in libya. discuss the service. the american civil unities union. we will focus on acrostics -- democratics and crying. host: good friday morning to you. it is hurricane season, and we are seeing the first major storm of the season. it makes its way to the united states east coast, and the first targets are north carolina, where the president has already declared a state of emergency. as many as 65 million people

along the desert populated east coast are making preparations for her can irene -- hurricane irene. the martin luther king memorial dedication at seven money was canceled last night, allowing people to leave the city early to get to their homes. we will start with the federal response to hurricanes and other natural disasters. in this time of austere budgeting, what should the federal government's response and rolle be? many of you have past experiences with hurricanes and other natural disasters and fema. would like you to weigh in on the federal government's role in 2011. just to give you a sense of the morning headlines, newspapers

from the bottom of the country, all the way from miami all the way to boston, all the way -- all feature a hurricane irene the boston herald." in new jersey, like a headline on "the star-ledger." "christie issues state of emergency, readies guard." and in boston, "with irene looming, region gets ready." here are the tabloids in new york city. "the daily news." as the east coast prepares for this potentially damaging hurricane, we talk about the

role of the government. "eric cantor -- federal hurricane disaster relief would have to be offset by spending cuts. a spokesman said that the response would be balanced by spending cuts elsewhere in government. has consistently said that federal funds for disaster relief must be offset with spending cuts.' predicted help from the federal government might not be quick in coming" -- that's what it says, might not be quick in coming. we would like to hear from you and your thoughts about the appropriate federal role and natural disasters of this type and what we've learned from past

lessons, and we welcome your calls, tweets and emails. jonathan allen is on the phone with us from "politico," a regular voice with us. august is typically been a time when congress has gone on to listen to and the concerns of constituents, and that ties in with our question about the federal government's role. what have you been learning about congress' direction with the public during this particular congressional break? guest: it depends a lot of a member of congress and the type of constituent that shows up at their events and the degree to which they are somebody who is already somewhat controversial. a colleague of mine, jake sherman, went to congressmean fred upton's district during the

break. he is chairman of the house energy and commerce committee. the town hall there was a very sedate, nothing like the ones we saw in 2009. earlier this summer, we saw senator john mccain and arizona getting testy with constituents. there was a back-and-forth. i think there has been a variety this year, i think we will still have a lot of opportunity next summer to see how that plays out as the elections actually, a little nearer. host: a watchdog group calling itself no labels did research on town halls and their conclusion was that there were far fewer of them this year. is that surprising, given where we are in the election cycle? guest: i don't mean to criticize without looking at myself, but anytime you do a study on how many people are holding town halls, there are a lot of obstacles to getting information

there. the no labels group says that 60% of representatives are not holding town hall meetings, but my understanding, the caveat offices and ask, that is not only a good way to get a response -- not always a good way to get a response immediately. sometimes you get the wrong response. the newspaper reported earlier this week that despite that report, oregon representatives were doing them. it is hard to make a comparison of this year to last year simply because it is difficult to get accurate data. host: certainly the questions, blots on the minds of the people, what some aspect with the economy -- will have some aspect with the economy and federal spending. a reminder of when congress gets back to work, please. guest: they come back not

next week but the following week. host: is it possible, if the storm attacks the kind of punch we're looking at, the one of the first items on the agenda might be spending? guest: there could be additional spending for the hurricane. republican leaders in the house insist that a merger to dollars be offset -- that emergency dollars be offset. so far that has not been a problem, but if the east coast were to get pummeled by our r -- by a hurricane, offsets by billions of dollars, the kind of spending you saw in the wake of hurricanes katrina and rita -- that remains to be seen. the preference of republican leaders would be to offset any spending related to a disaster. that has its own political battle that would ensue. host: jonathan allen, thanks so much for your time.

members of congress will be for the most part home with constituents on the east goes as we watch this approaching storm. thank you very much for talking to us. guest: take care. host: our topic is what the federal government's role should be. it is a different budget in time, different time in our thinking about the federal government. we want to hear from you about a deficit spending and what the government's role should be. if you live in an area of the country that has had a natural disasters and have worked with fema in the past, please join the discussion this morning. john is a democrat. you are on the air. caller: my suggestion is that many of the red states should do what they have been wanting to do, and that is to show that we need to have our state rights and our states the independent. i don't think we should spend a federal dime. this should be handled on the

state level. this is what they have been pushing for a federal rule. they want the federal government out of their lives, and this is the time to move it out of their lives and let the states stand on their own hands of their own problems. host: do you say that from your own philosophical conviction, or are you try to present a test case? caller: well, i guess what they have been advocating for so many years that this is what we need to do -- well, it is what they've been advocating for some years that this is what we need to do. i think the time to start is right now. host: john from des moines. on twitter -- next is all fro -- call from texas.

beaumont has seen its share of storms over the years. caller: i have not gotten any help from fema, and i don't want any. but as far as what john has to say, i agree with him. and the federal income tax that we pay -- we can pay for these things. i find it a little ironic that a lot of energy traders on wall street really enjoy it when we get a hurricane in the gulf and are now going to get a ca hurricane themself. host: jim, you are on the air. caller: good morning, thanks for taking the call. i have a question as far as taking government -- helping out our american citizens here with

help from the hurricane. i have an idea, i have a question, let me tell you what is wrong with the idea of maybe bypassing more of our payments to china or somebody in favor of taking care of, you know, our people here. host: you would like to pay for it but you would like to see it paid for out of overseas funds? caller: yes. host: thank you for your call. next up is a tweet. in other words, finding offsets for a period. , georgia, as we talk about the federal in disaster planning. caller: i think it is funny that the callers that just came in are willing to let citizens,

whether poor or rich, suffer when there is a hurricane and there is a responsibility for the government to take care of the public. these guys in boats and becomes, they have insurance, so they should be able to take care of themselves the way republicans talk. host: at people who don't have boats and big phomes? needs-based response? caller: that is it. host: kelly is an independent. caller: i agree with the last caller, we should do what we have always been doing, take care of our citizens in the event of a disaster. eric cantor and his usual political banter -- if we really want offsets, let's take it away from his budget. host: noah, democrat, you are on

the air. caller: so glad i am able to do this. thank you, c-span2 this is the perfect time for ron paul to get up on the bully pulpit -- i live in a gulf coastal town and it was wrecked by a hurricane and i did not ask the government to help me build it back or anything. i am a veteran. i agreed with something one of the other callers say. take some of the money that you are buying friends with overseas and use that money to pay for things here at home. host: thanks for your call. here is an article from 2006 about the tri -- about katrina. the general accounting office looked back at the relief effort. "gao -- millions wasted during

katrina relief. the government wasted millions of dollars in its post-katrina contracts for disaster relief, including 4000 beds that were never used, said a federal auditors. the government accountability of this's review of 13 major contracts offers the first preliminary overview of their soundness. waste and mismanagement were widespread, according to the five-page briefing paper released on thursday. that led to money paid for work never used." looking back on our largest hurricane and the federal dollars allocated there. dennis is an independent. caller: i want to tell you this straight away -- if i hadn't had fema with hurricane wilma in 2005, i would have been out the

window. i also went through andrew, had a brush with gene . my cousins daughter was a recipient of katrina's catastrophe. certain individuals, whether democrats, republicans, independents, teabaggers, are crazy. fema was set up, and certainly george bush was not offered to help people as was bill clinton before that and so forth. this is rank insanity, is ridiculous. i do have a philosophy which politicians do not like listening to simple explanations. quit giving foreign aid to every country. i don't care which one it is, england, china, vietnam. stop giving them money. stop it for six months. give them no money, unless we have a base in their country, and that will put money in the coffers to take care of fema.

