the 1960's, includingroe. you have had cases that even the obama said he disagrees with like kennedy vs. louisiana. you have had a series of cases in national security where the four justices on the left and justice kennedy have prevailed.

micro-managing the war on terror, matters of national security. i do not believe that a fair judgment bears out that we have what could be meaningfully called a conservative court. the caller referred to the patriot act and i'm not sure what he had in mind there. perhaps there have been some cases involving some aspects of the patriarch, but the court has hardly had occasion to blast the whole thing. if there is an argument against it, a case against it, let's see. host: one last call from tennessee on the republican line. caller: how i would like to ask, what about the papers with held by the white house? those from sonia sotomayor? article 6 of the constitution says that the supreme law of the

land is constitution laws and treaties. what does laws in that instance mean? laws of congress or decisions? thank you very much. guest: two questions there. i think that there is a dispute over some documents that have not been fully produced. i am not knowledgeable about that. i think it relates to records of the puerto rican defense and education fund. referring to article 6. it is important that it was not until 1958 that the supreme court asserted it was supreme over all organs of government and saying finally what the constitution means. it reported that its ruling somehow have the same status as the constitution and laws under article 6. article 6 refers to federal laws, laws that are constitutionally permissible,

not to any supreme court decision. part of the challenge has to be to recognize that the court -- it is a presupreme over other courts. . .

there has spent a lot of commentary happening in the media. what is one criticism that you feel is unfair? >> i think the uproar the case over the white firefighters in connecticut, i thought the whole issue, rush limbaugh throwing out the word, races, i thought that was truly absurd. that was beyond the pale to me. >> i think the in official jeffrey rosen article, something

that is untrue, but it takes a huge group of people to reflect on. >> also one thing that has not taken hold is about judge sotomayor said temperament. she has very high standards for lawyers and for the questions. i've never seen her bully in any sort of way. i think her colleagues at met with her on the court that is

not anything like judge sotomayor. host: what does this week mean for your organization? >guest: what this organization s looking for our confirmation hearings of a brilliant jurist, someone who has been picked for her impeccable qualifications, and judicial experience. and some one that happens to be hispanic. we want to make sure that the american people understand what a wonderful addition she will be

to the supreme court. host: of all of the dialogue from the other side, what are a couple of points that concern you the most? guest: when she was nominated, there were several conservatives who had knee-jerk reactions to this. i think it went over the line in accusing her of racism and a whole lot of issues that had nothing to do with the reality of what her official record was, reality of her opinions. this is something that they did and the reaction to president obama's first nominee. frankly, i think it backfired. will we have seen since then is her record clearly shows that she is moderate, somebody who

is the one sort of how she foresee opinions that she forms. we continue to hear those kinds of comments across the board. our hope is that a majority of the senators have started a dialogue with her. and this week she will finally be able to speak for herself publicly when she takes the job. host: empathy, a great trait personally but no role for the judge. guest: she would agree with you.

one of the things that has put into hyperbole is one of the things that has put into character for her. when the president talked about empathy, and it has been talked about time many people in the past is that you have to understand what their experience brings to the table. this will help inform their colleagues, perhaps to eccentricities that maybe they did not know about. it is the healing nature of it. that is not to say that it will be the one thing that will overrule everything.

above all, it is the rule of law that she makes every decision based on the merits of the case. she has had a three decade career as a trial and appellate court judge. she will continue to use her experience. host: have you met the judge? guest: yes i have. host: what is she like? guest: she is somebody who makes you feel comfortable from the moment that you meet her. host: we have a call on the democratic line. caller: they talk about how wonderful her record is. regarding the firefighters --

host: is she been counselee overturned by the supreme court? guest: that's not true. the recent supreme court decision that came down was one that has been in the news a lot lately. yes, it was overturned. the three-panel court, the panel she was a part of was also overturned. and those judges happen to be republican nominees. the supreme court that decided this case, it was a 5-4 decision. one last point, the decision she made in this case, the president that was listed --

precedent that was listed at the time, this is creating new law. based on the law at the time, given her record and very particular point of respecting court precedent, that is how it was decided. host: in the newspaper, it cost the line when it discriminated against white and hispanic firefighters. how she missed what seemed so of this. guest: i think it will be a big point of discussion. i would take issue with the fact that he says it was that of this. it was not unanimous spirit it was a split decision.

again, it was a unanimous decision, as part of the panel that she sat on. you will see a very healthy discussion this week about that. caller: no. 1 would be the myth. the first hispanic appointed to the supreme court was benjamin cardozo in the 1800's and he served a full team. the second one was distraught on the filibuster side for the democrats. they all talk about the supreme court as a good old boy network. they all overlook clarence thomas.

my problem with sotomayor is the tour marks. i came to jury duty and i happen to beat american indian. how could i say that i would make it better decision. and her membership in a racial organization. i don't see anybody bringing too much of that up. i just went over to the independent side. i was a democrat, but it is not my party anymore. obama appointing 22 czar's is

taking all of the power away from the people. host: thanks. what is this organization? guest: they have played an important part not just for the lead tenant community, but many low-income minority communities in this country being able to get ahead. it is a very mainstream american institution, and it has done so much to help the american economy by helping latino families, and helping families in the past may not have known how to do this things. i think when you paint a broad brush this organization who is

done so much for american families, you are alienating not just the second largest population in this country, but a lot of people who really do understand how this organizations and other civil rights organizations have done a terrific jobs that have helped the economy at times when the economy has needed that help. i think that is a pretty extreme view. it may come up in the confirmation hearings and i hope it does. i think she will get a chance to address that. host: the story and the end the philadelphia inquirer today, her

well-publicized remarked that a wise latino would hopefully make better decisions because of her life experiences than a white male judge who would not share those decisions. how do you see her positioning verbally with this? guest: i don't want to prejudge anything. if she had given the chance to said that over again, she may not have worded it that way. but i think the sentiment behind that is something that she believes strongly. frankly, this is not a new sentiment. but others who know her have said about that is that she is somebody who brings different experiences, from her perspective to the supreme court will definitely help that court be able to see these different perspectives and points of view and perhaps come

to a better decisions had they not have those precise -- perspectives. it is not anything any different than clarence thomas when he said he hoped to bring a wealth of experience to the court. justice alito said similar things, he said when he had a case before him he can't help but think about what his family had gone through, what his ancestors had gone through in coming to this country.

