another country's territory. you could see the alleged fabricated gulf of tonkin incident as one of those. the iranian foreign ministry held a press conference and said that this was unacceptable. later on, we got a hold of another copy of the rules of engagement in 2008 months after the publication. the rules had changed. the u.s. soldiers were not permitted to cross over into iran. i could speak for hours about all of the tremendous revelations. just yesterday, the editor of the most respected paper in india ran over 21 front pages in

the last six weeks that were based on the material. there is no a tremendous anti- corruption movement that has been building up in that country, something that has not happened since the time of gondi. >> the final minute. >> i thank you. it is obvious that whistle- blowers make the world a safer place. we look at the arguments. this does not mean that everything in government should be exposed. it does mean that the system of breaking alleged alas -- laws is working at it must be kept going that way. otherwise, we cannot replace the

reality that we are in. [applause] >> thank you very much. bob ayers. [applause] >> when i saw the show of hands at the beginning, i realized what the questions felt like in the coliseum. just a point of clarification, the vietnam war was well under way before the gulf of tonkin incident. that was under the administration of a lyndon johnson. the war started under the john f. kennedy administration. your timing was a little off. >> the french were involved in

that war for many, many years. >> sit down. sit down. >> thank you very much. >> please continue. >> we were very polite when he spoke. we expect the same courtesy from him. obviously, i am wrong. what i would like to talk about is not the specifics of how many documents were compromised or said what to do. what i would like to look at is how we as individuals and organizations and groups of people deal with issues of secrecy. secrecy is something that we have all experienced throughout our history. there are various forms of this. we have religious secrets, as shown by the gnostic sects and the knights templar.

we have social secrets such as the freemasons. we have commercial secrets, trade secrets, property and commercial confidence materials. we have criminal secrets. the mafia has a secret code. lastly, we have state secrets. all of these organizations have a commonality on how they deal with those secrets. one is that the organization professes to hold knowledge that is known only to members within the organization. members of that organization are expected to take an oath or make a promise to retain the secrecy of that information. lastly, the members accept and acknowledge that they will be punished by the revelation of that information. this is common across all of those groups.

it is not unique to the state. as people, we have developed a very rich language and nomenclature that describes people who reveal secrets. we call them a snitch, a rat, pace wheeler, a trader -- squealer, a traitor, or a whistle-blower. this is not what i have invented. >> as someone who worked in government as a federal criminal investigator, we also called snitches people who came to us to rat on their friends or provide information to the government. we also use that to describe people who supplied us with information. [applause]

>> the rationale for people who break this oath or promise is as varied as some other things you have heard here today. people break the oath for greed, for money, for a bandage. they break the oath based on revenge, ideologies, fear, or ego. there is a wide range of punishments we put in place for people who break their oath. depending on the group you are in, it depends. if it is a religious group, you can be excommunicated. socially, you can be expelled from the group. commercially, you can be fired or even worse. you can be subjected to a civil

suit. criminals can be put to death, especially if you rat on the mafia. the state can put you in prison or put you to death for violating the oath. people that bright that oath, we remember them and remember them in a bad light. if you are british, i say to you purchase mclean, blunt, you know they are spies that gave british secrets to the russians. if you are an american, you say aldrich ames and robert hansen. those are men who violated their oath and gave secrets to the russians. if you are a russian, and i used the name ollie, you know he is demand that betrayed the motherland and gave secrets to

the americans. if i say joe and you are in the mafia, you know he testified against her organization and was later sentenced to death. today, we are discussing the legalities and technicalities of whistle blowing. that is what the motion is before us. what is interesting is that the motion before us avoid some of the basic human characteristics that should be shipping this discussion. humans appear to share this belief that people that betray their oath are something that extends across cultures, societies, and continents. people that break their oath or someone that we revile and distrust. the question before us, at least the unspoken question before us is due individuals or

organizations that encouraged us to break that oath or facilitate our breaking of the oath, or promote us breaking that oath, are they just as guilty as the person who preaches the oath themselves? thank you. [applause] >> i think this evening we have some whistle-blowers in the audience. i would like them to come forward. annie, please come forward. [applause] annie, is a former british security service. a spy that left the service at the same time as david. many of you remember.

she helped blow the whistle about criminal service intelligence agencies. could you tell us a little bit about your experiences and your story? >> thank you very much for inviting me. if you are an intelligence officer with than the u.k. intelligence agencies, you do not swear an oath. it is slightly different than the american system. anything that i say now has already been said. there is no need. i joined mi5 in the early 1990's along with my friend. during our recruitment, we were told that mi5 had to obey the law. during our six years there,

there were such a cascade of incompetence and criminality, we felt compelled to leave in order to effect change. that included piles of government ministries and a range of other prominent individuals in the u.k.. this included a phone tap. should have and could have been prevented. and then mi5 colluding in the cover-up. palestinians were convicted wrongly of an explosion outside of the israeli embassy in london in 1994 that were sentenced to 20 years each that were riding in prison. in 1996, he was officially briefed about colonel gaddafi

