marc morial discusses the findings of that group's state of black america report. "washington journal" is next. host: today is saturday march 10. in this edition of "washington journal" we talk about the impact of online activism. a lot of you are using various online measures to stay in touch with your members of congress as we look at the capitol dome on the screen. we want to talk about other aspects of online activity as it

relates to politics and activism. we want to find out what you think about the impact of gene activism. the numbers if you want to call and get involved 202-737-0001 for democrats, republicans 202-737-0002, independents 202-628-0205. if you want to talk to us electronically, pick up a eyboard and you can e-mail at journal at c-span.org. on twitter you can get us c-s n cspanwj and facebook facebook.co facebook.com/c-span. we will start by taking a look at an article in the "washington post" about an item that has again viral -- gone viral and we

will use that to set up talking about online activism. it is kony 2012 goes viral. 71 million watched it as it translates to offline action.

host: we want to talk to you about what you think about online activism and things like the kony 2012 video going viral.

we want to show you a little bit of that infomercial/documentary and we will start taking calls. >> in order for cohney to be arrested this year the ugandan military has to find him. in order to find him they need to have the technology and training to track him in the vast judge. that is where the american advisories to come in. but the u.s. government has to deploy them. they have done that, but if the doesn't believe that people care about arresting kony the mission will be canceled. in order for people to care they have to know and they will only know if kony's name is everywhere. host: we are talking about the impact of online activism. our first call is from robert who calls from elizabeth, new jers jersey, on the line for

democrats. caller: yes. i believe that in reference to the uganda situation, i believe that the united states should remain neutral and stay out of this. we do have our own problems here, and we have been fighting wars for quite some time, expressly fighting wars for other countries. and i think in lieu of our situation financially and trying to get our situation straightened out we should stay out of it. host: how much of this information about the situation in uganda did you get on line and how much of it has spurred you to any activism, getting in touch with your lawmakers or other people who might be able to affect the situation? >> as i stated, it is a very

tough situation and i think that the individual should be brought to justice. and i have seen in various clips -- newspaper and online -- but as i stated, i think that the united states should remain neutral because it is only going to cause us problems and loss of lives fighting wars trying to help another countries. host: bill on the line for from expo s contingent, washington. -- spokane, washington. caller: good morning. i'm going to be 51 years old and i really about six months just got my first p.c. laptop. i'm enjoying being able to

respond to certain articles on the internet, the freedom of speech it allows. and when you comment on an article or a position or whatever, a lot of times with the news groups on the internet it is filtered, your response is filtered. standard to the freedom of speech, which is good. i think it is a great new horizon for communication that doesn't limit people. anybody like me -- i'm living proof that a person can overcome technology deficits. host: when you say that, how old are you? caller: i'll be 51 in a few days. host: is this the tpeufirst comr p.c. caller: a few years ago i tried web tv where you turn the tv

monit is tor, the of it screen your monitor -- the tv screen is a monitor and it is a very simple form of getting to learn the internet. i did that a little while. then i got the laptop. it has taken me a long time to teach myself but i'm having fun with it and i'm really amazed at how much people can learn about what is going on. host: paul, in richmond, virginia, tell us about your thoughts regarding the impact of online activism. caller: it has impacted me in my communi community, and my wife. on a station called love forecast which is one of the first internet radio stations with a physical location. nd it has grown to where it is actually hughesing three different -- housing.

we are involved with the community and we invite people to come on to our show and just spread the word about what they are doing. it doesn't matter as long as you are doing positive things. it has been a great tool and it has a great future. host: we want to look at a couple of things that people have sent in or what they are talking about online on our c-span facebook page. in is from jeff dowd who says it won't affect the elections. whomever the globalist bankers want to run the country is who will run the government. america is no more. then sometimes sadly it can -- sometimes sadly it can me like any tech, misabused and yet others it can work wonders like egypt. then also austin ray walter. if the obama administration as

well as senators mccain, lindsey graham and various others had their way it won't be effective at all but yes, it's effective. we are talking about the impact activism.e the next call is butler, pennsylvania, shaken on the line for democrats is on the "washington journal." caller: i feel like online is very good. it seems to get a lot done. you but if the united states wants to be the world police officer, then we have to intervene in other places, not only in the ones we have to intervene in because they have resources or something, you know? we have to be the moral authority for everybody. host: next up is lenny for independents calling from fairfax, virginia. caller: yes rb, i want to talk

about all the atrocities in africa that are being commit and the u.s. should do something about that. children are being recruited and officials are abusing children and it is outrages that the whole -- it is outrageous that the whole world is not doing something to make a difference. the people in africa are using so many people. host: how much of this information have you gotten from online services and with that information what do you plan to do? caller: i work from eight in the

morning to nine in the evening and i don't have that much time in the week day but in the weekends i do have time. i'm going to do research. i just would like a lot of people to get involved in doing something, whatever we can to making a difference so something is done in africa. host: we have a tweet from steve harrison who writes supporting such campaigns on social networks makes people feel good without having to become involved in any meaningful way. manhattan is where the next call is from, dave on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. my question is this.

what is the necessary group of nations doing, i mean the united nations? they sit around and wait for america to make the first move and always jump in and intervene. this has gone on now. america is the only one who has to go and police and pick up the gun and fight in these countries. what does the united nations do in new york besides get tickets and diplomatic immunity? host: are there misses you go to online where you exchange with people regarding this or other situations? caller: sure. when i see them i respond by all means. it is fair enough that we exchange point of views and other things, which is good because you can give and you can take. you can learn and you can accept knowledge.

host: in the "washington post" more from the article kony 2012 goes viral but what does it mean. the article goes on to say the heist and hyperbola swirled in the span of a week but the true test for what it signifies for the internet, activism and how people want to interact with the world won't be measurable until april 20 and beyond. host: back to the phones. more on our discussion regarding the impact of online activism.

haven't seen many calls on our republican lines. we want to hear from our republican brethren as well. chicago, illinois, doris on the line for democrats. doris, you are on the "washington journal." stkpwhra thank you for caller: thank you for taking my call. i learned about this information on twitter. i love hearing this information. i actually retweeted it. i think we should know about the information. however, as far as acting upon the information, i think we really should use care before we do that. i only heard one side of the story so i would like to hear more about it. i think that we should not act on everything. i don't think we should start a war for everything we hear on twitter. i think there are more people who know more about that than i.