>> our guest is educated at duke university. she is a senior vice president of the new democrat network, and is not a finding member of hispanics for the judiciary. tennessee, welcome. caller: my first concern, and it is one that judge sotomayor has commented on this considering foreign -- when dictating for court decisions. what does the law a thousand

miles away have to do with this in china when we're interpreting the constitution? host: the reading of international law comes up a lot. guest: i don't think applying international laws to what her decisions would be -- this is somebody that is incredibly thorough, somebody who is incredibly prepared for any case that is before her. she really does do her homework and does not want to miss anything that might be out there that would stopper from making the best decision that she can. above all, she will use the rule

of law and has used the constitution as the one tenant that helps her guide what is the appropriate decision to come to? to use her experiences to help inform herself as well as her colleagues? yes. a lot of her colleagues have said that she has been able to change their mind because of the kind of reasoning she uses and the kind of very thorough background when she goes through these cases. host: indiana, on the independent line. caller: i think the cultural

pride and warfare in america is ultimately going to lead to the detriment of the society. i don't think that we disseminate the truth holistic way to the american people. there are no white people. there are no black people. these are political statements to define people. i know that judge sotomayor will be confirmed. i believe the gop fell into a political box when they went after her in an unsavory types of way when they called her a racist. there are no different races.

there are these notions that are put out there. i hope the american people will get a government that will represent their best interest. guest: i like that thought. i think that what you will see this week is somebody who represents the american people, somebody whose story is the ultimate american story, somebody who has come up in this country by working hard, by plane by the rules, and by understanding that there is opportunity in this country. if you have the drive and the intellect and give you work hard at it you can do anything you want. that is one of the greatest

assets that this country has. she will be a great jurist for the american people. i agree with the caller. we have to get past the race identification. when president obama announced this nomination and had that wonderful event at the white house with judge sotomayor and her family, he never mentioned that she was the first latina to be nominated. they talked about her background, they talked about the way she worked, what she did in her three decades as a judge. they talk about how hard her parents worked, how hard her mother worked, she put her through school and her siblings

to school. i think that is the quintessential american story. some people can relate to that, no matter what the color of their skin. it is something everybody hold so dear about the country. her story has been so compelling. host: for a few hours each day, the judge has been in a building adjacent to the white house, fielding questions from lawyers, preparing for the hearings. she recently broke her ankle to deal was significant discovered she has put her ankle up. she will require some kind of like support for the hearing.

what about her book? you also talk about the hypoglycemia resulting in dizziness and blackouts? is that any concern to you? guest: no. what you have been able to see again from her experience and from her career is that she has been able to keeper diabetes under control, very much in a way that anybody would keep that under control. i think she will talk about that. with today's medicines, you're able to live a normal, healthy lifestyle with diabetes. i don't think that will be a concern at all.

i think what that underscores for you is how incredibly committed that is that she broke her ankle on the way here. she could have gone back, and rested up and gone to the hospital. host: back to this new york times headline. they are making the point that all the members of the court in the study between 1994 and 2005, one of the opinions was about abortion and roe v. wade. 34 * when asked specifically they did not give an opinion. the democrats want to know her opinion because she has now

ruled on the issue. guest: that is something we have seen in the past, and probably will be in the future. as frustrating as it might be for people to see where she stands, during a confirmation hearing is the best advice for the nominee to be as specifically how they would vote on a big issue. the best advice to them is not to prejudge. what we have seen in the past for the most part these decisions and the issues that come through in front of the supreme court are not black and white issues. they are not as simple as do you agree with roe v wade? there is so much more involved in that. a supreme court nominee can never know every intricacy and

details would that would be involved in a serving case. they would not under any circumstances want to prejudge what they would do in the case without knowing that. host: new york on the independent line is next. caller: the gentleman from indiana and nailed it on the head. judge sotomayor will be appointed. mr. whelan talked-about when the president mentioned when he had opportunity to appoint someone to the supreme court he would appoint someone with a heart.

i went to merriam-webster. the basic definition of empathy is the intellectual identification with or the experiences of another as opposed to compassion which mr. whealan like he could use the two interchangeably. it could be described as a deep feeling of compassion also accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate stuff -- suffering. he wanted to use these terms interchangeably. every objective rating -- reading, what they do understand, she will be great. guest: i agree with the caller.

let's have been made about this when it is really very simple. we all bring human experiences to everything we do. she will bring her experiences to a place where those experiences have never been a part of. she will bring a depth and breadth of experience that will help her inform her colleagues as well as herself on how this will affect the lives of everyday americans. she has said time again, above all she uses the rule of law and the constitution beside her and she makes decisions for the american people. caller: specifically, the

fireman's case, in my experience, test scores have nothing to do with leadership. i cannot imagine a fireman who doesn't have the courage, whose department does not have confidence in him. i don't care what is to score is. that is not what leadership is. i served in korea. the sergeant says, you guys have brilliant scores. don't be too smart, because you need leadership to keep alive. about the test scores, it is nothing to do with leadership. i can't imagine the supreme court didn't find out what are the criteria for leadership for a fire department?