i hope any resident from north carolina to maine that does not get any money, if congressmen or senators from those states deplete it or not allow it, they should be thrown out, thrown out on the streets. host: after our live program this month, 10:00 a.m. eastern time, c-span will carry the briefing from fema about emergency preparations in u.s. coastal states. nashville, keith is a democrat there. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: great, thank you. caller: i have been through eight hurricanes over the years and have seen the damage that can be done. for people to sit ther ande -- sit there and say that states need to fix the problems free to stay in each person, the would-

be mass of the destroyed palms, -- there would be a mass of destroyed homes, people would be sitting with no water. i don't think he partier -- don't think tea partiers have a clue. they are sitting in kansas where they ever have or can, no idea of the effect it has on the area -- where they never have a a hurricane,, no idea of the effect has on the area. the first when i was i was donona, two weeks without water or electricity. everybody was afraid of typhoid. nothing there to help you. if you had something to fall on your house, you took care of it. a lot of people did not have the money to take care of it at that time.

i wish these people from the midwest -- they have their eyes and snout, but i think they should go ahead and take a vacation -- have hteitheir ice d snow, but i think they should go ahead and take a vacation on the beach and see what it can do. host: do you think that people walked in through horrific tornadoes, like in joplin, know what it is like to live through national disaster -- natural disasters? caller: sure, but fema was helping them there, too -- host: sure, but you are indicating that they do not know what it is like to go through natural disasters. caller: but what is to help them with floods and tornadoes and having a slight -- guest: thank you, keith, national, tennessee.

next up is minneapolis. caller: i think it is ludicrous to say that people in the midwest have no idea what sitting on a beach with 120- mile-per-hour winds -- we have a floods, tornadoes, a straight line winds, so we do now our fair share. that makes us look like we're idiots -- that is not true. i think eric cantor ought to think about what he does and reinstate the bush tax cuts, because in minnesota, we do have a high-tax state, and we do enjoy paying those taxes, maybe not so much the fact that it takes out of our pay and

everything else, but it used to have a good roads. people in need it did not have to worry about things. i do believe that the federal government has an obligation to help all people, whether it you are republican, democrat or independent. you need to fix the problem that hurricanes, through. i was working out in maine for a while before i was disabled. and we had water that was a-tend -- 8-10 inches, so far inland for maine that it was unbelievable for damage. i think it is ludicrous that somebody within that people from the midwest to do not understand what the federal government does to us. host: cedar rapids, iowa, another kevin. democrat, you are on the air.

caller: i live in iowa i just had seven feet of water in my house a few years ago, so i definitely know the feeling of disasters. the, i thought was a little bit outrageous as well, john, -- the comment i thought was a little bit outrageous as well from the gentleman. we have flood insurance and with a mortgage on our home. i did not have a mortgage at the time, so i did not carry flood insurance, but now i am forced to be covered because fema did come in and help me. in a sense, we should demand a some type of insurance for the areas -- 100-year, 500-year flood plain. obviously, the odds are less that what happened, less out there, but higher earthquake areas, it should be the same thing. nothing in this world is free.

you're aare if democrat or republican, if you have not realized that, you have a problem. host: on twitter -- next up is riverside, california. tina is a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span. we all come together as americans in at times of disaster. i think we need to support our fellow man, our fellow brothers. the bottom line is we all pay taxes in one form or another, local, state, what have you. we need to help keep america strong and make sure we keep building america. we all live here, and unless you want to move to china -- i am

not sure i want to see somebody's house destroyed. we need to come together to keep america strong. host: there is lots on the internet about hurricanes if you are interested in forces of nature. famous hurricane names from the past include mitch, floyd -- termed the storm of the center at one. -- iris, isadore, in south carolina at they well remember hugo. hurricane katrina, modestly it is starting out in the bahamas, the one that has the longest history and biggest impact of u.s. hurricanes.. we are going to move on.

george is a democrat. caller: good morning. we need to have a rainy day fund. they used to talk about that, and we actually did have one, but now we spend all of our money on wars and foreign-aid. these wars and foreign aid are methods of corporations to plead our country. there are -- to bleed our country. they are unnecessary. when we give foreign aid, it is not the goodness of our hearts, it is agreed of corporations, because they reap profits from this. all this was the money is waste, fraud and abuse -- all this watested money is waste, fraud and abuse. you had an earlier caller to mention the same thing, and i agree with them. wake up, america. we are being fleeced. host: we talk about the federal

government's role in big hurricanes and other natural disaster a as its -- as hurricane irene mixes with the east coast. stephanie, what your thoughts as this comes to your home state? you have got to turn down the volume on your tv. caller: ok. all right. hi, i am actually in -- host: stephanie, quickly hit that mute button, please. caller: sari. -- sorry. i don't know. i have been hearing all that is going to be takinen -- taken away -- [unintelligible] under the water by saturday.

all my friends and telling me to evacuate me, and have my family in long island has left, and it has been really terrible. my uncle -- is really difficult, because we have no information up here, because i know somehow we will be affected. we live all day on the east coast. host: do you have access to the internet? caller: actually, no. host: i would really encourage you to find a local news station on the radio. we are reading about new jersey here in washington. i am sure there is much more local news you can find at least under local radio station. good luck to you and your family.