i don't want to make a decision based pop something i heard on twitter. however, i was very manufactured about it and -- moved about it and i'm flood -- glad i saw it. host: why did you think it was necessary it retweet it and send it out to friends and facebook, and how do you think that will affect the situation? caller: i think the only thing it will do is to cause awareness of it. i think that it would allow people to go out and get their own information about this situation. and if it is true, i think we should act upon it. again, i don't think we need to cause a war for it. but i think we should choose our battles. i think it is causing awareness of the information and i think that is important. i felt the need to retweet it mainly because i'm concerned about the little boy and i was concerned that his brother was

killed in front of him. that was really the main thing for me. i thought that this is outrageous and we need to let the world know this is going on. if it was me in the same situation i would let somebody at least know about it and help me if possible. host: all right. our next call comes from mary in astoria, oregon, on the line for republicans. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: thank you for c-span. i believe the question was what we think the effects of online activism would be. host: yes, your thoughts on the impact of online activism. caller: it increases the ability of people to communicate with each other. however, i think this particular video shows that some propagandaizing is possible especially when they use figures

from hollywood to gather up their followers to support a cau cause. what community is less appropriate to influence public policy than hollywood? i think that there is a tremendous potential here for propagandaizing. especially the left, i think, will use this to the fullest. if we're talking about particular issues in africa, how come nobody is talking about the genocide. i wonder if anyone wants to comment because that has been shut down in the news. host: have you seen instances of reporting on that online that you don't see in mainstream media? have you been involved in discussions either on twitter or facebook regarding that situation? host: not on twitter or facebook. but where i heard about that was just following one story to

another. there were people talking about it online and even posting pictures of the victims. but apparently the large servers, google and yahoo shut it down. they said it was obscene, although apparently you can get porn on line but talking about people being murdered in south africa, no, do not happen. host: back to facebook, scott kepbg writes viral youtube videos have a great impact. look at the one video for the invisible children group. it has been seen by millions. back to the phones, long island, new york, dave on the line for democrats. you are on the war"washington journal." morning.good i would like to say with the is ine activism, i think it s excessive and the new technology

is revolutionary, really. i think that as an example like the iraq war would have been much easier for the bush promote and toto kind of dictate people's access to information online. another example would be ron paul. i don't think he would be successful in his campaign without a lot of his ideas being discussed online. as far as facebook and twitter, i don't particularly use those but i think what are much more important are the message boards. because you have online communities and groups where performance could debate these issues. during those debates you can actually go online and look up different articles, reference wikipedia and gather enormous

amounts of information to make an argument in a decent way and at the same time have people on the message board who disagree with you kind of debate you in an informative way. i think it is very inconvenient for governments to have this kind of access to information. i know you have books like edward benen wrote a book called propaganda and actually worked for the government and a lot of this access to information is out of control and -- of governments -- so people have it and i think it is a much more democratic event. when you see things like the patriot act, i think you will see a lot more of that kind of behavior from governments to

rein in freedom and access. host: we have this online. dave mentioned the ron paul campaign with the headline ron paul's pointless internet presidency. he has about as many votes in this year's g.o.p. primaries as he has faculty fans. his fierce follow something that much less relevant than it appears. four years ago the shrewdest candidates used youtube, my space and facebook and a dash of twitter and tried to gain a new edge called, in the contrived conceit of the day mind share. appears were nowhere in campaign strategies. the i was phone was knew and ipad didn't exist. who e-campaigned best last time? during super tuesday a british firm that monitors digital reputations ranked the days

presidential candidates by online popularity. it didn't take nate silver or the zogby person to call a winner. if you hung around social media a little you knew the fix was in. it was not hillary clinton nor mitt romney, john mccain or barack obama. blowing them all away sealing for himself the presidency of the united cyber states of commander in chief of the information wants to be free world was naturally congressman ron paul. ron paul president of the internet. hail to the online chief four more years. also regarding presidential politics and online activity we have this tweet from don richie who writes didn't the current occupant of the white house prove the power of online activism and organizing? back to the phones, bob in baker, louisiana, on the line for republicans. good morning, bob. caller: good morning. how are you this morning?

host: your thoughts about the impact of online activism. caller: well, i was watching hannity last night on the hannity show. and it is a shame, in all of these supposed reporters need to pologize to the paoeeople in te united states for not vetting obama last time. but he's going to be vetted this time. host: did you think that online -- caller: there will be a lot of things come out that nobody wants to hear, i guess. host: do you think the online activity will have to -- will be part of the vetting of president obama but the other candidates running for president? caller: well, yes.

i mean, you tphknow, the truth needs to come out. all of these reports -- and you especially, c-span -- has never, never asked obama any questions. nobody has ever asked him any questions. but there's a lot of questions that need to be answered, and one of them is on his birth certificate it says that his father is not a citizen. he is a citizen of kenya. so, that does not give him the right to be the president because he's not a natural born citiz citizen. it : we are going to leave there. in other news this morning, this from the front page of the "los angeles times" u.s. job growth brisk in february but the

nation's unemployment rate holds steady at 8.3% as more people re-enter the labor force. this is by don lee who writes -- host: regarding the jobs numbers the leading story in the "atlanta journal-constitution" job growth fuels recovery. they write that the nation's economic picture brightened in

february as employers added more than 200,000 jobs for the third month in a row and more were encouraged to start looking for work again. we will continue to look at other items in the news this morning as we continue our conversation on the impact of online activism. our next call is from tampa, florida, on the behind for independents. chris, you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. i think the previous republican caller gave an unintended example and that is the propaganda that is put out on line and gets accepted as truth without being vetted. i think that the burser issue has been beaten to death. a lot of things come up on line that have nothing to do with the truth, but it gives you a chance

when you read about something that you know not to be true you can go to facebook and post articles that disprove what is being put out this. as an independent i get bludgeoned with prop tkpwpbd from the left and -- propaganda and the right so i have to try to find out when the truth actually lies. when i do i can put it online and try to educate other people. it is a very educational tool as you don't take everything they say as the truth. there are a lot of nuts out this that will put anything out there. i think that is a perfect example of bad propaganda that they made into a mountain online and now it is part of the lexicon of the republican side. the left is guilty of it too. i'm not saying it is a totally

issue.can host: for all the places you can find online about the birther issue, aren't there places that you can find online that support the fact that the president was born in hawaii? caller: certainly. that is when you get to the truth of it. that is my point. he more than showed online -- he showed on tv his birth certificate and everything. i don't really know how much more you can beat that issue to death. the only reason he said it had to be on online, the other side of the issue, was because it was brought up by the other side so it has to be answered, something like that. so, that is how you have to sift through it to find the truth. the partisan -- in other words, there are a lot of partisan sites and you have to do a lot

of research. host: we will move on to james from allentown, pennsylvania on the line for republicans. caller: hey, rob. haven't been able to get through in a long time. hope you will give me a couple of minutes. took five months to get through. host: congratulations. your view of online activism. caller: i'm a republican. i don't want to get caught up in the birther thing. it wouldn't matter anyway. what was fascinating was his paternal grandmother two interviews claimed to witness his birth in mombasa. the importance of activisms is with the kony thing. i have none about over-kony over 10 years. the last report about him was 2003 when he ambushed a rival

tribe in the north and forced a funeral procession to eat the entire corpse of their loved one and he killed them. reason this is not reported too much is like the lady mary said is because it is tooen comfortable for a segment of the population the superstitious nature. there are thousands burned in africa. the followers of kony were originally the followers of prophet from god who told the child soldiers that bullets would bounce off them and rocks could be turned into hand grenades. host: beyond the kony issue, are there things you are involved in online that you feel are not getting the attention of the mainstream media? and we had a caller earlier in

the segment who talked about she read something online and felt compelled to pass it on to other people that she was in touch with either on twitter or on facebook. is that the way that you sort of try to move the discussion forward? >> i think that thank god for c-span in the early days. i first heard of american rehn sons from you guys. they have a lot of reports and they used to have a newsletter and they have a lot of reports out of africa and people are too squeamish to talk about. like the attacks from south africa, the way farmers that have been slaughtered since homosexuals. on sing zimbabwe where farmers have been driven from their farms. those who resisted have been killed. 80% unemployment. last report was the blocks were

breaking into the zoo to kill giraffes for meat. host: we will leave it there. this one from the "wall street journal" u.s.-afghans set six months handover of prison from kabul. the u.s. and afghanistan agreed to transfer the main u.s. run detention facility in the country to afghan control over the next six months, a breakthrough in talks over a long-term strategic partnership. the commander of u.s. led forces in afghanistan signed the agreement which sets up the gradual transfer of 3,000 afghan detainees currently held by the u.s. at the bagram airfield north of kabul.