guest: i think he underscores the view on these cases. what judge sotomayor did along with the panel that made these decisions is that she respected what at that time was what the law demanded. it was a difficult case because it was a split decision, 5-4. again, what she has shown that she is fair, modern and she uses the rule of law to make decisions for her and we use the

constitution as the one parameter that is a most important thing when she makes decisions before her. she is also some did that values experiences. she understands all the sins will affect the american people. -- she understands all the things that will affect the american people. americans will understand just how incredibly qualified she is. i think the american people will welcome her on the supreme court. host: thank you for your time. the hearings get started tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern time and we will have it for you life -- for you live.

we will be right back. key night on sunday press -- harry truman and his decision to recognize the state of israel. he had already decided, and he said he will support a jewish state. >> sunday at 8:00 p.m. on q&a.

you can also listen to this program on ex-im radio and online at best -- as a c-span podcast. live coverage of the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee judge sotomayor starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. we will replay the proceedings weeknights on cspan2. coming this fall, toward the homes of america's highest courts, the supreme court on c- span. >> washington journal continues. host: the president got back to washington. we are hearing about people in michigan and new york and maybe a prime-time news conference. he is urging patience on the

economy, which was the subject of his weekly address. some things -- some people think that things are not getting better fast enough. please call the numbers at the bottom of the screen. the headlines today obama, he writes that while he was traveling abroad. he faced criticism that the this stimulus program is not working to stem job loss. in his weekly address as today, he said many gop leaders in congress have little credibility. here's a portion of that address. >> i realize we pass this act, there are those who think that doing nothing was the way to go.

others believe that the recovery plan should have been larger, and they are already calling for a separate recovery. the recovery act is not designed it to work in months. it is designed to work over two years. it also took time to get the money out the door. this is a plan that will also accelerate greatly in the summer and fall. we must let it work the way it is supposed to. the understand in any recession, in an -- unemployment has to recover slowly. i am confident that the united states will weather this economic storm. once we clear away the wreckage , what we will build in its place even as we rescue this economy from a crisis, we must rebuild it better than before.

host: he also wrote, rebuilding something better. that is a headline here. it points out that building a firmer, stronger, a foundation for the future. that is in the washington post. the minority whip in the house from the va also said yesterday in the gop address this today. here it is. >> there is no doubt that our economy faces challenges. but the president's economic challenges have not produced jobs or prosperity. the president has already asked you to spend trillions of dollars, and so far nearly 3 million jobs have been lost alone this year. remember the promises? they promise you that if you pay for the stimulus, jobs would be

created immediately. they said that unemployment would stay under a%. yet months later, they are telling us that the rate for unemployment climbed over 8%. this is now present obama's economy, and the american people are beginning to question whether these policies are working. host: the president is urging patience on the economy. he urges patience. first call on the democratic line from massachusetts. go ahead. caller: i would like to tell you that in north hampton, vermont, connecticut, massachusetts,

these signals bills are working. host: where is it working? caller: i see you wrote construction, i seek bridges being remodeled and rebuilt, i see jobs being offered all over the place. host: florida, what is the viewpoints? caller: i looked at the stimulus as more of late slush fund. i am not coming after it as they

left right ankle. slush ankle. -angle. i look at it, no one read it, they passed it. plug the holes and medicaid and budgets, continue with the iran is spending. we need to be looking at real cuts and figuring out how to control this spending instead of continuing on with same old same old. host: the president is urging patience on the economy. what do you say? caller: it as a large amount of money, and we just have to give it time to move through. i have looked at the amount of money that is being sent to

alabama online, and understand it will take awhile for it to get under way. can i make a comment about sotomayor? host: we will ask you to hold off on that and we want to speak on the economy. thanks. behind the scenes at the white house they are working to calm nervous lawmakers. from a manual and house democrats had a meeting earlier and show that the democrats were in such a stronger shape than republicans. he assured them that the white house has their back about the vote. we have to fly through a little turbulence, says david axelrod. they're right in the times that the shifting in varmint make it

harder for mr. obama to run for reelection. democrats worry about the potential erosion in battleground states like ohio. caller: people are just going to have to breathe. this will not turn around overnight. i grew up here in texas pour, my mother worked three jobs, we always want quick solutions. this is not a quick fix.

there are some jobs you will have to do, like the gentleman said. maybe mob some floors. my mother did it with two children with no complaints. my husband's mother worked domestic and did whatever she had to do. richness in america means that sometimes you get to forsake your dinner. we need a wake-up call and teach children how to be responsible. host: louisiana on the

republican line. caller: january 2008 and became a republican. i felt there was a socialist government, now the americans are like the americans when fdr was president. down here in louisiana, we went through an environmental disaster called hurricane katrina. everybody moved out of town and things like that. some of us have not moved back. hispanics did come in by the tens of thousands. it was $100 a day, eight hours a day.

people paid with no problem. hispanics work was pretty shoddy, they also made a mess because they knew they would get paid extra to clean it up. like that lady from texas, and i'm from ticks texas, my mother made too much money as a waitress, working three jobs to raise two boys. and she never one dime for it. host: when it president urges patience on the economy, how

does that make you feel? caller: he is all over the world at one time -- host: the president is dismissing the idea of the second stimulus. the president urges the public patients, republicans right -- right that the stimulus plan and the health plan will mean more government taxes and bureaucracy. well the president's personal numbers are still good, his policy he said any patients people have with the obama approach is wearing thin. people continue to blame the

administration. caller: they wanted to pass the stimulus bill. now we have to do it fast. i think now what they are trying to do is they want to buy time, because the more people that our unemployed and lose their health benefits plays into this agenda with the health care. it kind of works out for them. more people lose their job, more people are willing to give in. host: california, you're up. on the democratic line. caller: we voted him in. bushman separate thing in the first place.

he said it would not happen in four months, he said that over two years it would happen. i don't understand why people don't have patience and give it a chance. people just want to criticize. i am not even in the middle, not rich. listening to some of all this garbage, bush put us where we are today.

with everything we are going through it is ridiculous. it hurts me. everything that is going on right now is wrong peopl. host: thanks for collar. that, caller. >> we have been able to pull our financial system and our economy back from the brink. we have stabilized our major financial institutions, to help homeowners stay in their homes and pay their mortgage.