next up, baltimore. ray, democrat. caller: first-time caller, actually. with this thing with fema, i and listening to people talking in different parts of the country about how the midwest as tornadoes and the east has hurricanes and west has earthquakes. the federal government should help out. i used to live in north carolina, on the coast by jacksonville, and when i was younger we had two floods, and after that we ended up moving out of their. the first time you have a flood, you have the government come in and help and that is fine. but if you rebuild in the same spot and you know that this area is prone to flooding, that is

when you need to have mandatory insurance, like the earlier 10, was saying. he said that it helped him. the government should help people when they are in need, but if it they to keep doing the same things over and over again, living in places where they are prone to accidents from hurricanes and flooding, which everybody saying that you are looking for a free handout or this or that, from what i am understanding, when you go to fema and they help you, they are giving you a low-interest loan to rebuild your life. it is not money that is just coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. yes, it is coming out up front, but in the end, and they are going to be paying those loans back. i just -- you know, i believe in the government helping people. in certain situations, if it keeps occurring over and over again, that is when you have to say that you couldn't do it. that is my viewpoint, and like i

said, a first-time caller. thank you very much. front page of "the sun." ray was watching us in baltimore. for one thing on the economy, today, the annual speech the fed chief gives at jackson hole. many are watching to see if he is going to signal if there is going to be and other quantitative easing or other policy changes. here is the headline on the topic from "the financial times ." "bernanke aims to hit right not e at jackson hole. anyone expecting a message that sharply changes occuthe setting of monetary policy is likely to be disappointed. it publicly forecast it would keep rates close to zero until

2014. the title of the speech itself, 'the near and long term prospects for the economy,' suggests a compromise between the theme at the symposium and the need to discuss what happened in the economy. last year, it was on and it was about short-term." -- it was on and thaunambiguous about short-term." hcaller: i have been watching the news, it the internet. my opinion has always been that people need to be responsible to their families, themselves, at the government does have a responsibility to the citizens of this country, helping at the time of disasters and what not. but going in, i agree with the

gentleman before that i listened to that made the statement that, you know, when you go in and it is the same flight area, a flood plain, same disaster over and over again, it looks like it is a way to justify people's maybe but it iste to say it, to maintain jobs, keep these disasters going, putting people in the same floodplains and whatever. there need to be improvements made here, continuously move forward and progress. we live in these recurring problems. i don't understand why we -- it is like we have this money going out and we want to keep adding to it. we don't want to fix anything in this country. it takes dollars away from other things that need to be done in this country. i am not opposed stopping people. i think churches, organizations, the government, families and right on down the line, we all need to help one another.

we all belong to the human race. host: thanks, appreciate your call. front pages of the papers also have a lot about libya. we will be joined by nicholas burns. you remember him from his days at the state department. he is now teaching at harvard. he will be talking about nato's role. he formerly served as ambassador to that body. we will talk about the role that nato played and what it means tornado's futu -- for nato's future. also, front page of "the washington post" today, the martin luther king ceremonies have been postponed indefinitely. "obama faces a question from community as it turned out looms large.

the nation's first black president took care never to be seen making policy or political didecisions aimed solely or directly at black america. but a soaring jobless rate among african-americans and new found comfort by black lawmakers to criticize obama's economic policies are prompting a the white house to recalibrate and focused more directly on the struggles in black america. the shift comes amid growing concern among democrats that stubborn economic conditions in minority communities might hamper efforts to generate large black voter turnout it needs to make up for declining support among white and that its -- among white independents. an official said that obama would consider taking executive action." we're talking with you this morning about federal response to disasters. biloxi, mississippi.

gina, a republican and there. caller: good morning barre as you are, i live in the gulf coast area, between new orleans and biloxi. yes, the government should help people initially, basic food and water. but if you only knew the fraud that went on in new orleans with the money that was given to people, it was unconscionable. people need to be responsible for themselves, they need to have insurance. it is like any other government handout. there are always people trying to rip off taxpayers. it is very sad to see what went on. thank you. host: thanks for your call. libertarian response to the eric cantor story we showed you at

says thatt, which is a relief should be offset by cuts in the federal budget -- indianapolis, bryan, democrat of their. -- bryan, a democrat there. caller: everyone voted for smaller government. now they are getting it and these cuts are being made. there is an issue where -- what they voted for. basically, all i wanted to say is be careful what you are voting for, follow the issues and know what you are voting for. through a blindly vote out there.

making cuts to programs, having the government get smaller, there is no money to take care of people in need. host: massachusetts, you are out next. sean, a republican. caller: the government does have some responsibility, but there is responsibility for the individual. if the government is telling you that a tornado or a big storm is coming your way, you have to get out of the way it that is what happened with katrina. the warnings came out, nobody listened, people out on the rooftops, big scammell, whatever. -- big scandal, whatever. host: before you go, the trajectory of the storm looks like it might, through new england. are you making preparations? caller: oh, yeah, i got bread, water, canned goods.

you never know. host: good luck to you. we are talking about the role of the federal government and a disaster response. good morning. caller: it is definitely worth mentioning that most of the states that receive more federal dollars that they put out are these uber-conservative states, and these are the people complaining about other people receiving federal dollars. obviously, they i really understanding how taxes work. i don't know -- that we should -- obviously, they are not really understanding how taxes work. i don't know that we should be listening to them when it comes to other people's needs and the federal government br. if we ask it to do something like response to a strong, they should do that. -- like respond to a storm, they should do that.

host: from "the wall street journal," "rick perry, along with other republican governors, face a dilemma, do they apply for federal grants by september to establish statewide health- insurance exchanges or let the deadline slide and was falling into a federally run exchange? along side of that, another story about gov. hperry. "rick perry's surge in the polls has shaken up the race, knocking mitt romney off his perch as the front-runner and

emboldening voters who say that 2012 is the year a rock-ribbed conservative can win the white house. gallup puts him 12 points ahead while other national polls at wider margins of support." arlington, virginia. bill, an independent there. caller: i would like to take the politics out of it and look at this from a purely strategic perspective with the role of government. if we look at katrina and take the suspected fraud out of the picture and we look at the criticality of new orleans itself, there is defense, there is industry, there is the entire gateway to the central u.s. in new orleans. if new orleans becomes incapacitated, that becomes a national issue and needs national response.

thank you. host: thank you. those of you in doors this weekend with a comment letter but not seriously concerned about emergency -- with inclement weather but not seriously concerned about emergency aspects, we hope you spent time with c-span at our booktv program. kentucky is a and state rich with history. we will show you features on the literary life of frankfort, kentucky. here is that they are talking about his city -- the mayor talking about is the city. >> we became the state capital in 1792. we have an apparent strength in our town. what is being the state capital. -- one is being the state

capital. we have a rural environment as well as semi-urban. we have a rich and colorful history. we are the only city in kentucky where the kentucky river runs right through our city. we are also home to kentucky state university, one of the historical black universities. we also on the east side of town, a very unique and colorful, if you can use this word, cemetery. the westminster abbey of kentucky. we have daniel boone, and the daniel boone site gives you a view of the kentucky river as it goes through our city. also, the capitol building.