in libya. they were funding a bunch of islamist rebels. the only difference between then and now, now they're finding the rebels, but they are doing it more openly. we all know about it. what do we do? we joined up to serve our country and try to be different. in the u.k., there is a clear line of disclosure. you cannot go to anybody apart from the head of the agency which has committed the crime in order to report the crime. what to do? we decided after many sleepless nights to go public to the press and hope the ensuing -- it would have an inquiry into this. we would go on a run around europe. we ended up hiding for a year in

france. we lived in exile for another two years. student supporters and even journalists were arrested and convicted because they dared to expose these crimes. of course, david went to prison, not once, but twice. in 1998 when the british government failed to extradite him from france. the second time as when he voluntarily returned to stand trial. he was convicted and want to present in 2002. what is worse that -- was that his reputation was ruined in the press and through manipulation. why does this happened? they are easily controlled by the government and the intelligence agencies. not through the security advisory committee.

this is through the adaptation of the official secrets act. this is through the adaptation of terrorism act. there is a section in mi6 which spins and controls media news as well. if we live in an ideal world where we had transparency and respect to human rights, we would not need the press to continue to support whistle- blowers. we live in the real world. there is a nebulous war on terror. we need some sort of channel to protect whistle-blowers. americans have that legal channel. i suggest that we need one in the laws of this land. we have wikileaks and the provide protection for whistleblowers. thank you very much and we hope

that they continue their work in the years to come. [applause] >> does anyone opposing the motion which to come back on some of the points? she spoke about criminality within mi5. does anyone wish to talk about that? douglas? >> can i ask if you defied the official secrets act? there is the idea that you do not have to have some sort of silence if you are going to engage in the secret service. it seems to be inherent in the name. that if you join the secret service, you can keep secrets.

leaving the security services, you has a -- you have made a career as a 9/11 truther. i saw you testify having to speak on oath. you were the short as witnesses that in the 13 years that they have ever heard. you did not have anything to say. you came claiming that you had secrets and it became clear that you did not know anything. you are very low level and you went out into the world presenting ourselves as experts. you try to prevent -- present yourself as a free-speech expert. >> thank you. the pronunciation of your name? >> it would be nice if you got that right.

>> briefly. >> the inquiry was about a state agent. we insure that the evidence given by mi5 was changed. that was one thing. we signed the official secrets act to protect the official secrets, not crime. [applause] whatever level we worked on, we know more than somebody who never worked on the inside at all. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that robust intervention. tell us a little bit more about your experiences. i believe you were dismissed for warning people about the extent

of their overexposure. tell us in a little bit more. i would like to know your story about what happened to you. >> you may think that blowing the whistle on a bank has nothing to do with debt, but it does. the banking crisis has driven 100 million people into poverty and killed many millions of those people. it does have something to do with death. i say one ting to bob. dwight eisenhower once said, never confuse honest the fence with disloyal subversion. there is a fundamental difference between those who raise and speak truth to power from a position of ethical decency and those who are doing it for subversion. [applause]

hague lifts the lid on britain'a secret past. the government that believes in transparency and openness. that is what people expect and what they have a right to. transparency is the key to truth. anything done in the dark is not nearly always the truth. it is the truth that sets us free. we only grow by taking risks. the biggest risk we ever have is being honest with ourselves and others. this above all, that it must follow the night into day. of course, obviously, proper whistleblowing makes the world a safer place. it prevents disaster. it prevents wars.

on a micro basis, it removes people from organizations that are criminals or a civil wrongdoing. on a macro basis, it leads to major changes of policy process and transparency leads to a better world. in my case, after i was fired by james crosby for trying to slow down the bank of scotland, it has led to some changes. some good changes. i have not got sufficient time to go through some of these things. there is not nearly enough changes that have come out of it. the principal reason for doing what i did was to have change in the policies so that we could be protected from the way that banks work. we have not done nearly enough about it. we are still not doing transparency. there has never been a proper inquiry. if you did a proper inquiry, the

best interests would be found out. regulators, accountants, rating agencies, etc. in fact, we are thinking about driving a mass movement to get the transparency. mark my words, if we do not solve it this time, the next time it will be and wipe out. i would like to blow the whistle on the format of this particular event. how could you have an event of this measure at have a whistle blower and not being allowed to speak? i was sent this whistle by the sock -- an admirer. it says in latin, to speak up on

behalf of the fatherland. >> you have one minute. >> whistle blowing may make the world a safer place. it does not make it a safe place for a whistle blower. you get treated like toxic waste. you get treated like a leper. you care more about the organization and then the rubish you. i have been in the depths over this. this is my son writing a card to me on my birthday what i was in the depths of suicide. i know that you think that this birthed this stuff is nonsense, but it is a day to celebrate your life and what a great person you are. know this, everybody has flaws and i'd like to look past those flaws to the great person you are. there is a lot of good in you

and what you -- then you get credit for. in everything you stand for, which is integrity and truth. do not worry. we get transformed by truth. the reality is that you get transformed by trouble. all of the pain and suffering have been worthwhile. if you want to ask anybody how it changes from the valley of death to amazing grace. my daughter is in the audience tonight. she will tell you. thanks very much indeed. [applause] >> paul was blowing the whistle there. very poignant points. we have had many questions through our web site.