host: back to the phones, fairfield, connecticut, independe independent, james. talk to us about your thoughts regarding online activism. caller: the impact of online activism is greatly overstated. host: how so? caller: to me, it is like somebody passing by an accident on the road, slowing down to take a look and then driving straight by. you want to see it, you want to take in the information. but you don't want to do anything about it. it is the same thing as like activism online is like sharing information. if i say to you hey did you hear what happened in the ballgame last night? we're sharing information. doesn't make anyone an activist. just by forwarding an e-mail make you an activist. posing something is just sharing information. activism calls for a call to

action. if there is no call to action there is no reason to be an activist. host: the folks who were involved in this who are active in it activism would say that their action is to spread the word through platforms like twitter and facebook. are you saying no? caller: i don't agree. i don't think it changes anything. it is like a billboard on the highway. you see billboards that say do something or pay attention to something. that doesn't mean anything. you just are passing by. i think it is greatly overstated online activism. if it was really an impact of the way of creating activism occupy wall street would continue to grow beyond its current limitations. same with some of the protests where the governments are trying to limit the collective bargaining of unions. if this was a true growth of activism it would not be

controllable. it is just greatly overstated. the impact of online information is greatly overstated and it needs it break out of its electronic chains and needs to get into the veins of the people that want to do something. host: next up is chattanooga, tennessee, david on the line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal". caller: thank you. i think that online activism has met with limited success for the same reason other forms of media have met with limited success in the united states the past few decades. we don't have an alert and knowledgeable citizenry which is what feels called for. they don't know who leads them, they don't know what laws are passed and they don't care. then they complain about things that politicians do or leaders do. and they have no involvement in

their government. online activism fails for the same reason that newspapers fail to reach people for the same reason television fails to reach people because people don't care about the political process. host: how active are you politically and did you do most of your activism online or in person? are you out on the street with a picket sign? caller: i don't really call myself an activist. that is really my biggest point to make. we don't really need to reform our governmental system. we just need or citizenry to take up involvement in it to be part of it. to know who their representatives are. i vote in every election. i know who my state representatives are and my federal representatives are. i had a party at my house a couple of months ago and my wife was asking people who was in

various positions of power and out of 20 people she and i were the only people who knew the speaker of the house was. and i mean this is a room with an engineer in it, a chemist in it, relatively intelligent people and they don't know who the speaker of the house is and he is one of the no powerful people in the country. host: we have this mental on -- message on facebook in a world that no longer cares about one another i don't see any real affect other than informing people like myself. the battle against the politic iced -- politicized lies is not winning when the major media no longer cares about our civil liberties. mankato, minnesota, becky on the line for republicans. caller: hi. how are you? host: i'm doing fine. thank you for having me on. host: talk to me about the

impact of environmental activism. caller: environmental activism? host: i'm sorry, online activism. caller: you can reach everybody in the world pretty much that way. before it was limited and uncontrolled by the social media, which is great. host: anything else? caller: well, we have been fighting wars forever and when we want, when the united states was the most powerful country in the world, which i don't believe that we are any more, it was our job to step in and take care of these things. and these things have been going on from day one and they are just parties that nobody would out them and expose them. an example, the blood diamonds. most people did not know where

their diamonds were coming from. the government knew what was going on from day one. host: sorry to cut you off there, becky. for the viewers and listeners if you want to get more information regarding the history of online activism, one of the websites you can go to is mashab and you can scroll through there and sort of get a feel for the -- ory of engine active iism online activism. we will keep that up as we take the next call from hanover, pennsylvania, sharon on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to say that it is difficult to determine the outcome of online active iism i may take our next election cycle to show what and if has tape place. i personally e-mail my federal

and state representatives, congressmen, two or three times a week and it didn't take rush limbaugh to activate me in regard to the horrendous amendment and other promises that keep coming down the line. women and the men who care for them to put the on congress and keep it on. host: when you send those your representatives do you ever get think direct response? caller: i do sometimes, yes. i realize they have got r often bo -- robo responses. they have to. i'm also involved in active

environmental petitionses especially against keystone eexl which is to further enrich the oil companies. i urge listeners to check national geography march 2009 on keystone excel. host: on news makers this week the chairman of the senate armed services committee is our guest. senator levin talks about the likelihood of a unilateral israeli strike on iran's nuclear sites and discusses u.s. against iran. the situation in sir, afghanistan, russian missiles and more. to show you part of the interview where senator left were is talking about president obama seeking congressional approval if he wants to use force against iran. this is what he has to say. >> do you think congress should

debate authorizing the use of military force by the united states? >> sure. do you mean now? no. >> when then? >> when it is sought. if and when the president seeks it. >> should the president ask congress for the authority to go to war? >> now? >> perhaps. >> not now but if he decides he is going to become involved in the country's issue he should seek authority. >> would you -- >> does he have to seek it? president in my lifetime ever has. no president since the -- i should say since the war powers act was adopted that says after a certain length of time if our troops are still in harm's way the president shall come to congress and get authority for their continuance, no president has said they are bound by that. host: you can see the entire

interview with senator carl "muse makers" -- "news makers" tomorrow and it is available online at c-span.org. a couple of items from the campaign trail this morning in the "baltimore sun" high stakes in the deep south for g.o.p. hopefuls, primaries tuesday offer risk and reward. newt gingrich seeks victory in t the alabama and mississippi primaries as perhaps his last chance to show he remains a viable contender for president before rick santorum wins the potential to drive the former house speaker out of the race strengthening him for the battle to topple mitt romney. for romney alabama and are an opportunity to diminish if not crush the candidacy of santorum with an aggressive ad campaign. regarding the caucus that is

being held today in kansas, we this from the "wall street journal." race comes to dark red kansas. santorum hopes to capitalize on party shift to show he is consolidating conservative report. when the nominating contest rolls into this state for caucuses saturday it will find that a reliable g.o.p. stronghold has turned an even deeper shade of red. back to the phones, philadelphia, suzanne on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. caller: thank you for taking my call. just two quick things. the truth is out there. you just have to look for it. it takes time to find it. i do think that c-span gives us a balanced approach. many people don't have the time

to look for the truth. and it is unfortunate. host: in 45 minutes we will be talking about the state of black america. after the break a discussion on the latest unemployment numbers. you are watching the washington journal. today is saturday march 10. we will be right back.