it overlooks and you can see the beauty of our city. host: that is the mayor of frankfordt, kentucky as we spend the weekend looking at history and literary life on our c-span channel. every month this year, we are visiting a different southeastern american city to tell you more about their history and the literary life. frankford, kentucky this weekend. all you can spend time with us brought back to your calls. -- hope you can spend time with us. back to your calls. florida come up ne -- florida, up next. phyllis, a democrat. caller: i am in the insurance

state of the country. most of this, in my mind, happens at the state and local level. fema comes in when there is a disaster, along with the red cross, to help people and give them small amounts of money, but that is taken out of your insurance when your insurance company and find it comes in to tcash a check. we got flooded three times and fema mate as -- fema made us tear our house down. when they say that you live in an aria of you are getting flooded over and over again, they change to those lost in my time ago. if you are in a disaster area, they lower their premiums -- is that a political mess, but in my mind, most of the fraud is that the local and state level.

host: nexus louisiana -- next is louisiana. dan is an independent there. caller: i have been looking at all of these disasters that happening, red states -- tornadoes, floods, fires in texas. it seems that those people keep don't believing in climate change, and they ought to take responsibility for their voting habits, and fix their own habits, especially republicans. accept responsibility and fix your own house, because you don't believe in climate change anyway. host: tina, what you think the federal government's role should be these days? caller: this is florida, but by name -- my name is phil.

host: sorry about that, you are certainly not a tina. caller: we have an emergency going on with our financial crashes. let's say realistically, the congress comes back and they are unable to get anything done. if the president submits to them a jobs bill, and mitch mcconnell is infected with the same kind of thinking that eric cantor has and calls for 60 votes for a censure and that bill is killed in the senate and eric cantor does the same thing in the house. the super committee meets, and realistically, let's say they are just as gridlock as the rest of the congress and nothing happens. the implementation of defense cuts and discretionary cuts take effect. what is the federal government

left with? here is his option. he has to write an executive order declaring a national emergency that impact the national security, and orders the department of labor and the department of transportation to expand their roles and hire people all over the country to work on federal projects and for property throughout the country and was publisher of bank for that purpose -- and to establish a bank for that purpose, using federal funds already allocated and private funds that may be donated, and get the country moving again. host: ok, stop you at that point, because that is a larger discussion about the economy and could apply to states that might be hit for emergency rebuilding. one last and comment on twitter. thanks for your comments on this discussion, and certainly lots more over the weekend as the

storm approaches the eastern united states. we are going to take a break. you are going to meet ms word nicholas burns. we will talk about libya and the larger role of nato. later on, discussion about telecommunications and whether the government has the right or responsibility to cut off service to help with public safety in emergency situations. we will take a short break.

>> american university professor clarence lusane reveals her they -- who they were. >> fascinating individuals whose mark on the presidencies and his mark on the white house were

virtually unknown, except for a few scattered stories here and there. everyone kind of knew that george washington and thomas jefferson had slaves, but most people probably did not know that eight out of the first 12 presidents had slaves. >> sunday night on c-span's "q&a." two recently reopened the slave quarters in mount vernon. a historically accurate depiction of slave life in 18th- century virginia. former deputy to the president alexander butterfield talks about the secret taping system in the nixon white house. the civil war resulted in tremendous loss of life but also great advances in medicine. the life-saving lessons learned during four years of bloody conflict. and frankfort, kentucky, with its scenic beauty and rich

history. get the complete schedule at c- span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are now going to introduce you to our guest this morning, joining us by satellite from providence, rhode island. he is nicholas burns, who served as u.s. ambassador to nato from 2001-2005. very familiar face at the state department, 2005-2008. he served as undersecretary for political affairs. we are going to talk about nato and libya and the role of nato. for you and i and our audience, we thought we would begin by getting an update on what the situation is. kareem fahim is a reporter for "the new york times."

tell us about the situation in tripoli and libya. guest: thank you for having me. parts of the fighting at calmed down. there was intense fighting for several days. the streets are fairly quiet and they are cleaning up after the battle. there is still fighting around the airport roads, fights continuing near colonel gaddafi's home town. we have seen reports that nato has started bombing gaddafi positions in and around sirte. the rebels have been trying to advance on sirte from the east and west of the last few days. they have been having trouble on the eastern side. we're interested to see what happens to there after the nato bombing. host: i heard a news report that

the united nations is calling for both sides to avoid committing any atrocities in the heat of this battle. have you been hearing reports of the civilian atrocities as the battle rages? guest: there has been several reports of atrocities in tripoli. we are following a few stories. there had been discoveries of what seemed to be executed prisoners in several places. we know what place near the bab al-aziziya compound, which was colonel gaddafi's presidents and military base -- residence a military base. the bodies of 25 prisoners were found there. there have been reports of mass killings, including of gaddafi soldiers.

we are not clear who was responsible for the killing of gaddafi soldiers yet. several of these instances we are following. host: with muammar gaddafi still at large, how did you see this coming to a decision point or resolution in the days ahead? guest: well, i am not sure exactly what will happen, but the rebel leadership, transitional national council, in particular its cabinet or executive committee, came to tripoli yesterday and held a press conference. they were asked specifically what it meant for them that gaddafi and his family were still at large and whether it would hamper their work, their plans, their control of the country. they said it wouldn't, but that

probably remains to be seen. at large, he remains sort of a rallying figure for his loyalists. i think it remains a problem for the rebel leadership as long as he is at large. host: what will you be watching for today? guest: today we are focusing on neighborhoods where there was intense fighting. we just visited a hospital which was absolutely horrific. there are 40 bodies still in hospital, no doctors around. i think people are just recovering from, you know, a very deadly few days. we are running around town. host: thanks for spending a few

minutes with us to give us an update on events on the ground. kareem fahim is reporting on the situation in libya for "the new york times" in a still fluid situation. ambassador burns, let me ask you about the role that it took on in libya. guest: susan, as you remember, when the it security council gave a mandate to nato, it was protect -- it was to protect civilians. there was a real concern that libyan forces under gaddafi might engage in a bloodbath and killed a considerable number of innocent civilians. nato came in and president obama supported that i think that was the right decision, and effectively took control of the flight zones and began to fly combat operations, not air combat, but in support of the

army. that made a real difference in the war. there is no question that the rebels fought with courage and intensity, but it was an army that was put together on the run, lawyers and workers, not a professionally trained army. they could not achieved the battlefield victories at they and without the constant daily air support of the united states and britain, france, canada, norway, denmark and other countries brought nato played a critical role. again, it was not a combat role on the ground, but in the air. host: there are many problems and challenges that remain even in the early days ahead of us. if the transitional government is successful and declares itself in power and begins to build a government -- let me start with one of those, the weapons stockpiles that we know libya at to have. here is a headline from huffington post. this article specifically -- i

will read you the paragraph -- "many officials question if it there are enough people on the ground to make sure the material remains secure if libyan security forces flee their posts. nato limited its participation in the conflict to keep the coalition in blood and treasure it to a minimum." guest: it is a serious problem, because there are missiles, and the state department talked about this in the public briefing yesterday, mustard gas in the country. one of the priorities that the international community has, but also the new libyan government has to have, is to secure these weapons brought no one wants to see them proliferating inside libya or to the rest of the middle east or beyond. it is a major priority. however, nato has made a decision not to put troops on the ground.