one that seemed to recur again and again is this idea of collateral damage. this is as a result of whistleblowing or leaking valuable information. we want to hear you speak on that. >> i have a view on it. we have bent in the business for about 4.5 years of exposing actual collateral damage. the deaths added up in total of over 140,000 people documented case by case. in the case of the u.s. military and the assassinations from kenya. that is actual, not only collateral damage, but murder. if you speak about wikileaks,

there has been a lot of hot air said about our publication and -- by the pentagon and its rich -- supporters. anything that the press publishes that embarrasses the national security sector. we have a perfect record in true respect. that is not the record that we can keep forever. today, we have never preached a document that was mis-described. we have never gotten it wrong, as anyone alleges. nobody has ever suffered physical harm as a result of anything that we have published. that is the answer. that is what gates, the defense secretary of the united states admits. it is what made out that mets.

that is what the pentagon admits. if you google the phrase blood on hands and wikileaks and pentagon, there are 10 times as leaks eferences to wikik and blood on hands than the pentagon. that is including all the wars that the pentagon has done everywhere. the opponents say that it has no blood on its hands but there is some hypothetical risk that they should be talking about. they are saying that their opponents have blood on their hands when there is none. [applause]

>> i am very keen to keep this debate going as much as possible. i would like to hear from douglas murray. i would like you to come forward. >> do you want me to preempt my speech? very well. are you sure? >> i will come back. i am worried about how one side -- >> i am worried about it, too. i am happy to hold. thank you. >> please step forward. everybody has been waiting for you. [applause]

>> i am worried about how one- sided it is, too. there are countless debates on the panel. i am joking. i do not want to talk about wikileaks, julien, me, paul, i want to talk about a man named joe darby. he is a high-school graduate from small-town pennsylvania. he joined and it went to iraq in 2004. he was accidently given two cds containing photographs taken at abu ghraib. he sought the iraqi prisoners being stacks and forced to perform sex acts on each other,

being attacked with dogs, being attacked, sodomized, raped. those pictures showed torture, abuse, rape, every indecency. joe darby, to use the lingo of the military, ratted on his friends, his fellow show -- ellis soldiers. they did not arrest those guys banged. when he went home to see his wife, they were told that they had to sell their house because it was not safe anymore. he had to be followed around by bodyguards. he had to quit the military, all because he decided to blow the

whistle. he helped uncover one of the worst crimes perpetrated by the u.s. and abroad in recent years and there are a lot to choose from. darby was asked by anderson cooper in an interview, did you ask -- did you wish that it was not you that was given the cds. he said no, they might not have been reported otherwise. they say that ignorance is bliss. to know what they're doing, you cannot stand by and let that happen. that is what whistleblowing is all about, and that is why this is so important. that whistle blowers do not make the world a safer place, but they have risk lies rather than save lives. -- they risk lives.

tell the inmates of of the great prison that whistle-blowers do not matter, they have no impact in the world. i would like to go to those people and say, "you should not have come forward. you should not have spoken out." whistle-blowers have a life- saving task. i would take your point in one second. traitors, those who went to the soviet union to sell secrets. people who speak out against dangerous, dishonest, or illegal activity. that is who i am here for. who are you here for, bob? [applause]

>> i am here to be entertained by some of the speakers. the man turned over the cd's of abu ghraib. the man returned to those over we do who turn those over had no responsibility to keep silent -- the man who turn those over -- who turned those over had no responsibility to keep silent. >> i thought we were having a debate about whistle-blowers. proud of being a whistle-blower. but, listen. this is a debate about people.

paul did not take an oath. it is not about roads. it did not about swearing. this is about people and speak out, very clearly, people who speak out against dangerous, dishonest, illegal activity. let's be very clear. it is about big business. take the man that was portrayed by a rather potbellied russell crowe in the movie concern the tobacco industry. he saved lives by becoming a whistle-blower. this was about reducing the carcinogenic elements in the cigarettes. his assistance was central to the fda investigation into the role of nicotine.

i do not know if he took an oath. but he stood up. our world is a better place. we do not live in a perfect world. we live in a very imperfect world, where our government lied to us. they engaged in corrupt back room deals. and then they demand our trust, our trust, year after year after year, lie after lie after lie. well, stop lying to us, and we will not have whistle-blowers. surely a government, show me a government, democratic or nongovernment the democratic. i remember the labor minister telling me, "trust me. trust me.