we also passed the largest and most sweeping recovery plan in our nation's history. the recovery act wasn't designed to restore the economy on its own. it was designed to spur demand and get people spending again. it was designed to save jobs and create more. in all over 100 days, this recovery act is working. it has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to american working families. without the help, it is estimated that deficits would be nearly twice as large as it is now, resulting in tens of thousands of additional layoffs. host: the president yesterday dismissed the idea of a second stimulus. we have a headline, a obama's do

over as retards taxpayer dollars -- as regards taxpayers, now the bills are coming due. the poll numbers are falling, what is the president to do? i see signs that obama wants a do-over. unemployment and nine 4.5% -- 9.5%. far beyond what the white house had predicted. also we of this comment on top of that. the stimulus was too small. new jersey on the republican line. caller: it has been great just

listen to everybody talk. it proudest -- it makes me proud to be american. host: are you running out of patience? are you ok were you are? caller: everybody is stressed. i am out of patience with not with this administration, but with both parties. both parties i think put us in this position. when i for started working i saw a lot of things going on. the average congressman makes $124,000 a year and has a health-care plan. the average american makes $50,000 a year, health care is

coming out of his pocket. this is a problem. our congressmen and senators are not seeing what the american people are seen. i don't care what race or color or creed, they don't see what is going on. what they have done over the past few years is gone and elected -- is gotten elected. their pockets are being lined. just look it what these people are doing to us on both sides of the aisle, it comes down to gerrymandering with redistricting bills. it is frustrating to see how this goes on in both democratic and republicans. host: florida on the independent line. lots of enacting -- economic

headlines. what's going on down there. caller: the american people are -- the congressional budget office provides forecasts that we could have more, i don't believe either party learned any of the lessons they should have during the great depression. you can spend and spend, and do not outspend a recession or depression. you can only continue to increase incredible debt.

host: a comet, of course it will take time to sit -- six things. the lead editorial in the philadelphia inquirer, stimulus? not yet. more debt the nation racks up. the recovery plan approved in february should have been implemented more quickly. between the bailouts of last

year and the stimulus bill makes the people shoulder a gigantic bird and. the government needs to find a way to lessen that load. caller: a quick chronology. it was ronald reagan who fired union workers and ushered in the alan greenspan era, -- bill clinton in 1998, allowing everybody to run this government instead of the government running it.

everybody ignored the mortgage crisis. ultimately this mortgage crisis has to use the gyroscope. the only two things that will give us back on balance, we need a national health-care system. we have to start taxing wealthy people more. charlie rangel yesterday in the paper is putting on a surtax for people making over the neighborhood of $180,000.

think of one rate of tax over 280,000, and 5% at a million of income. we have to get back to a really progressive income tax in this country in order to fund our government. host: 1 your rights, the first one didn't work. why would they propose a second one? the president is urging patience of the economy. jim on the republican line. caller: it will take more time. i am trying to back our president. i see the problem is that it is

a war between republicans and democrats. we are now split as a nation. we are now cats and dogs fighting. it is good to have compotation, -- competition, but not this way. what i see happening that independents are bluntly backing hispanics like judge sotomayor. here's another thing, the white male i have been watching for

the last two hours, who founded this country? it was white males. again, i am hispanic, but that doesn't matter. their white men. they built a heck of a nation. . .

♪ >> sunday, these authors on president harry truman and his position to recognize the state of israel. >> no one knew what president truman would do until that press conference. truman said, i do not know, we will have to see. but he had already decided. he had said he would support of jewish state when they announced its creation. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. you can also listen to the program on c-span radio and on line as a pot cast. >> live coverage of the

confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee sonya's 02 starts monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern -- 4 sonia sotomayor. we will replay those proceedings weeknights on c-span to. coming this fall, toward the homes of america's highest court, the supreme court on c- span. "washington journal continues. host: our guest is named alim seytoff, vice-president of the uyghurs american association. exactly what are the uyghurs, who are they? guest: they are the historic people who have also looked rigid always lived in central asia. the name was changed by the chinese into xinjiang which means new territory. we are unique people and are completely different from the han population and culture,

religion, traditions, and values. they are very different from the chinese. host: as we look at the map we can see way up in the west the capital which is called -- guest: urumqi. host: we understand that the uyghurs have been fighting. what about? guest: yes, and they have suffered for 60 years under the chinese government. the politics, identity, government, economics -- in every aspect they have severed. although the chinese government confirmed the people an autonomous region, our people have never enjoyed self-rule. instead the chinese government used the framework to further

prosecution just as in tibet. as a result, the people have had enough and when the chinese mob began to beat and kill the uyghurs that sparked the protests last sunday in urumqi. host: some of the video of the riots by youtube as we talk here with alim seytoff. we found this online. they talk about the numbers of the dead here. the associated press quotes chinese state media saying that the chinese toll has raised it to 180. we read that the numbers are hard to come by, to verify. what you believe is going on there?