i think in large measure that is the right decision. we learn from iraq and afghanistan that is very difficult -- it is easy to go into a country, it is difficult to get out once you have ground forces. president obama was very specific in all the agreeing to a combat air operation that was frankly led by the european members of nato. most of the nato militaries have also said they would not put troops on the ground. i think that is the right decision for our country, given the fact that we still have a considerable number of forces in iraq, although they will be exiting by the end of the year, and over 100,000 men and women on the ground in afghanistan. we are committed to major operations elsewhere, and is appropriate for us to keep our commitment to libya limited at this time . host: we would like to talk to

libyaout nato's role in and what the future might be there. and what the future is for the transnational alliance, because many of the member states, especially in europe, are facing the questions about their own economies, and they are all invoking -- not all, but many invoking austerity measures at home. they are invoking foreign policy spending, and all of this relates to nato's future role. we give you the numbers on the screen, and we will also give you our twitter address, email as well. lots of ways to get involved. naomi, republican. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to ask the tenement -- can you hear me? host: yes, naomi. caller: i would like to ask the

gentleman about these dictators falling, and the united states has really gone on the potentiality of people getting slaughtered. how they knowing this, how are we knowing this if -- what kind of information do we have leading up to this? one more remark, because all of this arab spring that is happening, there is another motive behind it, i think. i don't know what it is, but let me make a statement to c-span. i have been listening to c-span for many years now, many years, and it is becoming like msnbc and all the other stations where they don't give the republicans' response is. we are on the line.

it is all democrats and independents. i have done this before. i have begged to to give us our chance. you are always calling on the democratic line and the independent line, and then you'll go back to the same lines, but you never answer on the republican line. host: if we did not want to involve republicans, we would not divide the alliance in the first place. we let it be open season by geographic areas. i am sorry that you are disappointed yes. ambassador burns, how about the arabs bring question that she ask? guest: -- arab spurring a question that she ask? guest: is a good question. the arab world was the only part of the world that had not seen a wave of democratic reform. now you have it. you have the young people that

inspired people in the streets of tunisia and egypt. you also have violent -- -- revolutions taking place, certainly one in libya, which we have seen intensify. the hope is that gaddafi will be apprehended. he is a brutal dictator. he ruled the country for 41 years. the liberal people want to have a better future and are arguing for more of liberty and freedom. i think we will see these arab revolutions continued to play out it devolved over a long time. there are 22 arab countries, and the history, culture, and politics of each is different. you are likely to see it played out differently for yemen, syria, and even seven -- .

the united states test -- even in tunisia. the united states has to make some choices. we can not be centrally involved in each of the countries. we can only focus where we have vital national interest, certainly in egypt. president obama has swung our support behind those who would build a democratic state. i think that was the right decision. in syria, there is no prospect of the united states going in militarily because the united nations and the arab league would not support it. that is why they wouldn't to libya. -- why they went into libya. there was a humanitarian crisis, so the president made a decision to go in. i think the united states will act differently in response to each, but it is an extraordinary

times in the arab world. it will be fascinating to watch how developments in this region unfold in the months ahead. host: as a counterpoint to the description you just described, let me put onscreen libya's greatest exports -- this is according to the cia. a question about people who think this is all about oil and oil supplies. guest: certainly libya is an oil exporting country. it is particularly important to italy, germany, and spain. when the crisis began, the countries that took the lead or the french, the italians, the spaniards, and the others,

because they have direct economic interests, and they're also close geographically to libya, so they have had historic economic, cultural, and political relations. president obama made the point several times that if those countries are asserting the greatest interest, they ought to take the lead. over the last five months, while the united states air forces were present in conflict, of the majority were done -- of air flights were conducted by the european members of nato, and i was burden sharing that made sense. host: a viewer asks from twitter -- guest: nato is not the new world

police force, but it is an important alliance. the united states is still the most powerful country in the world and will be for it all in time to come, but we should not wanted act alone, -- wants to act alone and shoulder responsibilities ourselves. nato is an alliance we have had since 1949. president truman helped create this to oppose soviet expansion in central and western europe. it has been the most successful military alliance in history. all of these countries are democratic. canada, and the european countries share our values, and to a large extent our interests, and they are a force multiplier. it is terribly important that we stay in engaged as a leader of the nato alliance because it helps us succeed

internationally and take some of the burden off of our shoulders. the united states is so much larger militarily, we tend to be asked to do all the hard work, and that was certainly true when nato when into bosnia in 1995, and in close of all, when we stopped two wars. it is important that the europeans take more of that burden off of our shoulder, and while we're spending more than 3.5 million of our gross domestic product on our national defense, -- 3.5% of our gross domestic product and national defence, many europeans are spending less than 1%. host: to illustrate ambassador

burns' points -- host: are those population- based? guest: there are worked out in a variety of ways, based on economic strength. they do not represent all of the spending. i leave we are looking at the figures were they contribute to the nato budget. host: that is right. guest: but when you go to war, as we did in 1995 and 1999, countries also continue forces and individual support those forces. the united states is a trick carian a much heavier burden -- is actually carrying a much

heavier burden. i think it is right that the united states aspects of the european allies to do more. germany is another case. they are the largest european country by population, and given its economic size, yet spend comparatively very little in national defense, not even contributing to the mission in libya. they disagreed and said they would not support it. there were a lot of people, including myself, disappointed in that position. it is a continuing dialogue we have had with europeans going back to president truman and other american presidents. we have to continue to push the europeans to take more responsibility for our collective defense.

host: nicholas burns is joining us from providence, rhode island this morning, as we talk about nato, libya, as the rebels continue to take more of muammar gaddafi's stronghold. washington, d.c., jackie is a democrat there. good morning. caller: good morning. given the number of strikes made by nato in libya, who is going to take on the cost? if you break it, you bought it. my question is it in the future, will it be easier or more difficult for nations to give up their nuclear weapon program, considering libya might

believe they were attacked because they gave it up? guest: the individual countries that deployed air forces -- france, britain, denmark, norway -- thought they would pay the cost of each of their respective jet bombers involved. there is a core budget, but a lot of expenses are borne by the individual countries for these military operations, soviet states will not pay for the entire operation. -- so the united states will not paid for the entire operation. the bush administration was able to convince muammar gaddafi to give up his weapons of mass destruction. that was in our national interest. i imagine if he still had

weapons of mass destruction that would have been catastrophic. we certainly are better off. i think we face a perilous future regarding nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. some countries, particularly dictatorships, might feel there are stronger having these weapons that could blunt the power of the added states or other countries. those weapons are dangerous. it is in our interests to minimize and reduce the number of countries than have chemical and biological weapons. it is a priority for president obama. when he was a senator, this issue of nuclear proliferation was a particular interest of his. it is been a hallmark of his administration, and i think he

has worked very hard to limit the proliferation of all of these weapons. it is dangerous. let me say one thing as we reflect on nearly 10 years since september 11. imagine if al qaeda had had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? they would have killed multiples of the 3000 people they killed. we have to work with nato allies and other leading countries to convince countries like libya to give up nuclear weapons. that is why we are seeing this focus to convince north korea to develop their capabilities, and to pressure iran not to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. it is important for future stability.