i have seen the intelligence. the weapons are there. the weapons were not there. did it was working in the foreign office when they were going around saying that the case for war against saddam was thin. instead of 2003, instead of going to chat with andrew billingham, those weapons of mass destruction. we would have hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis still alive today had we had whistle-blowers. [applause] and in in in a perfect world come in and in corporate world, we need whistle-blowers, and for have said they will come when governments and neurologists will own up to the level of deceit and corruption in our public life. and if you want any more

evidence of the whistle-blowers, just look at what happens to the people who blow the whistle. threatened and blackmailed by the nixon administration who wanted him incapacitated. another held by the israelis for 11 years. and another is being held right now by the obama administration, and his underwear is taken from him before he is allowed to go to sleep at night. when whistle-blowers, long to put power in our hands, they say this is outrageous. this is wrong. this is going to destroy the world. whistle-blowers and power fall

and dare i say, these people and bradley manning and make the world a safer place. i urge you to back the motion. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. a senior with the new statesman. something for you to answer. whistle-blower organizations may become a powerful tool to control the government, but who will control those

organizations? who will control the whistle- blowers, and how do we know that the information they published is not being manipulative? >> the public holds us to account, and the public takes it weather materials submitted anonymously, if something is done to conceal an agenda -- i think all of what we never really does not give enough credit. they can take in information that is submitted anonymously, and they throw in opinions and evaluate it and determine whether or not this is information being put out there for some other agenda or if this is to legitimately call some of the out for wrongdoing. i think there needs to be a conversation on journalists, those who touch and taken the information, about what we put

out and we do not put out. for example, in my own opinion, i do not think it would be good to put that information related to critical infrastructure of vulnerability. >> you do not support that. >> no, i do not. we do have some context, some background, some new ones. we do not just bonnett information. >> -- >> i will let julianne speak about -- julian speak aboaut wikileaks. sometimes, there is information that is just too important for one news organization to have.

so you partner, i think when you get more partnering, you get more accountability. this is a new type of journalism. there does need to be some sort of code of ethics and standards, and i think as a new form of journalism, it is being worked out. this is why it is so popular. and that is why he was voted as one of the most popular figures in the world by "time magazine." thank you. [applause] >> could you please step forward? >> thank you. well, thank you very much. >> i have been trying to get your on all evening. >> i know.

this allows me to disagree with some of the previous speakers and also to agree with them. i am sorry to enter borne by partisanship, but i agree with many. democracies and governments can be corrupt. this is true. democracy is a deeply flawed system. it is not perfect. it is, as churchill said. and i think we have to be aware, very aware, of this discussion between the difference between open societies, democracies, in which evil can come to the four and do in those systems in which they never do and cannot.

are there flaws in our government? of course. but, by and large, a democracy like america has a lot of checks and balances, different officials, different parties coming to power, elections, elections every two years, elections which just throughout the government that many were critical of in iraq, making your biography may be as terrifying as the prime minister. who knows what we should know? the decides? well, people like mr. assange, so with him on the panel, we are likely going to be talking about wikileaks.

but do they know, ladies and gentlemen, what they are doing? to criticize the government when it goes wrong. to some extent, not perfectly, they do know what they are doing. my own personal feeling is this. that when you unleash thousands and thousands of documents that were never meant for the public eye, were never meant for your opponent's eyes, were never meant for an intelligence agencies eyes, you introduce an element of chaos. it is like war. it is very hard to contain once you start. you may think you know you are doing. you may think you're going to lead to great criticism, but what about the collateral damage

in your campaign? are you sure you know what you're doing when you release secret documents relating secret conversations between states of the fragile governments of yemen or jordan or a confrontation with the king of saudi arabia saying that he hopes that the israelis do bomb iran could be sure you know what you're doing when you introduce an element of chaos like that in a region which i can assure you does not need more conspiracy theories. another talked about with great pride the release of information that mi looking at trying to assassinate, khaddafi. are you sure it is good to let colonel gaddafi know you want to do that? you will get a chance to answer my questions in a minute. the woman said she was proud of

the gaddafi. are we sure that is a good idea to lexcano gaddafi know 10 years ago that mi 6 was doing that? is mr. assange sure? >> there will be time. >> is he sure that he knows better than foreign intelligence agencies? maybe he does. maybe he is, indeed, the god like figure that the to person would have to be. what about this new era of journalism? it seems to me it is very much like the old one. people get to pursue their interests. if they hate america, they can

release a whole lot of stuff that they can do to make america look bad in the world korea if, like aljazeera, if you are hostile to the state of israel, you can release the information -- no, no, you will get time. this is not exactly an open democratic government. and release as many papers as you can in a big white -- in a big light. are you sure, ladies and gentlemen, that they are really and brave and they present themselves and who -- as they present themselves? he said, "we took a lot of heat for doing it."

i am surprised you are here. it is a lovely light. you can make a lot of money. you can get a lot of money when you present yourself as a great adversary of something you do not understand entirely. but surely, you have to take one. >> no, no, they will get time. i cannot help noticing. why has the russian government secrets not come out? is it because they actually kill a journalist?