>> congratulations to all this year's winners of the student cam video documentary. a record number of pheupld and high school students entered on the theme the constitution and you. showing which part of the is important to them and why. watch all the winning videos at studentcam.org and join us in april as we show the top 27 videos on c-span. we will talk with the winners during "washington journal." earnest hemingway is considered one of the great american writers. not many people know of his work

as a spy during world war ii. >> there were a couple of instance that he was aware of a german submarine approaching fishing boats and we will take your catch and fresh food. so, he saeid i will wait for thm to come alongside and my players will lob hand grenades down the open hatches and other members will machine gun the germans on deck. >> military and intelligence historian on hemingway the spy. sunday night at 8:0 part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> if i were j. edgar hoover i don't think the president could have gotten away with it. >> reporter and author details the hidden history of the f.b.i. and hoover's fight against terrorists, spice and subversives. >> he stands alone. he is like the washington

monument. he stands alone like a statue encased in grime. as one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington in the 20th century. 11 presidents, 48 years. from woodrow wilson to richard nixon. there is no one like him. and a great deal of what we think we know about hoover is myth. and legend. >> time wiener on a history of the f.b.i. sunday night on "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: danielle kurtzleben is with u.s. news and world report and here to talk about the february job numbers that came out yesterday. u.s. employers added 227,000 jobs in february for three months straight the increase seems to be going in one

direction. tell us more about those numbers and the fact that the unemployment rate stayed at 8.3% despite the fact that there were more jobs added. guest: in part that is the labor force growing. the way unemployment is calculated you take the number of people looking for a job who didn't have one. that is a key factor, looking for a job. you divide it by the number plus the number of people who have a job. that is the labor force. when that labor force grows as it did in february that means even amidst job gains you could have an unemployment rate that doesn't drop. the labor force grew from 63.7% to 63 by 9%. it has been steadily declining quite some time. when that denominator grows then you have an unemployment rate that doesn't necessarily drop.

in addition, 227,000 jobs is strong but it won't always move the needle. host: so, it is conceivable that the unemployment number could stay the same even though more people are working because there is a phmore positive attitude o the people on the sidelines getting back into looking for a job even though they don't necessarily have one. is that right? guest: absolutely, yes. one way an economist put it to me yesterday was if optimism among job seekers exceeds optimism among employers you can even have an uptick in the unemployment rate even while the economy is improving and jobs numbers are improving strongly. host: in t"the boston globe" thy have the headline robust job report confirms recovery, rates stay steady as more seek work. the economy has added american

four million jobs since the labor force hit bottom in december of 2009. 142.1 million americans reported working in february. manufacturing payrolls also are at the highest in nearly three years. this is unambiguously good news said the chief economist of moody's analytics host: do you go along with that? guest: i would. there are a lot of economists who agree that yesterday's reports were strong and we have been able to get used to steadily declining jobless rates since early last fall. so it was a strong-looking report.

gains were broad based from healthcare, from manufacturing, from the business sector. so, i would say in general it was a strong report. now, whether we can -- whether that will stay steady amidst all the uncertainties in the global economy is a good question. host: we are talk become the jobs numbers that -- talking about the jobs numbers with danielle kurtzleben a data report with u.s. news and word report. if you want to get involved the numbers are 202-737-0001 for folks who are employed. 202-737-0002 for folks who are unemployed. and 202-628-0205 for folks who have stopped looking completely. we will refresh you with the numbers as we continue through the conversation. before we go to the phones we want to look at what the

president had to say yesterday in prince george's, virginia, after touring a facility this makes engines for boeing and sky craft airplane. he made these comments about the u.s. economy. >> the past two years our businesses have added nearly four million new jobs. [applause] >> we just found out that last month, in february, we added 233,000 private sector jobs. are bringing jobs back and investing in america. and manufacturing is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990's. host: danielle kurtzleben, is the president being overly

optimistic? are there some hurdles he still has to clear with regard to the employment situation? guest: well, one thing he has to keep in mind is even if the unemployment rate keeps improving it will be high on day.tion so, what he is trying to do is take ownership of the fact that the unemployment rate has been dropping. he just has to do that for his re-election efforts. aside from that, he really is taking ownership of manufacturing. that is a strong story line that the obama administration has been touting after decades of decline in manufacturing losing its former robustness, finally during the obama administration has added over 400,000 jobs. that is a great story for the obama administration to tell. now, whether the president can take full credit for that, that is probably not of course. there are plenty of factors that go into manufacturing hiring. he can set the stage for sure, but you have things like productivity, labor consists,

lots of other factors that go into that. aside from that, another thing i always want to point out on the president's manufacturing line is just that manufacturing makes up less than 10% of the labor force. it is a big part but not that big. there are other sectors that are larger. host: four first call for danielle kurtzleben is from bonnie in street, maryland. she is unemployed. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a question. our governor brags about he bought -- brought in foreign college students to fill every summer job in ocean city, maryland. they have to pay $1,2 and they get a green card and a place to live. what are our children going to do? our state is depressed because of people moving out of the city

and he is bringing in foreign people and setting them up and giving them money and then they have to find a job. how does that help unemployment? host: danielle kurtzleben? guest: well, to be honest i'm not quite familiar with the program you are talking about but when you talk about our children, america's youngsters, it is true, they are having a very tough time finding jobs. the unemployment rate among teenagers, 16 to 19, is just under 25%. i believe it is about 23.8%, that is high. that is a problem. so, it depends on what jobs we are talking about. i would add another thing if -- a message the president has been hammering is education and our youngsters in america, people who are had high school, college, are not getting the skills that they need to get some of these jobs.

stemming science, technology, engineering, math. and many people make the argument that foreign people, young foreign workers, are better trained in those areas. if that is the case that is one reason perhaps why some foreign workers are coming here. the jobs are here. host: next up, southern pines, north carolina, jim on the line for folks employed -- jenny on the line for folks employed. stkpwh caller: good morning. host: i need for you to turn the sound on your television. i'm hearing some feedback. caller: i'm in my bedroom, i'm away from the television. can you hear me? host: i can hear you fine. what is your question or comment for danielle kurtzleben? caller: my question is that everything that we need here in the united states is already here. i have a comment, really.

we can grow our own food, we can manufacture, we can also build homes and buildings. i think that the money is going in the other direction when it should be going to the people with great ideas of how to get the country back on track. president barack obama was put in the situation and it was that he had done. he's trying to help us dig out of this hole mainly because of the job opportunities are one-sided. ou can't have a wuone-side situation for it to work. it has to be stable. everything has to be homo says cyst. land tfrtasis and the should be issued where people

with ideals can grow and farm should be able to do those things. host: we will leave it there. guest: one thing that she did bring up is that us having everything we need in the united states. we do have a lot of great resources that is true in terms of labor and natural resources. the issue of course then is the global economy, which is very interconnected. it is a question of comparative advantage. even if we do have lots of resources other countries might do certain things better and might do it for cheaper. so, even when we have the things that we need the question is whether it can be done elsewhere. in those ways sometimes jobs can go elsewhere. host: the next call is from jason it jason in new jersey. what kind of work do you do? caller: good morning. thank you for having me on.