host: analysts point out that with gaddafi in power the country lacks even the most basic aspects of a democratic process. with that in mind -- guest: the answer is there are no complete arab democracy. lebanon has features of a democratic state, but it is not completely democratic. we can hope, and we do not know for sure, but we can hope the revolutions in tunisia and egypt could slowly create a democratic society and process. the egyptians are debating a constitutional reform. they're scheduling elections. it is the first time in history

they will be a able to elect their president. we should support them economically as much as we can because we will be better off if democracy can take root in countries like egypt or tunisia, or in libya. the hill to climb in libya will be steep because what gaddafi did to stay in an hour was to divide everyone from each other. he would not allow a civil society groups, any type of municipal groups to take root. he would not allow a formal military to be established. he divided the tribes. as this rebel alliance becomes a new government, their test will be difficult, as they have to begin to free people from the notion that they cannot organize. you need that broad-based democratic representation to

have a civil society. look at our country. we have hundreds of thousands of city and community organizations that are the bedrock of our democracy. libya has none of that because of the gaddafi dictatorship. what we can expect to see is a very slow, gradual, probably advance toward a more free society, and it will not be easy, which is widely and needs our support after the fighting stops. -- libya needs our support after the fighting stops. host: matt, hartford, connecticut. caller: i have a couple of questions. how many arab nations went along

with overthrowing this government? i keep hearing that there was with us overthrowing this government. all it was was overthrown the government, and it is all about big oil. the united nations is europeans and the united states. who were the arab nations behind us? guest: there were several arab countries and supported opposition. carter, the small person called state, the united arab emirates -- the arab league, which is the grouping that includes nearly all of the arab countries actually supported the nato intervention against the dock the government to protect

civilians of libya -- to protect against theent's -- government to protect civilians of libya. in other countries york mets in the arab unity. there has been a division -- you have not seen that in other countries. there has been a division. it still lacks -- host: the next question comes from watching in california. caller: do you not think the transitional government would be willing to cooperate in an inventory of these weapons and future prevention of their

falling into the wrong hands? it is the best to be bluestem the ground, but it can be -- it does not have to be boots on the , but it could be some group from nato. guest: that is a sensible suggestion that we will support the rebel government, and destined to take lead responsibility to make sure these weapons are safeguarded -- asked them to lead responsibility and make sure these weapons are safeguarded. i do think, again, it would be a great mistake to put american troops on the ground in libya. we do not have vital interests there. we have to make choices as to where we put troops and where we do not. we have done a lot for libyan people. we have helped them when the revolution, and they merely have

won it, but it should stop with troops. we have budgetary thoughts to think of, and we also should limit where we intervene. we are better off provide political support and being a friend, but not active military support. host: the last question comes from a news story. we learn the united states is set to release of a suit $1.5 billion in frozen assets from libya. the concern you hear is how do you insure that the assets do not go into a hands that might ultimately be anti-american, including al-qaida? guest: that is an important question. the un security council agreed to release on monday but it will -- release money, but it will not go directly to the libyan government.

it will go to the companies and the u.n. agencies that provide those relieve surprise -- relief supplies. i think the u.s. and other countries are going to want to wait to see if the rebel alliance establishes a federal -- any effective government, and proves they're able to handle this money. it might be a little bit of time before we have the conference to release those funds to this new government. host: in the nato briefing, the briefers suggested that nato's role continues. ambassador burns, thank you for being with us this morning to give us your perspective on natal's role, and potential outcomes for libya. -- tell it has been a pleasure. -- guest:.

it has been a pleasure. host: we will find out if the united states is doing better, and trends over the last 20 years. next, our discussion will be telecommunications and what the policy should be in public safety related issues. an interesting debate, and we will be right back. [bells tolling]

>> notice the color of the bourbon. that amber color is coming from the chart on the inside of the barrel. this is where it gets all of its color, and a lot of its flavor. currently, they have discovered over 200 chemical flavors just from the barrel. >> this weekend, we highlight frankfort, ky. throughout the weekend, look for the history and literary life of the state capital.

also, but douglas boyd on the crawfish bottom. an american history tv, a visit to buffalo trace distillery, one of four in operation during prohibition, for medicinal purposes, of course. booktv, an american history tv, in frankfurt, kentucky, this weekend on c-span two and three. >> for politics and public. -- affairs, it is the season and networks, available to you on television, radio, and online a social media sites. search and share our videos any time with the video library.

we are on the road bringing resources to local communities. it is washington, you're way. c-span, created by cable, provided as a public service. watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track political contributions with c- span's website for campaign 2012. it is easy to use with canada and biographies and the latest polling data -- candidate biographies, and the latest polling data. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back live. let me introduce you to james stanley, a senior policy analyst at the american civil liberties union, and a constitutional law

professor at the american university college of law. we have called the segment telecommunications freedom and public security. i want to read a story out of great britain. the question is could this happen here? from london -- it's called in the wake of revolutions epstein calls for free speech and democracy --

host: let me start with jay stanley. could this happen here? guest: it has. the metro system in san francisco shut off the cell phone and computer wireless system because a group of protesters were planning to stage a protest over police actions. this was "the communicators a big mistake because -- this was a big mistake because in this country, the government is not allowed to suppress speech, even to prevent potential unrest. what they did was not only cut off speech because they did not like what they would be saying, but the cut of speech for all of the other passengers.