>> please come in a shouting from the floor. -- please, no shining from the floor. j8ul -- no shouting from the floor. julian assange. >> i would ask you to do your research before making comments like that. >> there was a "the guardian" journalists, and they said they were informants. >> point of order. we are in the process of suing "the guardian" and -- you are welcome to sue was iffy -- to join us if you would like.

>> there are some of point of view that are exactly counter to what you are saying. >> lives have no social utility. the view abuse is a terrible thing. that is why i was involved. to protect us all from the abuse of libel laws, actualize. there must be a recourse, and that records is in the courts and in the court of public opinion. >> thank you very much. >> another point of information,

i would lead that was to be able to finish his speech. >> as i said, i very much look forward to them releasing the information about the russian secret service killing journalists. the fact that the cia does not hunt down and kill its critics, they do. i would like to see that more reflected in your work. daniel said that by and large notice that the complaints of human rights abuses happenings that disproportion -- inverse proportion to the human-rights abuses happening in the country. the more likely you hear about them, the less likely they are going on, because in a closed society, you do not hear about it.

finally, democracies, as i said in the beginning, are in perfect things, but they are the best thing going. they have to answer questions. sometimes, those questions are unpleasant. they have to be answered. and when they are not answered, you and i and the public gets to throw out the politicians we no longer trust, and we do. so those people who are very critical, like julian assange, should, perhaps, and to some questions themselves, and since we have the opportunity tonight, i would like you to answer a couple of questions. you are, after all, an organization dedicated to freedom of information.

are you willing to reveal all of your sources of funding? how can you demand transparency from government when you as the organization have no transparency yourself? who works for you? who are you involved with? who are your employees? where are you even based? none of these things get answered. .et's ask some more questions what is your relationship with the holocaust deniers who says he was an employee of yours? what about what the public should know and what they should not prove governments are elected. you are not. finally, who guards the guardians? or in this case, who guards the guardians guardian? it seems to me tht -- that

wikileaks is not the best place for this to be. you said there was a conspiracy against you, which included an editor, and then you said that they were jewish. and then when he was not, you said his thoughts were jewish. i am coming back to the point, i assure you. all of the rest of your attributes aside, somebody who has gone so far with the conspiracy theory, whether you are really better place than any government to decide what these ladies and gentlemen and i and all of us do know? thank you. 2 -- [applause]

bonds >> the assistant director for the henry the jackson 5 to. we are running out of time, but, julian. after those accusations, would you like to come back and say something briefly for the debate? >> obviously, he has nothing to say about the motion he denied. since he has resorted like some many of that type to personal attacks on me and our organization, which are, of course, unfounded, and which i hesitate to respond to directly, because i can see them to be a

corruption of what we're all here for, but i cannot read some of them go without comment. the most interesting of your views is about who decides whether a media group or organization should be supported or not. i think that is an interesting question. and the answer in our case, we are a publishing organization, and we publish the work of whistle-blowers. republish it to the world. all of the fruits of our labour go to the public because that is

the tab of labor that we are engaged in. unlike organizations that are supported with money out of the tax base or by advertisers, we are directly supported on a week by week basis by you. you vote with your wallets every week. whether you believe that us facilitating whistleblowing activity is supported or not. or you believe that we need to be protected in our work. that dynamic feedback between us, the whistle-blowers, and the public, i say, is more

responsive than the government's structure that is elected after it is soliciting money from big business once every four years. >> i will allow one further piece of information, and then we will close the debate. >> i have not got money from anyone other than the general public. you have just confirmed to us that you think you're better than our government. thank you. the lady there has done the job. >> thank you, douglas emerging. i asked earlier at the beginning of the debate were positions. this house believes that

whistle-blowers make the world a safe place. i know julian has to go for obvious reasons, but who believe that whistle-blowers may the world a safer place? what is your view now? is there anyone abstaining? this house believes that whistle-blowers make the world a safer place. [applause] i would just like to say thank you to mr. gallagher for the frontline club. thank you to our wonderful guest editor. and thank you for being such a

good audience. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, a conversation with david axelrod. after that, "q&a," and then another chance to see wikileak'' founder julian assange, participating in the debate about whistle-blowers. the state of race in america. among our guests, juan williams, rev. al sharpton, film director spike lee. from the aspen institute on c- span3 monday. in april, the civil war was

ignited. this month, we commemorate the anniversary of the bombardment, and next weekend,interviews witr scholars and reenact first from the north and south. that the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history, or you can get power schedules e-mailed to you. now former white house senior adviser david axelrod. he sat down to discuss his experience working in the white house and issues involving the obama administration. he talks about the health care law, guantanamo bay prison, the youth vote in the 2010 election, and his work for richard daley, and rahm emanuel. david axelrod left his white house position earlier this year

to help lead the president's reelection campaign at its chicago headquarters. he is interviewed by james warren. we pick up the interview with a discussion concerning the decision on the guantanamo detention facility. >> the obama budget reflects none of those commission recommendations. why? >> it does not represent none of them. i think there were a number that had been adapted. but there is no doubt that there is a large discussion to be had. the president has said that and we should do it in a sequential way. let's get last year's budget business done. let's have a discussion about 2012, and then let's have a discussion about some of these larger issues.