i'm in the staffing field. i'm a technical recruiter for over 10 years. your callers and guests couldn't be more right. is really a two-sided economy, an economy with lots of jobs for the skilled and educ e educated for the people who have a niche or a nuance skill set. but the other side of it is for people who have not been able to find that niche and for whatever reason have not been able to get an education or find a specialized type there's enough seats at the table for everyone in america and i see this separation and this gap getting wider and wider and it's disturbing to have two young children and i wonder in ten years what is this economy going to be for them? is it waitress or something like that? no offense of course but we all want there to be good jobs for the kids and we're heading into

kind of a two-sided economy where the skilled get the good jobs and the educated get great jobs and everyone else is kind of left to fight for themselves. >> what kind of recruiting do you do? are you finding, how difficult is it for you to find people to fill the slots? caller: these jobs are open for six months, a year. and we've become a, kind of an industry of specialists. host: give me a specific job. caller: sure. so we have a job that requires linex programming. and it's a flavor of lin ex. so finding a programmer with a degree is hard enough. now, i have to have a guy who knows middle ware lin yusm. so it's a new waunsed skillset. the higher managers think

there's going to be 0 people lined up to take this job but the people who know the software know what they're worth and they're very hard to find and there's very few of them out there. so it's just an interesting time. host: your thoughts about what jason had to say. guest: that's something you hear a lot. like i was alluding to earlier is the question of whether people are getting the necessary training for the jobs that are out there. he spoke about that and computer programming is one area where we're really seeing that. this is something that there might be the misconception that what you need is an engineering degree from mith to get these jobs. this is something the president has pointed to as well. some of these jobs, it's not that they require advanced degrees just a certain type of training, a certain type of skill sets that can be gotten

at many institutions. host: next up, those who stopped looking. calling from texas. before we get to your question or comment tell me about what kind of work you were doing and how long you've been looking and why you stopped. caller: i was working at a construction site. and the reason i quit was because it paid very little. the governor of texas, ok, they gave out these contracts to these big companies constructing companies, and they give this same type of amount of money to pay every individual what they want them to pay them. the owners of these construction companies say that the governor gist them to pay

an employee $15 an hour where the owner turns around and pays you $9 an hour when it's a government project. and i think a lot of this issues should be looked at by the federal government. not just one state, because that's why you have a lot of unemployment. because they stop working and then they start looking for a better job that would sustain them because the little money they make is not enough to support individuals or your family in this country. host: very quickly before i let you go. you stopped looking for work. so how do you support yourself? caller: little odd jobs. i go with friends and do like

stuff and it tends to pay a little better but it's not an everyday thing. host: go ahead. guest: our caller does bring up a couple of really salient points about the jobs report. and the jobs situation. one is he is working construction and construction is still perhaps i would say maybe the softest area we still have in our jobs reports because of course housing is a big part of that. housing is still doing very poorly. but one other thing he brings up is wages. he was saying he weapt being paid enough. that's something else we saw from the february jobs report which is that wages are growing slightly but both in that report and over the long term we haven't seen any of those wages, people's earnings, keep pace with inflation. so people might be being paid more but they have to pay more for the everyday thing that is they need. host: i want to show our viewers the february 2012

breakdown as we've gotten from the bureau of labor statistics. >> back to the phones. host: good morning. i have three questions. first question is, ok, the republicans are talking about smaller government. why don't they just say lay off people in the government, chled -- i don't see how the

unemployment could go down if you find a whole bunch of people into government. they're probably going to reduce a lot of these people. the other question is when is inflation going to top out? because people can't afford things when they keep going higher. when will it top out? because everything keeps going up, up, and up. sooner or later you've got to pay $1 million just to get a home. the other question is the jobs that are out here, it's not enough to support a family. those are my questions. i will hang up and listen to the guests. i'm talking about the job cuts in the government. host: greg in staton. go ahead. guest: well, he does point to

another very good point which is that public sector employment has also been a soft area in the jobs reports. this last month the government cut 6,000 jobs i believe and that is actually less than it has been cutting in a lot of previous months. so as to what the g.o.p. says about wanting to make smaller government, i'm not sure that you are clearly not going to hear republican politicians say we want to lay off people in the government. in part that's what being a conservative is, is wanting smaller government. but to speak to inflation, this is an interesting point about the fed. the federal reserve is dual mandate of fostering low unemployment and also fostering price stability. now, the question is how they're going to balance that. and people worry that the many fed watchers worry that the fed is going to focus so much on

unemployment that they will allow inflation to get out of control. you especially hear this regarding the potential for more quantitative easing for what in layman's terms a lot of people call printing money. now, if the fed does do that, then the goal of that of course is to stimulate the economy monetarily but it could also stimulate inflation. so that's another good point that he brings up. host: house speaker boehner had this statement on the jobs numbers. he says three years of stimulus spending, tax hikes and excessive government regulations have left us with unemployment that has remained above 8% for 37 consecutive months and americans are increasingly worried about the amount of debt owed to countries like china. your thoughts. guest: this is perhaps the biggest argument that you hear the president's opponents make regarding job growth not being fast enough and this is what is

going to haunt the president in november the fact that unemployment will still be high then. it will still be uncomfortably high for many americans. so that's a very easy argument to make in other words is to say that the jobs should be coming more quickly. and it's hard for the president, the president would probably agree with that. i'm sure he would say you are right. but as to make -- but then again i would also say to make the case that i candidate x could do better, arguing the counter factual is also difficult. so the president has a little bit of wiggle room on that, i would say. host: we've got a tweet from jim who asks guest: i don't know the figures right in front of me but -- guest: he's got 4%.

guest: i wonder if full employment being 4% unemployment rate. but what i did read yesterday was an economist from the economic policy institute. if i'm not mistaken she said that even if we keep adding jobs at the rate of that,000 a month -- which is a little higher than yesterday -- it would still take years. it's going to take some time. i believe it was five years. i may be mistaken on that. but the long and short of that is even with job growth as strong as we've seen we're still in a very deep hole. if you look at a graph of how quickly jobs have come back from past recessions we are far below that. this is a very slow, very tough recovery from a very, very deep hole that was deeper i think than anybody suspected at first. host: when we talked about the number 4% and you said 4% unemployment in terms of the question that jim had on tweet

referring to full employment. so full employment doesn't mean exactly that everybody's working. is that right? guest: not at all. and this is something actually that has been an interesting thing to watch during or since the recession, both during it as well, is to hear economists talk about what full employment will look like. what the new normal will be. that the unemployment rate which we consider the full, at which we consider the economy to be at full employment may have changed. we may be at a place now where that could be at 6%, where that's just where the labor market, where the economy is going to be from now on. so a fundamental shift in the economy may have taken place and that means that we won't as easily see unemployment numbers get as low as they were say in the mid 2000s or in the 1990s during those boom times. we may not return to that not

in the near or medium term. host: we're talking about the federal jobs numbers that came out yesterday. the ub employment rate still holding at 8.3%. back to the phones. cincinnati, ohio. deborah is employed and on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. i finally have what i consider to be a permanent job, as permanent as you can in this economy. and it has been a long journey getting here. three years ago, i just -- i worked as an administrative assistant or customer service person for about 15 years and you just couldn't buy a job doing that. i got a job doing that and the company closed and so i went back to school. i retrained learning all things adobeie, whatever, cs 3 through 5 now. and so i just got a job at a printing company, which is