guest: we believe the actual number of deaths and people and injured is much higher than the official numbers given by authorities. we got calls from uyghurs on the run that uyghurs had killed already more than 400 and those injured is much higher than that. we know for a fact that in the past the chinese government has always been able to hide the numbers in order to downgrade the severity of the situation. whenever something like that happens the just blame the uyghurs. the chinese government has longstanding repressive policies. host: the government of chun has says much of this is begun by dissidents who are now well outside china and the west. what is your response? guest: that is absolutely false. the blame the president of the world the uyghur congress who

is my boss and has not been involved in this whatsoever. but whenever this happens in this area the chinese government point fingers at her. whenever something happens in tibet as last year the government points the finger at ballet llama -- at the dalai lama. but the longstanding policies of the chinese government should be blamed instead. host: before get to the calls, tell us more about your organization. first of all, where does it get its money? guest: we get from the national endowment for democracy. the association was established in 1998. it was established to support the uyghur people. what this decision does is promote human-rights, religious freedom and rights for the people in the we're based in washington, d.c. and we speak on

the hill, testified before congress and meet with state department officials. we also go to different universities and speak to raise awareness. we frequently travel to other western democracies such as european union countries to me with high-level officials to let the international committee know the plight of the uyghur people. we are suffering as much as the tibetans and the situation the summer. host: we go to the phones. holyoke, mass., you are on the line. caller: hello, we have something happening pretty much here with the republicans. for a long time republicans have been in the supreme court, have been running ceos in the corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and every -- in every

arc power. how are the people, those high up in the chinese government, how is their abuse of government -- how subtle is it that they are trying to pretend they're doing the right thing? but i have seen from the media is that this crackdown comes down. in the muslim countries they try to hide it. these people in power sit here and basically take religion, degraded, call themselves christians or muslims, but then they contradict their religion. how often do you see this happening? in your part of the country? guest: first off you have to understand that china is not a democracy. it is still run by the communist party. it is an atheistic ideology.

the chinese communist party sees all religions whether islam, christine and become a buddhism, any kind of organized religion as a threat to state power. the chinese government does not like people gathering together and wants to control. there is no genuine religious freedom to begin with and china. their plan is to crack down on any organized religion, for example as into bed. the uyghurs happened to the muslims in the chinese government has labeled them as religious extremists, terrorists. they are trying to crack down upon the uyghurs severely. in the united states the american people a very strong

faith in their religions, especially christianity. the care so much about the world. american christians not only care about their christian brethren in other countries and also the plight of the muslims such as the uyghurs -- for example, we had worked with the lutheran church here in washington for very long time to help some of the uyghurs in the past. of course, we hope there will be more support from the american government and people and from the different religious groups, whichever ones, to support our peaceful efforts in china. host: are you hearing anything from the administration or congress right now? guest: the administration has voiced concerns. we hope the obama administration will voice a stronger concern because of the ongoing crackdown in the east turkistan.

a couple of congressional people have introduced legislation. we hope that the resolution can be passed soon. host: how many uyghurs are there in that part of western china? guest: the chinese statistics put them anywhere from 8 to 9.7 million people, but uyghurs claim as many as 20 million. host: let's hear from del rey, florida. caller: good morning. i like to break bread with that last caller. he was a religious in his comments. not withstanding, what did you think about the uyghurs who now live in bermuda be? and what about the landing in

guantanamo? what was the purpose of al qaeda being interested in training uyghurs? all was the connection? did it you, were your women forced on the to have one baby and it the second baby was in womb, were they aborted by the chinese government? host: several points there, but explain the connection between gitmo and the uyghurs, al qaeda and the uyghurs? guest: first of all, they have nothing to do with the al qaeda and there are no wings. the chinese government has successfully propagated that uyghurs are hard-core terrorists linked to al qaeda and the taliban, especially pointing to detainment at guantanamo of some uyghurs. but even after years of interrogations by the u.s. government, the bush

administration realized that they had picked up the wrong people and these uyghurs were innocent. when they fled into pakistan, the tribal leaders told them to american forces at $5,000 apiece. those uyghurs were not trained in taliban camps and were not there for any terrorist activities. as a result, but the bush and obama administration's declared they are non-enemy combatants. in 20065 were sent to albania. the other five are now living good, productive lives there and one is going to the university. others are opening a pizza parlor. there are some in bermuda also enjoying new lives and are happy they are free. they're not critical of the u.s. at all because they know how they will be treated under chinese rule. there are another 13 uyghurs who we hope will be transferred to another country, most likely to

palau. most of those links are the fabrication by the chinese government. there's no substantive evidence. host: here is a twitter question. while you are here in washington have you get your information? guest: from all kinds of forces. we get a lot of phone calls from uyghurs on the run. they knew the risk. it was extremely difficult for them to call us. if they were found colonist the chinese government would immediately to arrest them and put them into prison. but the people were suffering so much. the callers from all over now. even when they travel overseas and they let us know. we do get a lot of very useful information from our callers. host: our guest has a bachelor's from xinjiang university there in china. you grew up there?

guest: yes, most of my life. host: his the official spokesperson for the world uyghur congress. what exactly is that congress? guest: it is based in germany. it is a democratic organization, established by the uyghurs in 2004 to represent the collectiv interests of the uyghurs people in the world. it has many umbrella organizations. in europe, the u.s., australia, and japan and the goal is to struggle for human rights, democracy through peaceful means. host: tennessee, you are on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask, why in the world with the united states of america not accept these people?

they are obviously very hard- working, very tenacious. they have put up with the maoists and china for years and have still managed to hang on. everyone in the uyghurs population knows there is no chance of furthering themselves whatsoever. yet they hang on and we have a few of them we have held for seven years in get gitmo and the u.s. refuses to take them in. what is your comment on that? guest: actually, when i arrived in 1996 i wanted to study at a certain university. thank you for your call. yes, we have suffered so much under china's brutality rigid

all the same dictators, just speaking a different language. under mao was a close country and now under hu jintao it is supposedly an open country. the uyghurs have to hang on because we believe we should be free. just like all people. the chinese communist government is an equal opportunity oppressor of all groups, all ethnic and religious groups. our hope is that this chinese communist party changes to the democratic party and introduces reforms. our ethnicity, religion, culture, language could be respected. but that is the long-term goal. it will not change overnight. as we can see the chinese communist government still hold on to power. to answer your question of bell

uyghurs and on-- in guantanamo,e reason the u.s. is not accepting -- there is some opposition. some american people believe they are a threat. because they were in afghanistan and then the gitmo stigma plays an important role, unfortunately. host: this is written about in the opinion pages today in "the new york times" -- won passage points out that uyghurs risen many things about china, but also resent the increased competition for jobs. how much of this current unrest is economic-based? guest: yes, if is sort of