right now we are fighting over 12% of the budget, that is all the discretionary budget is. that leaves 88% of the budget to be discussed. if you're going to solve this in the long term, that has to be part of the discussion. that is why he appointed a deficit commission. that was his initiative, working at his behest. that is a starting point for discussion and we will have that discussion. if they were not difficult, we would have solved them long ago. it will recall republicans and democrats sitting down together in good faith talking about them and not try to score political points off of them. i expected that conversation will happen. >> the republicans scored a lot of political points on health care. there's really no evidence yet that the law has reduced cost. when will americans seek changes in a very tangible way that

reshapes their views? >> first of all, jim, there are many americans that seek changes in tangible ways. there are young people injured on their parents' insurance up to the age of 26, who would not have been there. senior citizens getting a better break on their prescription drugs. there are new strictures against overreach by insurance companies in terms of limits that they can put on insurance. you do not have this paradoxical situation we're insurance is great and to do get sick in the new cannot use it. there was that millions and millions of people are experiencing this healthcare plan right now. but it will be 2014 before it is fully implemented. that is when the health care changes are set up where the people who cannot get insurance right now can get insurance on a

competitive basis at a price that they can afford. the answer to your question is, we need to fully implement this program. we also have to begin to encourage, and i see my friend here who is on the board of mount sinai hospital, he can appreciate this, if we have to encourage best practices all over the country that will reduce costs by automating medical records, for example, so we're not repeating simple things. things that we know will reduce cost, that takes time to implement. we have to see it through. >> of bread and butter political question. many youths voting for obama were nowhere to be seen during the midterm. there seems to be a lot of interesting things embedded in the new census data. the growth of the latino

population, i am thinking that in indiana, north carolina, colorado, places that have now by and large gone republican. what about the census data, the youth vote that did not come back matt -- last november? >> there is no case that that -- there's no question that that is true. the minority vote in 2008 was 26% of the total, 22% in 2010. some of that had to do it that that the president was not on the ballot. some of that has to do with the reality of governance. i think the president had great

enthusiasms and hopes and expectations. everywhere he went, change is not easy, change will take time. things will not happen overnight. but nonetheless, we're going to a terribly difficult time in our country because of the recession. we have gone through continued battles in washington, and we hope to overcome that kind of politics, and we still want to overcome that type of politics. and that is wearing on people. i do sense that we have a tremendous reaction to the announcement that the president had filed his papers for reelection. a tremendous grassroots reaction, we got it on line, it was expressed in a lot of their ways, including small dollar donations come and i think there is there a real sense on the part of people who did not participate in 2008 that they

are ready for 2012. and certainly some of the way that these republicans have behaved in the states and that the national level has reminded people that there are steaks to an election. we have to participate. robert kennedy said the future is not a gift, it is an achievement. we have to keep working at it. it is not easy. i think people get that and one of the reasons we started as early as we did is that we want to reengaged and mobilize people. in terms of the demographics of the states, you are absolutely right. we saw the census, and we're becoming a more diverse population. some states that we did not win, use the big growth, particularly in the hispanic population. that will be a factor moving

forward. that does not mean that they are registered or participated. that task lies ahead. but there is no doubt that we are becoming a more diverse country. the 11 impact on our politics. >> of lightning around. speak briefly about your on-the- job training and the lessons learned. stuff you now realize you did not fully get when you walked in on the first day. house of this to get it is you are, as many issues as you mulled over on the campaign, presumably you did not think that you would be owning gm and chrysler. >> we do not own gm. that is a malicious rumor. [laughter] >> you did not know that you would be in charge for a bit and then have to figure out a way to fix it. >> don't forget pirate in gimmicks. a lot of things you never expected.

>> at a steep learning curve for you. >> you realize how unsophisticated you are when you arrive there and the difference -- when you work for the president and when you are the president, you have to deal with everything. you cannot deal with one thing. the white house is filled with experts on different subjects but the president has to be on top of all the subjects and those who work for him have to try to keep up. i have to tell you and i am talking to a home town crowd, so this will probably not be shocking to you, but there was not a day that i was there, and i will get your question, there was not a day that i was there that i was not just proud to work with barack obama but grateful that he was there. because these problems are so complicated -- he said if it was easy, it would never get to me. it is so complicated, so

complicated, and what was remarkable was to watch the way in which he worked through these issues in a thoughtful way, not in a dogmatic way, always asking the right questions, and making judgments that he thought were best for the country, never losing his footing -- it was remarkable because what gets thrown at you is just extraordinary. what i learned is how much i did not know. i knew omar economics and pandemic is an oil drilling than i ever thought that i it would. every one of the great things about working in the white house and one of the daunting things is that every day you are confronting things that are new in some way and that you have not thought about deeply before. and your push to learn about them and learn about them quickly.