awesome. but it seems to me if republicans have their way i never would have been able to do that because i've had student loans and they want to cut student loans. it's been a really tough journey. and i'm grateful that i've been able to do this. i'm not grateful for all the taxes but i understand the correlation between the taxes that are being taken out and my paycheck and being able to help other people. it's just really important to keep recycling all of this money so that everybody has ab opportunity to better themselves, get a better job. and just keep moving on. retraining and education are the way to go. guest: and there is sort of the poster child for someone gets back into the economy and that's great. losing one job and getting retrained to get a better one and come right back into it. so -- and that's wonderful. in terms of what she said about student loans and republicans, that is something that you have heard from some of the republican presidential

candidates, the remaining ones, is talking about student loans and wanting to plans to cut back on the things like that depending on the candidate of course. one thing i would say is that they've simply said that people should perhaps pick less expensive education options and this gets back to that point about community colleges and vocational schools that a lot of the trading doesn't necessarily need to be done with excessive loans taken out. some can be done just by taking the occasional course and things like that. i think that's something else that the president has really hammered on. host: next up, ben in tennessee. he stopped looking. go ahead. caller: i lost my job as a construction operator, operating heavy equipment. and i'm just too old.

nobody will hire you after you're a 50-year-old. they'll take your application but they won't listen to you. we could have probably been working at the new pot blind that they turned down drabts turned down. and we had the over in south carolina boeing and we lost jobs in the gulf of mexico and it just goes on and on. host: so how are you making ends meet? caller: i just junk scrap iron and stuff like that. host: we'll leave it there. ben talks about being too old to get back into the job market. guest: and he didn't quite say exactly when he lost his job but that points to one problem which is long term unemployment. the people who have been unemployed for years even since

the recession and a lot of those are older workers and that is a continueding problem because even as we have seen the job market improve what we haven't seen improve is a lot of big improvements in the duration of unemployment. those people long term unemployed, many are staying unemployed and it's tough to get back into the labor force. host: mark calling from michigan state university calling from east lancing. you are employed. go ahead. caller: i think i'm looking at the wrong station right now. sorry about this. i was going to ask about employment wise what that federal government does as far as business startup and if you can give me some clues as to that. i think i have been misdirected. i'm sorry. host: ok. mark, what were you calling? guest: i was calling the phone number for c-span. host: this is crmp span.

-- c-span. we're going to leave it there. if someone is unemployment and through hook or crook or whatever by their own means they are able to start up their own business, do then they become counted as one of the employed? guest: yes. i mean, the question is really it's a question of the survey that the bureau of labor statistics does in part. what the labor department does is they send out surveys to different businesses and it's a question of how you classify yourself on that survey really is the long and short of it. so if you do get that survey and you're a new business owner and you say yes i'm employed, then you're counted as employed. host: also a similar question regarding the survey. if you're retraining, if you've been out of work for a while and you decide to go back to work to retrain yourself to move into another segment of the economy do you get counted

as being unemployed or one of the folks still not look forg a job? guest: you're not in the labor force. people who are in college -- if you say you're not seeking employment then you're not in the labor force and you're not counted. host: back to the phones. diane calling from tennessee this morning. go ahead. caller: no matter how you want to spin it, there are fewer people working now than there were when the president took office and we have spent $5 trillion. i think most people don't even think how much $1 trillion is. right here in this neighborhood there's 16 houses. four young men between the ages of 40 and 55 right when they need to be earning the most money to support their families are without a job. and if you go into social security office, you'll look, there's people in there that's

never worked a day in their life signing up for ssi. so all these people are not being counted and it's just a falsy of what they're putting out these in the newspapers. you can't believe a word they say. host: diane. guest: and what she pointed to on that last point is sort of what we got to in our first couple of questions is the unemployment figure and what it does and doesn't tell us. there are limitations to the headline figure. as she pointed out it doesn't include people who aren't looking for a job. so you are right. in a certain way it doesn't quite explain to you the full employment picture. but she also i believe she said she was from tennessee and she pointed to employment problems there. and this is another thing that really that is missed when we say there is 8.3% unemployment because you have a place like north dakota where jobs are booming, things are great. you have places like california, nevada where the

jobless situation is much worse. and so it, depending on where you are in the country that number, the news that the job situation is improving, that might not wring true for you -- ring true for you. host: in the financial times this morning. >> if they're not going to give him credit, the republicans, particularly those running to replace him see as the reasoning for the jobs creation or the numbers going up in jobs? guest: i believe i would guess what they would say is something to the effect of that it's been -- that people are starting to have more demand.

that people are willing to go out and start spending more and we have seen that. there's been more or less an increase in consumption recently. that's something that i think they would say. but then like i said earlier, there's going to be this back and forth between them and the president where they say i could do better and job gains aren't as big as they could be. the question i think come november is going to be perhaps not necessarily where the unemployment rate is. it will be high. republicans will be right about that. and i don't think the president would deny that. but come november the question might be trajectory. if the jobless rate starts for some reason whatever reason moving back upwards even if it's still below where it was at its peak, that would the a problem for the president and a lot of things could really make that happen. things like the european debt crisis is something everybody has their eye on. aside from that, you have things like last year's

earthquake in japan which really helped derail our economy quite a bit. so things we can't even see could make things worse for the president and therefore better for republicans come november. host: we've got a tweet from joseph. >> that's exactly what i was going to say. that's something the book that came out a few years ago called, this time is different, two very respected economists, what that book argues is that coming back from a financial collapse is really hard and something we're seeing is a rea realignment of our economy. coming back in the past we've been led by housing. that is clearly not something we're seeing this time. housing is not going to be a leading part of this recovery.

in fact, it's very much a lagging part. it's something that we are very slowly dragging back to where it used to be. we've seen a few improvements but not many. host: we've got another tweet. guest: you mean they're saying that could help the economy? host: the jobs going overseas threatens our economic security. guest: right. and that's a good point that when you have lower labor costs in other countries china is always an example that people bring out, that that hurts our economy. but -- and if you're a business person, if i'm a business person, i want the lowest labor costs possible.

so if that works better for a business, businesses care about their bottom line, people don't hire because they're feeling nice or feeling like boosting the u.s. economy. they hire because it helps their profits. but one thing i would point out also about china is interestingly, the chinese government said that they're going to focus less on exports which has been the driver on their economy and more on domestic consumption. they lowered their growth target which spooked market as bit earlier this week. so if china's decides to reel that in a bit, that could help the u.s. economy in that sense in terms of hiring and in terms of u.s. exports. host: we're talking with danielle, the data reporter there and previously has worked with the pew research center's project. graduated from carlton college and the elliott school at george washington university. dalton, georgia. mary is employed and is on the