economically-based, but most of it is oppression. after 1949 there were only 2% han population in xinjiang, but now they are the majority. they are transferring to dominate the population. all the jobs, housing, and benefits are specifically reserved for those han chinese. they are incentives for a transfer their to different cities to dominate the region. the same uyghurs who have lived there for centuries cannot get those kinds of jobs, housing, health care and even government loans. in 2006 the chinese initiated a new program which is to

forcefully transfer young, unmarried uyghur women into chinese sweatshops to work as slave labor. the event that sparked a protest relates to the june 26 toy manufacturer guangdong province where young men and women of uyghurs were forced to work there. they were beaten and killed by the chinese mob. so, in east turkistan, the chinese government does not hire uyghurs whatsoever. host: this is from the editorial pages today. they write that the u.s. and other western countries have tried for years in vain to persuade chinese leaders to change policy in tibet. uyghurs get little love in paris

or hollywood. mostly they're known for the alleged militants held at guantanamo who have been found to pose no threat, but who was for a recent exceptions have not yet been released for lack of a place to send them. their legitimate demands for justice will not make them go away. it will only weaken china's ability to hold onto territory of the long term. florida, you're on the line for democrats. caller: hello, good morning. i want to ask, how did he com up with the name uyghurs -- where did that come from? guest: uyghur is our ethnic name, our language. it means a united in our language. it used to be the unification of many tribes into caller: one

group ok, and i would like to put myself into his place. who was just shown about the belts, if you put the civil rights movement is based on that. you're talking about the housing and jobs and benefits -- if you just show that clips. i am an american and just happen to be black. the same thing happened to our people. for some reason everyone thinks all that has gone way. the violence may not be there, may not be out in the open, but you have this group call kkk who are constantly putting people not of their race down. i can't put myself in your place and understand how you feel, but

how can you think a country like america can help you when they have not actually admitted and agreed to what has gone on with people of color like myself? host: thank-you. guest: after i came to the u.s. i studied a lot about the civil rights movement here and have tremendous respect for martin luther king. i was impassioned by his speech on the steps of the lincoln memorial. i am so pleased that his dream has been realized in the united states. we have an african-american president. that is a testament that this country has been able to overcome the racism from the 1960's and before that.

of course, there is still racism here and there and the kkk probably still functions here and there, unfortunately. but a good thing about the u.s. and its government is that is systematically against racism. there is systematic discrimination against all groups except for the han in china. whether you are mongol, tibetan, or any other group as with my new are intensely repressed. they forcefully a similar you into the han chinese by erasing language, culture, identity, traditions. the situation is extremely serious. but still the united states has been one of the strongest voices in supporting our

peaceful struggle. they have been very critical of the chinese government. so we are grateful for that support. host: fairfax, va. on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: if all or most of the uyghurs are muslim which is a wonderful religion, but i would also like to know if you know that what you're going through has been going on in kashmir for a long time? it sounds like what you say has happened to you has happened to the kashmirs years ago. oppression is something that when people find out the can get away with it, the majority will do it. it is happening in the coptic

christians in egypt and they should know better because islam is a wonderful, loving religion, but when the wrong people get in charge of anything they must be overthrown. you must lean on obama. guest: thank you very much for expressing your support and sympathy. yes, and of the situation is kashmir is very similar and those people are suffering. there is much bloodshed there. we hope both governments will work out a peaceful resolution for kashmir so those people can live in peace. in the depression as everywhere whether in our home country or is kashmir or egypt or africa.

that is why the support of the u.s. administration and that of the european union countries is so imported. their voices so critical for people like us who are yearning for freedom, fighting oppression. host: here is a question by way of twitter. any discussions going on? guest: not at all. the chinese government never meets with leaders of the uyghurs. their response to any peaceful demands for freedom or grievances is through brute force as you have seen last sunday. how many people were killed and wounded? the chinese government tries to blame the uyghurs for doing it. but it was the chinese security forces who opened fire into the crowd indiscriminately. host: that said, how long you expect this to go on?

how long can it go on? guest: i do not think it will go on any longer. the chinese government has deployed 25,000 troops from other provinces. the region is being flooded by chinese security forces. biggesit is almost like a war za police state. there is no possible way to have a peaceful resistance. some of the chinese mobs are on the streets at night between the uyghurs. but the chinese leaders have to have the political will to stop the ongoing cultural genocide there. host: one last call. cincinnati, on the independent line. caller: it is hard for me to imagine how the chinese

government is so strong that if what is happening to the uyghurs gets no publicity. the prime minister wu would have an appointment with the president and installed him by saying he would go to fight the war with the uyghurs. host: any thoughts? guest: yes, that is exactly what took place. jintao went back to the capital of china and said this must be done. the uyghurs have no other support than that from other parts of the world. that is what is important for the obama administration to voice concerns. host: our guest has been alim seytoff, vice president of the uyghur position.

in our last half-hour we will look at afghanistan. our guest will be jonathon morgenstein, national security policy adviser for an organization known as the third wave. ♪ >> sunday, these authors on president harry truman and his decision to recognize the state of israel. >> no one knew until may 14 what

president truman would do until the day before the press conference. truman said, i do not know, we will have to see. he had already decided. he told only high in the staff. -- end staff. >> you can also listen to the program on c-span radio on satellite radio, and on line as a pot test. >-- as a podcast. >> live coverage of the nomination of sonia sotomayor begins on monday. we will replay the proceedings weeknights on c-span tw2. toward the supreme court. "washington journal continues.

host: our guest now, jonathon morgenstein, senior national security adviser for a route known as the third way. guest: it is a progressive messaging center. a think tank that in my area works on national-security issues and cultural and middle- class economic issues to try to help progressives more effectively communicate the goals of what they believe in. host: as we look at counter insurgency strategy in afghanistan we wanted to get our guests take on things. here it is a piece from the paper today. when you see that as a former marine, what you see going on there?