the united states faces prohibitions on that kind of general blanket ban on speech. investors a better idea for -- it is just a bad idea. it is a bad idea to a lot of the covenant to shut down entire segments of the communications network. host: york news, stephen vladeck -- your views, stephen vladeck? guest: we have a lot of laws that deals with telephones. one of the questions is whether these laws that protect assets -- access to telephone service, must also protect access to social media and so on. the biggest difference between the united states and britain is the stronger history we have of

tolerating speech. i think there's a lot more potential illegality. host: here is what bay area rapid transit system did -- and here is part of their statement. the temporary introductio host: what is your reaction? guest: public safety is the rest no lead is used by every government that shuts the of communications networks, whether it is mubarak in egypt, or china, or iran. it is important, but under our system, the police just do not

have the power to do this. second of all, there was no emergency. there was no protest even in progress. they were trying to anticipate a protest. under our system of law, and judicial rulings, there is an even steeper prohibition on a restraint of speech. even when national security is at stake, you cannot block people from speaking that is -- speaking. that is what happened here, baulking not of the protesters, but everybody in the bart, which could have been dangerous. host: this is a cell phone system which all of us use -- bandwidth -- but where is the public property, and the private

property? guest: that is the question. bart is a public entity, but their position is once you go through the turnstile, you're not in a public forum. i do not know if that would fly with the courts. once the government opens up an area to some speech, that they cannot pick and choose. there actually is a burden. we do not have a right to cell phone service on our subway system, but the problem is once the local government chooses to provide that service, there are constitutional services -- loss of come into play when they try to shut it down.

host: which will broaden this to a bigger discussion nationally as a nation as we all have access on our smartphone steve social media. we have seen a number of instances where use gangs have organized themselves by facebook and twitter, and local authorities are figuring out how to grapple with that, and the question is should restrictions be put on access to services in times of public safety situations? how do you feel about that? we'll put the c-span phone number is on the screen, and we will also invite you to use social media to join us. we will put your questions on the table. you mention that other localities are grappling with that. are there other instances you could site? guest: we have not seen the system-wide shut down the bart

undertook, but cities are considering them, especially as with hurricane irene coming to the east coast, what to do to make sure these networks are clear and not used for nefarious purposes. both new york city and washington have discussed how they might use or shut down parts of the cell phone network to prevent imminent attacks. this is clearly on the table. the fact that they were able to do it so quickly shows there are plans in place for most local governments to deal with this contingency, even though we have not flushed out the legal issues. guest: one of the factors at issue here is that what we do not want to see is a precedent set where every local police department feels they could shut down vital communications networks because some people are planning a fresh mob -- flash

mob. there was a fresh mob or a kid started speeling stuff from 8 7/11 in an organized way. we do not want to see things get shut down because various threats pose themselves. host: congress's been interested in this, and three senators said proposed legislation, the cyber security and the internet freedom act. can you tell us what they are envisioning? guest: it is still taking shape, but the basic idea is to allow for more authority a the state and federal level to cut off access to certain networks in times of public safety threats. where this turns into a problem is whether it will be over rolled from the first amendment perspective.

the second thing is how do we allow local law enforcement take necessary -- to take necessary steps without going too far? is there a way to target those individuals you are worried about without shutting down the entire network? the bill is not there yet. they are trying to figure out what they want to do. the idea to go out on president service of network sites and disable them -- go out on social media sites and disable them. host: there is a kill switch at the idea. what do you think? guest: i think is a terrible idea to shut down the communication by which illegal behavior is organized. cell phones are used to commit crimes whether it is antitrust

or arranging murder. the police does not have the power to yank phone service away from somebody without due process. basically, the effects of shutting down communication and the test -- effect on speech, not only to restrain the people suspected of bad things, but of the other people effected, is considered by the courts to be worse than giving police the power. if the police have a sense that people are organizing illegal activities, the courts have said the proper response is to send police there. guest: or to gather evidence. host: or to monitor. guest: we know that one of the ways law enforcement has unable to break up gatherings is to infiltrate the social network --

had been able to break up the gatherings was to infiltrate the social network. host: you are fine with that. guest: well, there are allowed to gather information on potential legal entity. there is a point where you cross the line into entrapment, but up until that point, that is much more consistent with our tradition than the internet kill switch, or other proposals. host: you both reference cell phone service. are the laws different with internet delivered over wireline as opposed to cell phone service? guest: at the moment, they're not, and this is a problem localities are grappling with. the communications act, which was enacted before world war two treats all phone service

alike. part of the issue is that if bart is a network operator, they're basically acting the same wave verizon is, or any other phone carrier is? one theme that has to be considered is whether there should be distinctions between landlines and cell phones, especially smart phones, given how many people of my generation did not have a land line. it is a difficult line to drop. host: in buffalo, new york, george is a republican there. caller: scary stuff. did the incident with bart have

to do with police security? host: can you give us more details? guest: the bart police shut down at a cell phone network to stop the protest against bart police. they were protesting the shooting of a homeless man. a couple of years before that there had been another shooting of a man, and the officer who shot them was convicted of a felony. the protesters felt the police were in their raw it wanted to protest that. d its -- in the wrong and t wanted to protest that. the people who made the decision were the subject of the

complaint. it is not like they were protesting the iraq war, or something on related -- not related. host: for the hacking site anonymous cannot involved for retribution? it shows the tools that people have in our society. what do know about that? guest: some of the hacking groups have into the website of bart, and released personal, private information, which is a violation of privacy, but part of what it shows is the fact that tried to shut down a communications system is not only ineffective and doomed to fail, as there have been organized protesters for many

years before cell phones were invented, but it got people riled up further. host: raleigh, n.c., debbie, in an independent. good morning. caller: to me, this is extremely troubling. whether you have local law enforcement or state-level law enforcement, or even federal level, to have the ability to shut down communications networks, to me that is an pedicle to what -- to me that is an cycle to what free speech means. i think one of you have addressed earlier the idea that you do not thwart criminal behavior before and hand. is there any legal action

against bart, and secondly, we have also seen in the past couple of weeks, representatives who have confiscated cameras in public town halls there holding . are there any privacy issues -- when anizations such dow organization of shots down sell service? it's called are they a federal contractor? guest: there are a government entity, and is bound to comply with the first amendment. they have no exception from the first amendment or other federal laws.

the statement you used earlier showed their sensitivity to the first amendment issues here. as to the questions of what kind of actions could be taken against bart, which have heard statements from the federal communications commission that they're quite interested in this episode, and they're very worried that bart might have violated the communications act and various laws related to the operation of cell phone networks and telephone networks. i would not be surprised if we saw some kind of investigation. the other part of this that is relevant is that bart might have violated the california state law. the california public utilities commission have similar requirements to be fc with with a gets to the access they have to provide. they could face liability from

the federal and local government. host: jacksonville, florida. cliff, good morning. caller: this is starting to french on the age old thing of shouting fire in a theater if i have people that can use these cell phone and take over a train, why would the police not have the right to say it is an illegal demonstration because it is a safety hazard for all of those folks that are trying to get there were -- to work? why could they not a protest and not at a train station,

but at their headquarters next guest: at think tha? guest: i think that is how bart will defend themselves. there must be no imminent threat to public safety and the public health. i think part of what we are seeing here is bart taking a pre-emptive step, shutting down the network categorically, not targeting particular stations or trains. i think will be hard for them to read the very high bar of showing an imminent threat. that does not mean you could not have a case in the future were the government was able to walk into court and say here we really did have that kind of justification for this measure. given how pre-emptive the actions were here, it is a difficult sell, and historically, courts have been