"washington journal." go ahead. caller: hi. i am employed. i lost my permanent job. i'm 4 now i've worked since i was 14. i looked diligently for over two years to find a job. i finally found a part time job and recently i've add another part time job to that. i hadn't stopped looking for the full time job still to this day. i mean, every day i'm out there looking and on the internet and everywhere. it may have something to do with my age. but from what i'm understanding here in georgia and other places but for every one job that there is posted open, there's 200 to 300 people apply for this one job. and of course you're going to have a lot of younger people better educated. i do have a college education. host: what's your degree in? and how hard has it been for

you to find a job in your area? caller: it's been hornedsly hard because of all the business closing and i'm a business and accounting manager. so with all the businesses closing, especially here, i think we're probably at the top of the list as far as the whole state of georgia for unemployment. host: danielle. guest: she once again gets to that pointed she's working part time jobs and this is something she reminds me of the u-6 unemployment rate. that's a broader measure. it includes those people who are working part time for economic reasons who would rather have full time work. i would also include discouraged workers. and it includes people who have searched over the last 12 months but perhaps haven't searched since. and that rate has gone down but it's still very high. 14.9% rig

so that's a broader measure of unemployment. host: last call. caller: i have a degree in business management. host: how long have you been out of work? guest: for the last 18 months host: and why have you stopped looking guest: because in michigan the business, i've been trying to get a job. my degree is not helping me right now. the demand is just low. to me the demand is low. so i've got one question and two comments. caller: my question is how does the media with this news not let the facts be known? what i mean by facts, i'm not a person that like republicans always talking about the tax rate. you get more money in the economy that makes business have to hire because you have people more money in the

pocket. you give rich people the money all they do is save it. so the rich people when they get tax breaks all they do is put money in the and save it. so that's why there's no jobs available because there's no demand. so i don't know how you let the republicans get away, when bill clinton was the president for eight years. ronald raised taxes 8 times, president clinton raised it 6 times. those are true proven facts but the media lets the republicans get away like obama doesn't know what he is doing or tax hikes hurt the economy. it puts more money in the common person's pocket. host: we're going to have to leave it there. danielle you get the last word. guest: and he hit at one very interesting debate in politics

which is about taxes the amount of money that people have in their pockets. lots of republicans and people wo just want to keep taxes low will argue that you let people keep their money they can spend it as they see fit and that's an excellent argument but then you have people on the other side who say people need to pay taxes to the government because things like unemployment benefits, other entitlements that those get spent more quickly. that someone who is unemployed is ready and willing to spend that check and that money will get out there in the economy and move more quickly. so he does get at that very important and very salient point that we're going to keep hearing in the months leading up to november i'm sure. host: thank you for being on the program this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: in 45 minutes we'll be talking about espionage and whistleblowing but after the break a dugs on the new report putting -- discussion on the report talking about black

america.

host: joining us from new york is mark who is the president of the national urban league to talk to us about the state of black american. welcome to the program, sir. guest: great to be with you. host: your report on the state

of black america states more than the economy, more than jobs, more than an excellent education, the single issue that stands to have the greatest impact on the future of black america is the 2012 vote. why is that? guest: well, voting is probably the most fundamental american right, the most fund yamental constitutionally protected right. and this year as we look at 2012 no doubt every presidential election, every time that congress is up for reelection it is critical, it is important, it is going to determine the future of the country. this year as we begin to prepare the report we looked out and saw what i call an avalanche of new legislation being proposed around the country to make it more difficult for people to vote. these fall into the category of what we call voter suppression laws. these voter suppression laws includes very, very strict new

voter id laws cutbacks on early voting opportunities, some restrictions on absentee voting. new requirements if a nonprofit organization is going to conduct a voter registration drive. two states reversing themselves on the path where that people who have been incarcerated can go through in order to become voters again. a whole range of new legislation in 34 states. and so when we look at that, we see it as just an attack on democracy. a lot of needless legislation based on speeshes arguments hiding behind the smoke screen of fraud which could have the effect of disenfranchising many, many voters in this critical election year. so voting and the ability to participate in the process to which our elected officials are chosen is really the lynch pin of having a voice when it comes to education policy, when it

comes to jobs policy, when it comes to participating really meaningfully in the debate about the future of this nation. now, in the proposal or in the talk that you gave earlier this week at howard university, you talked about occupying the vote to educate employ and empower issues, a charge to address the economic challenges that are face bid the black community, what kind of lessons do you think that the state of black america can take from the occupy movement that we saw last spring and summer? guest: i think the idea that passion and enthusiasm and the power of people, the power of not, quote, the influential but the power of the masses if you will in communities to truly make a difference in the political process.

look, the recession, the great recession is impacted this nation significantly. it's impacted every community significantly. but it's also significantly and perhaps disproportionately impacted african americans. there's been a decline in home ownership. there's been significant increases in unemployment. this has been the effect of the great recession. so i think in saying occupy the vote, we are consistent with the time-honored embrace of that american value. let us participate as citizens, let us encourage all people to participate as citizens. let us push back against efforts in states chled make it more difficult for people to participate in the elections process. and therefore let us occupy the votes so we have a voice when it comes to the future of schools and education.

when it comes to jobs policy and fiscal policy. when it comes to the debates that are going to be taking place this year, next year and beyond about the future of this country. so we i think take lessons from the occupy movements around the nation and we are saying very squarely we are going to occupy the vote in 2012. host: we've got some figures from the national conference of state legislators talking about these voter id laws that you referred to earlier. 31 states according to them require all voters to show id before voting. in 15 of those it must be a photo id and the remaining 15 nonphoto forms of id are acceptable. why do you say these laws are restrictive and prevent people from going to the polls and

vote? guest: in many states they are limiting the type of photo id that one can use to vote. texas is a case in point where a student id issued by the university of texas because it doesn't have the student's address on it is an impermissible form of photo id for that student to vote. baw gun permit, a conceal to carry gun permit is a permissible form of id in order to vote in the state of texas under their new law. they were in such haste to pass a more strict voter id law that the governor there waived certain legislative requirements and declared it as emergency legislation. so people shouldn't look at the surface. the fact is that there is restrictions being placed on the type of voter id that one can use to vote. secondly, and this is

important. maybe one -- and i cite the new york university study in support of this. one in ten americans do not have the kind of voter id that many of these states -- new state laws contemplate. case in point. in the primary in ohio just this past week a world war ii army veteran presented himself to vote. now, he had voted for some 30, 40 years. he presented himself to vote, presented his veterans id card and was denied the right to vote saying this card does not meet the requirements of ohio law. so the consequences here are going to be broader. we're talking about voting, democracy. the constitution. we're not talking about cashing a check. we're not talking about a financial trade. we're talking about voting, democracy, a bedrock principle

of the united states of america. so one in ten americans do not have the kind of photo id that many of these laws contemplate. and then one in four african americans may not have the kind of photo id that these laws contemplate. so here we are where many colleagues of mine in the civil rights movement and elected officials and others have spent a week in alabama john lewis, al sharpton. many. celebrating that great great effort to expand democracy through the voting rights act while at the same time you've got states across the nation who are enacting new laws to make it more difficult to vote. i ask the question and i ask the question why now.

host: we're taking your calls. our first call for you comes from new jersey. democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: i keep hearing a lot about voter suppression issue in fact my grandfather went out to try to vote. he actually fought in world war ii and was unable to do so. my question though is what are we doing? where is our thurgood marshals? what are we doing in the legal system to try to address this? is it time to call out holder?