guest: exactly what we should be doing. i served in iraq with the marines two stores. secretary gates and general patristic over in iraq and we began to shift -- many people talked about the surge, but a significant part of what helps to improve conditions there was the change in how we worked on the run. this is the stanley mcchrystal change to different tactics which protect the civilians who can then take on the enterprise of protecting themselves over time. they will help u.s. forces. once they feel secure that the t aliban will not come to execute people for collaborating with the americans, then they will help americans find those who are taliban.

the americans will help to develop an indigenous security capacity. the iraqi national army and police force will be able to take on the taliban themselves. remind us, how many u.s. troops are on the ground now in afghanistan? guest: are going up to 68,000. that is a significant increase. secretary gates and president obama set out to increase it by 21,000. i do not know at what point we're there. it is important because if you will secure the civilians you need enough troops. for a long time in afghanistan we did not. host: compare the job at hand in

afghanistan with that in iraq. guest: in the sense that the population in afghanistan were extremely happy when we arrived -- the taliban were hated and feared and had ruled through tierney, similar to sit down hussein who still had significant population who did support him rigid it was similar to a saddam hussein. but serving members from this past january indicate that even after eight years of war in afghanistan significant populations there still support the united states. in fact, 63% of the afghan survey by the bbc said they support the u.s. and only 8% said that they support the taliban.

that is less favorable to us than in the past. we were never that popular in iraq. we have a very strong chance if we do this right to really help afghanistan create a stable, independent country. host: we woke up to the weekend with this headline by general stanley mcchrystal. this is from yesterday. you talk about our troops getting the populace ready to have their own force to cover. but it is not quite enough. the general has concluded that the afghan security forces must be far larger. do you agree? guest: certainly, the afghan police and army need to be far more effective. the afghan army needs to be significantly larger and the

afghan police right now in many parts of the country are actually feared more than the taliban are, because they're not widely known to be corrupt, incompetent, and criminal. the army while role respected is not large enough. stanley mcchrystal has noted that only 400 afghan soldiers went with him and his 4000 marines into the province about one month ago. 400 afghan troops will not cut it. they need to increase their size and professionalism. host: the first call comes from fresno on the line for democrats. caller: what is the difference between russia and the united states? both of us have been in the country. i want to know what our

interests are other than getting rid of al qaeda and the taliban. i have heard that country has a lot of opium, like 90%. is one of our interests to have control of who gets the money from all these drugs that we need here in the united states? guest: the opium crop in afghanistan is the source of 90% of the opium produced in the world. most of that goes to europe rather than to the united states. still it is a major source of opium here. it is a significant source of funding to the taliban and to

al qaeda itself. it is one of our goals to combat the opium the issue that we want to defeat the taliban who sponsored al qaeda, a threat to west. one of our objectives is that the afghan people can have a life free of the taliban. those are all legitimate concerns that explain why we're there and will continue to be there. host: the next call comes from long branch, new jersey on the independent mind. caller: i used to be a democrat until obama. doesn't he understand we are tired of war? the whole united states is tired of war. i cannot be part of the party anymore. we're there because of the pipeline, anyway. host: you are for military

occupation of another country? this is from twitter. guest: net income i'm not for military occupation of another country. president obama has said we are there only as long as we need to be so that afghans can stand up and defend themselves. the idea that we're there because we want to control afghanistan which is one of the poorest countries on the face of the earth which other than opm does not have a massive source of indigenous natural resources -- those i think our, they just do not hold up to facts. the reality is that al qaeda attacked the u.s. while based in afghanistan. there were supported by the taliban who are just about one of the most horrific governments when they ruled who ever have

ruled. they be headed women. that would be for the most minor of crimes, things most people even in places like iran would not consider crimes. the taliban was one of the worst, most horrific regimes to live under in this world. all of a nato is there. the effort is to help them run their own country. host: how much violence and death do you expect in the months ahead with this new focus? guest: i think we definitely will see an increase in violence. there are more americans on the ground there. that makes more targets.

the extra marines have moved into southern afghanistan and their the initial reaction is almost expected. it was to go to ground. the disappeared among the population, into the mountains probably to assess their next option or moved. but when they began to realize that the americans are playing the game the way it should be played, as opposed to playing by their rules, they will start to get word. rightfully, they should. -- they will start to get worried and probably come back with a vengeance. it is a question of whether we have the fortitude to stick out the spike in violence which is inevitable. there is a significant article in "the washington post" that

interviews a number of afghans who explicitly say, we are concerned with the americans being here. but there will not stay long enough for us to build our capacity to defend ourselves. host: our guest is a graduate of cornell university and has earned two master's degree in teaching and international policy. he is a former marine. 18 years in the marine reserves. as a senior program officer as well at the u.s. institute of peace he held conflict resolution programs around the road. our next call is for the senior national security adviser at securityway. go ahead, the phoenix. caller: if the pimm crop is

funding the taliban, why isn't it just taken out? guest: that is a good questioning of the crop is not the only thing that funds the taliban. we really do not know the degree to which it finds them. we know that it is a significant part. but whether 20% or 70% we do not know. if you took a with a crop it would damage the taliban but not end it. the problem with fumigating all of the land and tried to eradicate the crop is that you'd be destroying the livelihood of massive numbers of the civilian population who have no other means. that would turn them against american forces on the ground. it is not only question of whether we can hurt the taliban, but by doing it we would also

hurt those trying to help and cause many of them to go over to the other side. frankly, the day that we left it would turn around and began to grow that crop again. we have to look to more long term solutions such as alternative crop development. finding them crops they can grow that may not be exactly as profitable, but it is profitable enough. surveys indicate a performing meet that the afghan population does not want to grow opium, that feel they have no choice at the moment. host: do you think that transition will really happen? we have heard for many years. will it take to make such a radical change? guest: i wish i had the answer. ambassador holbrooke who is in charge of all afghan policy said recently we will and all efforts to eradicate the opium.