reluctant to blur the line between what is evident and not. host: i might not be able to make my technology move quickly enough, but this from twitter -- host: from another viewer of the other side -- the authorities can call anyone bad, but that does not make them so. weigh in on the opinions? guest: kospi authorities had some evidence that these protesters were planning to break the law. it is illegal to stop a train, or interfere with transit, and nobody disagrees with that. the question is, when you have some evidence that somebody might be planning to break the justify does that

shutting down a communications system? it is pretty well established the answer is no. the board of directors had a meeting yesterday to talk about this, and they were actually very sympathetic to recognizing that this was a mistake, and they directed the staff to come up with a policy about when a cell phone network can be shut down, and they did account for extreme circumstances, such as a bomb threat or a hostage situation, which everyone recognizes to be reasonable to shut down a cell phone network in those emergencies. guest: if you allow for local transportation systems for local governments to take a step of shutting down cell phone service because of the possibility of a protest, of that will sweep within its scope all range of

activities that we probably would not want local governments to shut down cell phone service for. even if we're going to have a category of extreme cases, the real problem here is it does not look like it, and it would be better for congress or the federal to medications commission to identify the category of cases for governments to do it on the fly. host: we have read about bomb threats on the washington metro system and the new york system. he suggested that authorities might have the responsibility to shut down cell phone networks to prevent additional things from happening, but that is exactly the time that people on the system might want to get information or communicate that they are ok. how do you bridge those competing desires? guest: that is a difficult situation when you have an emergency like that. those are the tough calls that

make the job of the authority said protect us very very difficult. what you cannot do it said the system because people are planning a protest. host: bet is the line, the free- speech line? guest: yes. guest: the question is how do we want making that decision? should it be the transportation operator, the local government, a federal judge? as we start to grapple with this going forward, when the things we have to sort out is if we should require a neutral magistrate, for example, to sign off on a situation where we do think such a measure would be justified. host: a thought from twitter

host: william is an independent in palm springs, california. caller: why is it not been addressed? the police are trying to cover up a murder? there was a man who shot for not paying his bus fare. people in the city are protesting for the police chief and the mayor to shut down. any political office, everyone refuses to help people. there is another man, and i can go on and on. they are scared, because they're breaking the laws. i would like to know are you not worried about what is going on in america? we are seeing that all around, and for everyone to say they're just taking our fall rights,

there are actually killing people, and not being tried for murder. a u.s. not worry? host: thank you. jay stanley? guest: the particular shooting deaths prompted the most recent protest is being investigating, -- investigated, and we cannot judge it until the feds,, but there has been a history of police abuses in san francisco and elsewhere. the aclu is in the forefront to address that. there was a shooting in the bay area where the officer was convicted of a felony. it seems pretty clear why some people are protesting. the free-speech issue we are talking about today does not even have to get to whether the protesters are right or wrong. whether they're right or wrong,

they have a right to protest. host: sasha has a poignant point -- host: chris, new jersey. a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: it seems we have talked about shutting it telecommunications or the internet off. i wonder what your thoughts are on emerging technologies like twitter, youtube, and facebook, where an individual user might have their video or twitter post censored, or an account revoked? what sort of protections do we have or do we not have for that sort of freedom of speech? guest: it is a great question. we have to be able to distinguish between censorship between private parties, which

is what facebook and twitter are reaching their governed by federal law, not the constitution. there is far more of a tradition of sufficient by government where i think the law is less- developed. the next generation of the debate will focus on how much control the private companies have over the content we are putting on their sites. host: their services use bandwidth that is public property. where is a line drawn? guest: there are governed by the federal communications act, but they have users sign contracts. when we click on the privacy policy, we are signing a contract. i suspect some of the fine print posts they could take down. are we too sensitive to the

censorship we are actually objecting to after the fact? guest: dear is the notion that the telecommunications providers themselves, verizon, at&t, and so forth, are they allowed to filter internet traffic? are they allowed to slow some and let those -- let others go fast? at issue is the controller communications networks. who controls the networks? are they neutral? do they serve everyone the same? to some people have power over the networks? they can manipulate them, and our position is they should be neutral. byt: guest: it is complicated smart phones. the law might have been able to distinguish between telephones and internet access, but that distinction is clemson -- is

collapsing. we now have to deal with the fact we can do both in the palm of your hand. host: brooklyn, good morning to john, you're on the air. caller: i would like to ask you something about some basic philosophy that goes back to 1789, and that is that the first and second amendments both, but it we're talking principally about the first, but regarding the first and second amendments, technology has gone so far beyond what the constitutional formers ever envisioned, so i'm wondering whether the amendments in of -- in and of themselves are not anachronistic in that the legal protection has to sit around for money as since then debating what is constitutional

and what is not constitutional regarding such things as freedom of speech? if you want to take the second amendment to its limit, i should be able to drive around in a tank because i might have to protect myself again something the federal government might want to do. i do not think anyone would consider the ownership of a tank in private hands a legitimate phenomena. i would like to listen to your opinion. host: stephen vladeck? guest: i think the founders did understand that what speech was and how it was used would devolve. they had experienced themselves. he was in the 18th century that we saw the rise of pamphlets and newspapers. i am a bit reluctant to believe

it might become anachronistic because of technology. i think the question of how we draw the line between the speech we protect and the government should be able to control might differ, but speech in his speech. part of the issue is is it really that different for bart riders to be talking on their cell phones, then for them to be holding up billboards. the more government cannot expect -- exploit the differences, this looks like first amendment press of activity. -- oppressive activity. more and more activity will be protected by the first amendment as technology advances. i am not sure that as something to be scared about, but that is something to require careful re- examination of the legal regime as we go forward.

guest: 1 communications method best -- amendment that has been effected is the fourth amendment, the kansas our privacy right, and there, -- that gives us our privacy right. a government contract yourself location without a warrant, and that is this an issue the supreme court will investigate. host: are there any supreme court decisions that will shape this? guest: there will be a question on whether the government can't put a gps device on someone's car, and track their movement without a warrant, or whether that is a search and requires a warrant under the fourth amendment. the position has always been that anything a private citizen could observe and other private

citizen doing does not require a warrant. privacy is a big part of this conversation. as we talk about how the law is going to evolve, house cell phone networks and providers deal with these issues, we have to keep in mind there two sides reaching there is that government interested public safety, but there is also the interest in the privacy of communication. host: steve, nebraska. republican, good morning. caller: the other caller hit on what i was talking about. i am not going to drive around in a tank, but with the advent of the flash mobs, technology, and what have you, how will that effect the concealed carry as