so it is big. this issue of -- it is a great experience, important aside. on this issue of stuff you have to deal with, there were days particularly at the beginning when each day we were grappling with the possibility of another depression. that is what larry summers said, all one in three chance that we could slide into a depression, which is something you never, ever anticipated hearing. you thought that was part of history. here you are dealing with that and on top of that you overlaid the wars, you relate things like pandemic, and one day i just said to the president, boy, i wonder what it would like -- be like to be here in good times? and he patted me on the back and said, don't kid yourselves. things were not -- if things were good, we would not have

gotten the job. [laughter] >> this is a lightning round. >> that is not my forte. to the most single interesting international figure you have now met. >> i think that may have mentioned to you once that i travel to russia with the president. he was meeting with the prime minister putin and the meeting with long, and so they said, they ask me to set with miguel gorbachev, who the president was supposed to be meeting with until the president got there. i spent 45 minutes with him. that was an extraordinary experience. just understanding the world -- the role he played in history, and hearing his stories about ronald reagan, and one of the most interesting and poignant stories, he really liked reagan. he had affection for him.

he thought he was an end to selling came to change his view. reagan started out -- he thought reagan was a imbecile, and he changed his view. they sat in bilateral meetings, and george shultz would be sitting next to reagan, the secretary of state, and reagan would go off and the rhetorical flight of fancy, and bush -- shultz would likely place his hand on reagan and reagan would stop speaking. [laughter] but he talked a lot about the great thing they were able to do together. it was inspiring. he was a really interesting guy. i have met a lot of fascinating people. but in terms of foreign leaders, that was really an interesting moment. >> what is that neatest high- tech benefit of being at the

white house and traveling with the president? the you get a bank account under the guise of national security? how good is the fun reception on the air force one? >> on that subject, i owe you a few thousand dollars. i was a little short. [laughter] no, we did not sneak into people's bank accounts. but obviously air force one is air force one, but the ability to reach anybody in the world, if you pick up the fun and want to talk to somebody, they will find that person, and that is kind of, that is a benefit. [laughter] but you know, when you are in the white house, if any information you want, you can get fairly quickly. and you know, with events breaking all of the world, that

is not just -- >> since no one is going to repeat anything here -- don >> we are among friends. this is your life, for me. sitting back there is my first city editor of the chicago tribune. i win at the -- i went to college at the university of chicago and was educated at the chicago tribune. i can point to people in this room and something to me in my life. if we really are among friends. i cannot speak for the c-span people. [laughter] >> i will deal with them. the most exasperated member of congress you met. [laughter] [applause] >> this is an intelligence test, right? i am obviously not one to answer that question. [laughter]

in case you do not recognize an invasion when you see it come -- evasion, when you see it, but the world of politics and certainly congress divides itself into two categories, people who run for office because they want to do something, and people who run for office because they want to be something. and the second group is more numerous than the first. and there was a different -- there were difficult number of times because of that, because if you're trying to get something accomplished in a means expanding local currency, and this president has proven time and again he is willing to do that, there those willing to say that is not. this is not polling well. i went to let president -- i went to the president on polling numbers that were not very encouraging, and it is a connect

the dots decision making. we say we're not going to do this. thank god for the country that is not how he operated. but i'll give you an example, the auto intervention. people were not for that. even the state of michigan people were not for it. they felt that for decades the american automakers did not make the kinds of decisions they should have it in order to make their industry's competitive. why should they get bailed out from their own mistakes? on the other hand, we were sitting in the middle of a very deep recession, and two of the big three auto makers disappearing, hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear with them. not just their workers but the ancillary industries, small businesses that supported, dealerships and so on.

the president said, look, i appreciate that but if they are willing to rationalize their businesses and make themselves competitive in the 21st century, we ought to help them do it. it would be a tremendous blow to a lot of communities in the country to lose them. and now you see gm having its most productive years since 1999, they've added tens of thousands of workers, and it is a whole different picture. but had he done what some members of congress would have suggested, he would have let it go, because it was not at first glance of the politics to do what he did. my exasperation is what those -- with those who have authorize an outline of 24 or 48 hours, and absorbed with the polling of the moment or cable tv chatter of the moment, and guided in their decision by that, because their

principal concern is to get reelected and not to move the country forward. and there are those on both sides of the aisle, frankly, who are subject to that. >> let me play devil's advocate here and argue in a form of a question about what seems from a far to look like the president alan the public opinion, and that involves guantanamo. he said he would close a during his campaign a couple of days after the inauguration. for those who have forgotten it, there are guys that had been there for nine years, not charged with any offense. there are least 75 people who the justice department concedes it has no evidence against, they will never come to trial. they are just sitting there on guantanamo. they're about 170 there right now. stock. the president clearly got shafted in a way as the republicans threw and an