we will try alternative methods. it requires a massive investment in terms of going out to see what the local population things will work and then phoned the different programs that do seem to work. it will probably be a trial and error method. it will take time. it is not necessarily one solution. the southern province where 4000 marines just moved into, if it by itself were a country would still be the world's largest producer of opium. that does not account for all the other of being produced in afghanistan. there are probably multiple answers to that question. it depends which province you are in.

it is important. it is worth the dollars what we're willing to invest. host: this story from yesterday talks about $7.5 billion budgeted annually to build up the afghan army and police of the the next several years. can you see congress coming up with more money for more troops there? guest: i think the issue of troops is contentious. i have numbers here. currently there are close to 270,000 american troops a ploy in afghanistan and iraq. many have employed through the air since the beginning of those two wars.

-- through the air since the beginning. like one of the callers who just found then, she and others are becoming antsy because we have been at war for so long. but unlike iraq, if we leave afghanistan, the taliban will return and control the territory. that will be a free rein for groups like al qaeda to begin preparing to attack us again. that is not an offhand prediction that we think might happen. it actually did happen 10 years ago when al qaeda was there and attacked us. the number of troops we can get there with congressional support -- once we began to draw down in iraq, i think that congress will.

host: 10 minutes left with our guest. mike is standing by on the line for the democrats. caller: thank god for c-span. to enter your first question as far as cleaning up the opium thing. the key element is taking a hard, long look at karzai. looking at him and his brother and their connection with the opium thing. c'mon, let's get real. if you were to give richard holbrooke in a room alone he would tell you the same. to into the one who called about being tired of war. the main reason we are there was that the twin towers, the thousand of our brightest are now gone. the first time we have ever experienced that.

it is like the whole thing with bush -- i do not know. iraq, iraq, iran, iran --and let's forget about afghanistan. the fact that well, al qaeda -- you know? bin laden running around somewhere in a cave with his dialysis machine -- go on now. do not get me started. and tried to stay on point. we do need to get rid of al qaeda. -- i am trying to stay on point. having been a marine i can certainly and understand what you have experienced. i was in vietnam. do not get me started about the military complex host: thank you. he began by talking about the

president's karzai -- what is his standing with the u.s. government, u.s. military, and his own people. how strong is the government over there? guest: the u.s. government has been very clear. there is an election in august coming up for the president of afghanistan. karzai is president and has all the instruments of power. he has been able to pretty much run the table in terms of publicity. it is widely expected he will win significantly and that election. the u.s. government however has been careful to say we're not backing any individual candidate. at one time someone close to karzai question if the u.s. is

supporting someone against them. but the u.s. has been careful to say that we support the process and institutions, not individuals. guesthis brother is widely rumod to be heavily involved significantly in the opium trade. that brings up the issue of corruption which is a massive problem and undermining the legitimacy of the government internationally and with its own people. can the afghans get that corruption under control? can the u.s. and international committee help? it is a crucial question. only when the government has

legitimacy among its own people will the people buy into the system permanently rather than going to a local warlord. host: here is a headline from the ap. they say here that a soldier who suffered wounds in afghanistan in june died on friday. the five deaths bring to 106 the number killed this year. it is something that you alluded to earlier. guest: yes. i think it was general lee who said the war is hell. there is no other way around. these are very tragic deaths

whether american or afghanistan. it is something that all of us hope does not happen. the reality is that sometimes there are things that need military force to accomplish. in this case one of those is to allow the afghan people to live without the taliban. and the american people need to be assured that they will not attack. host: here is a message from twitter. guest: the russians never tried to rebuild afghanistan. there was never a goal of theirs. they were trying to prop up a planned government who did their bidding and then trying to control the country themselves for themselves. we are trying to help stand up

an independent government whose , we do not necessarily have to agree with. you can look to secretary clinton and president obama and their statements regarding honduras for the president forced out in the coup agree strongly with u.s. policies, but these american presidents said the only concern is enforcing the rule of law. president obama says we are in afghanistan not to prop up a government that supports us, but as long as there is a stable government that has legitimacy among its people and is not going to support terrorism, then that is what we're hoping for. host: a couple more calls. first, a kansas city, kan.. caller: i was watching cann and of is that dick cheney -- cann

says that it was alleged that he was withholding information. i like to see full disclosure concerning the world trade bombing in which we can look at all evidence clearly and make the final and real determination on involvement or not of al qaeda because i believe we are in afghanistan because of all the valuable minerals and diamonds, uranium. the british simply want to control the opium supply. the israelis want us to stay busy with something else so they have reason to get there at $30 billion per year. host: what you think of that analysis? guest: i think all the evidence included bin laden's personal admission that al qaeda was

behind the 9/11 attacks is more than enough evidence. we know that the taliban supported them. massive amounts of opium go into europe, not just great britain, but all of europe. european and nato countries have an explicit interest in wanting to set up a stable government. so, i do not agree with her assessment. host: the republican lying, what do you say it this morning? caller: instead of continuous operations for slashed and burned of the poppy fields, why could we set up an agency that could encourage the people to do us a cottage industry and

arrange for the export of these goods. so that they would not have to depend on the money from opium fields. guest: that is a brilliant comment. there's something called the national solidarity program which is designed explicitly to get matched international funds with local empowerment to develop local economic pass it. we have allocated a dollar sign250 -- $250 million to it. it is allocated to a fund run by the afghan government but not entered by the world bank. all decisions are executed by

it community development councils of local leaders. they decide how the money will be spent. they use it as alternative economic prospects. there are multiple crop alternative programs that have been true. there are disputes about its productivity in different places. it is an issue that needs to be investigated more. host: what did you define as a success there? what exactly will you be looking for? guest: successes that the afghan government can stand on its own, control its own territory, reduce the export of opium. that theha