amendment to the defense authorization bill that says basically not one dime of your money can be spent moving any of those guys. so they are stuck. why was that not something that he, the former usc law professor, knows that this is morally outrageous, why did he say no, i am not going to sign that because those guys have to get out of there? >> let me say a number of things about that. first of all, there was an institution that you mentioned of the united states congress. under our system, they have some authority here. and they have exercised that authority and they have exercised it in contravention of the pleas that the president and others have made. we wanted to close guantanamo. it was and remains a hindrance

to what we are trying to accomplish overseas. it is a negative symbol. in that sense, it does not enhance our safety, it detracts from it. that is why we wanted to move the remaining prisoners from guantanamo to thompson, ill., to another facility there, and the united states congress has blocked that. they have made it more difficult in terms of where the venues in which these folks are going to be tried. but i will say that it becomes a matter of, do you tried, for example, khalid sheickh mohammed, who allegedly master -- masterminded the 9/11 massacre, or you said in a holding pattern, a stalemate,

and not give justice to those who lost their loved ones and that catastrophe, in that crime? so the administration and the justice department decided to move forward. but there is a qualitative difference from where we were in january 2009 and where we are today. we did not even have case records for most of the people in guantanamo. it took months and months just to reconstruct who they will work, why they were there, what's the appropriate disposition of them should be. so we went through that process. some of them have been transferred overseas. others are in the process of being charged and tried. there is this category of people who are there where there is not

evidence to try them, but there is plenty of evidence that they represent a threat to the country, and how to deal with those has been a very thorny issue. the president and the justice department tried to develop a protocol for dealing with that gives them some form of review. these are difficult issues that we walked into and have to try to resolve and resolve them in the real world. the president's is not a university of chicago law professor. he is the president of the united states and the as to deal with the many challenges that this poses. he has to do it consistent with our constitution and our values, and our constitution includes the separation of powers. he is doing the best again with a very difficult situation. that was the lightning around. >> one more in the lightning round.

to then i will try to do better. you cannot ask questions like that in the lightning round. to them what kind of tree would you be? >> tell me about guantanamo. [laughter] [applause] >> i am defiant about a lack of new ones. >> sorry. to him for the next hour and half, could you just tell us -- [laughter] >> cancel your afternoon. >> as much as you bring up the media at the chamber, where there lots of time sitting in your office that you could not avoid putting on your jacket and you going in front of a camera quickly are getting someone else in front, and it just became a reality of your life, even when you knew more than maybe anybody else in the country outside the west wing that the story was

b.s.? did and that is a lightning round question? all this is an hour-and-a-half question. it involves more thought than i can give on the stage. was a're asking me if i boy sitting people -- bullshitting people, all, let me just say something about that. the hardest thing among many hard things about the presidency, at least do if your in the seat i was sitting, is discerning what is real and what is our real. because every day is election day in washington, every day. and every single day something crops up. and this will define the administration. how many days did we go through last bring after the oil leak where we were told, this is the

defining issue of the obama presidency. obama is katrina. how many of you are talking about over your lunch today? how many people were talking about that today? it was important, and for the people down there, it was a terrible thing. i do not minimize it, but it is not the defining issue of the presidency. every single day you can find someone writing about something and saying this is the defining issue of the presidency. what we try to do sometimes more successfully than others is focus on the things that really matter to people and to discern what was real from what was washington kind of cable full luff. but you do get drawn and and that is why was a relief to me in some ways to come back out here where people are talking about real tangible things that affect their lives, and in many ways finds the whole washington

conversation an abstraction. >> let me ask you about the true defining issue of the presidency unequivocal. obama has a history of avoiding traps laid out for him. being black in america, coming out of what some see as the suspect world of chicago politics, potentially getting stuck in springfield as a legislator. >> you are insulting everyone in this room. [laughter] [applause] >> i have some friends in the u.s. attorney's office. they will back me up. he has navigated his way are around a lot a potential land mines. for defining issue, afghanistan,

iraq, libya -- is for the one trap that he cannot ultimately avoid? -- is war but one trap that he cannot ultimately avoid grissom margin you are asked me to put in a politically -- they cannot ultimately avoid? >> you are asking me to put into a political context which is not. most americans are wary of war. it has been costly in terms of lives and treasure. and yet they also feel strongly that we need to do what we can to protect our own security, and the president needs to balance these things. he ran for office to end the war in iraq. by the end of this year, we will have our troops home. we about 100,000 home already. in afghanistan, there was no strategy that we had to be more

aggressive and deal with issues on the border of afghanistan and pakistan. , and he did itat promising that we would get into a process of reducing forces in the summer. i am absolutely confident that he will do that. >> next, q&a with melissa lee. then wikileaks publisher julian assange participates in the debate on the value of whistleblowers. then the house debate on 2012 funding for amtrak. a daylong discussion on the state of race in america. among the participants, juan williams, fox news commentator, house sharpton, spike lee, and from the abstinence -- from the aspen institute. aspen institute.