what is the body politic that is responsible for ensuring that these kinds of things don't happen? it's one thing to talk about it but what are we doing as a country to make sure that this does not continue? we've got to stop this before the 2012 election. host: mark. guest: it's a great question. so first of all, the department of justice attorney general holder, assistant attorney tom pers of the civil rights division have in fact blocked south carolina through the use of section 5 of the voting rights act from implementing their voter id law. secondly in the state of wisconsin this week a circuit court judge in wisconsin in a lawsuit brought by the naacp legal defense fund issued a temporary injunction against

wisconsin's new voter id law. i think there are efforts under way by the naacp legal defense fund and many, many others to pursue legal strategies to prevent many of these laws from taking effect. what i would say to people who may be out there listening and that is to find out if your state has a pending bill and argue, lobby, educate, and mobilize against the bill. one of the things we have to do is try to prevent this expansion while at the same time looking at ways to both legally and politically challenge. the third thing i might mention in the category is the state of maine what has had the same day registration and voting meaning you can go on election day, register on the site and vote on the site. their governor and legislature repealed that provision. their voters in a referendum

reversed that repeal and reinstated that. so there are some important steps being undertaken. one of our rolls at the national urban league is to educate people. and that's why we launched this week at howard university what we call the occupy the vote effort and the occupy the vote election center so people can go to i am in power.com. we have a web page at occupy the vote web page where information about voting, about voter registration, laws, about voter suppression laws will be available at that web page. there's been two great pieces of research on this subject. one by new york university's brennan center for justice. the other by our frebbeds and colleagues at the naacp league defend fund and the naacp defending democratsy.

so those two reports are available on libe. we encourage people to go to our occupy website educate yourself, officials, community leaders, people interested in democrat sifment one of the things that's just always interesting to me is how we as a nation can invest trillions of dollars. promoting democracy abroad in iraq or afghanistan. while at the same time right here at home taking steps which make it more difficult for people to participate. host: speaking of participating in the democratic system, we want to get in another call for mark. john from michigan is our next caller on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i'm 68 years old. i don't have any problem showing a picture id when i

vote. now, here's something that i might suggest to you. we have a lot of people in this country that are on some type of assistance, welfare, whatever. now, here's a question. why don't we when they come down to apply for these benefits, why don't we have it so they can get an id then? i'm sure that would cover most of the people here that you're talking about covering with a picture id. i think that's a good solution to this problem. host: mark. guest: i think the caller makes references that -- and i think this is an argument some people make that if you're going to have a photo id requirement you should make it easier for people to get the id, you should allow not just one type of id or another type of id but multiple forms of identification. and that's really one of the

points here is that in my own home state of louisiana there's been a requirement since 1996 or 1997 for there to be a photo id but it's a broad requirement and then if one forgets their photo id there's a series of challenge questions they are asked and they can vote by correctly answering the challenge questions which have to do with one's name, mother's maiden name, profile. so i think the idea here is one of our problems with the current new wave of laws is that it restricts the type of imp d that one can use. it makes it narrow. it makes it as though it's a game. do i have the right id or do i need this? or do i need another id? suppose i've got a drivers license and in the last three months i've moved and i show up at a new polling place and the drivers license address doesn't match where i'm voting now.

then in some states the elections official can deny you the right to vote. so we're talking about democrat racksy, we're talking about the right to vote here. host: next up. gary on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i think your guest makes a big mistake. he says that this is the biggest problem in the black community. in fact the biggest problem in the black community is out-of-wedlock birth and this voting issue affects us all. and i would tell your listeners to go see john funds book called stealing elections how voter fraud threatens our democracy. now, it's simply unbelievable that people can't get a photo id today. you need a photo id to fly. you need an id to get a library book. host: let's move off of that for a little while.

you mentioned out-of-wed lock births why do you think that's the biggest problem in black america? caller: because it causes every dysfunction imaginable. if kids don't have two parents they're disadvantaged. and why doesn't the black community deal with that? in fact our whole country is not dealing with this. it affect it is hispanic community the white community. and we are just destroying our whole country. host: mark your response. guest: i'm not going to delve into but i think there are people who would tell you that being in a bad relations, being out of a relationship is better than being in a bad relationship. and there's no doubt that family challenges, problems of disconnected youth are problems that face the nation. but what i would challenge gary on is on the idea that the

national urban league is competent after 102 years to define what is most important for african american and urban communities. we're nonpartisan, we didn't show up yesterday. and this threat to voting because so much of the progress of this nation has come through the expansion of the vote. whether it was in the early 1900s and women got an opportunity to vote in the 1960s when african americans were given protection so that they could vote consistent with our numbers in the population, it has given us an opportunity to better address the kinds of problems that gary certainly may be concerned about. the problems of family dysfunction that do exist not only in the plaque community but i think he is right amongst many, many americans today. but what i would say is that's why one of our great concerns in this report in addition to voting has been the concern about the effect of cutbacks in

public investments when it comes to youth. we have had layoffs of teachers. how can that be good for the young people of america when teachers are laid off? we've had significant cutbacks in certain youth employment programs. we had a vigorous summer jobs program two years ago now we have basically phil busters in congress that do not want to make that kind of investment. the president proposed it in his american jobs act. so one can be concerned about a problem but i think the more important question is what are the steps that we're going to take? the other thing i would say to many, many listeners and i hear this all the time, why isn't the african american community concerned about things like violence or -- and the problem is that many people who say that do not have experiences in those places where african americans listen to important messages. like in the church and in the community centers. the discussion about many of these very critical issues does not necessarily get played out

in the media. it does get played out in the community. it is an area of deep concern. it is something that you see so many community groups working on in cities all across the nation. so what you see sometimes on television portrayed out on television or here in mass media doesn't always reflect accurately fully or completely. i think the real concern that you will hear inside of many of the places i've talked about in the community. host: mark is the president of the national urban league, president and c.e.o. and is talking to us about the findings of the national urban league's state of black america report. part of that deals with economics and employment. i wanteded to read to you part of an editorial that was in this morning's wall street journ al and it says there are a few troubling signs.

your thoughts about the state of black america from an employment and economic perspective and how is that going to play in the black communities support of president obama in november? guest: a couple of things. it's good to see the "wall street journal" editorialize with concern about the disparity in unemployment and some of the very same things that we've talked about for many, many years. as well as something we've

talked about in the state of black america the concern that the recovery is a recovery for all people. what i would say about that is that we could make a lot more progress in addressing some of those structural concerns that the "wall street journal" identifies if people would take a good strong look at the national urban league's 12-point jobs plan if the people in congress would schedule an up or down vote on the president's american jobs act. i agree with the analysis of the "wall street journal." i think the question is, is why don't we have more action to try to reduce that disparity in unemployment. and i think that's where there's a very important issue. i would say about president obama i think administratorly with the american jobs act the president heard concerns that

my colleague and i have shared with the president in two meetings we held about the plaque jobs situation, about the urban jobs situation, about the problem of hispanic and latino americans all who are disproportionately stuck at the bottom of the economy and the need for his administration to take some specific steps. with the american jobs act. i think the ppt did offer a number of specific steps that would help with the problems that the "wall street journal" rightfully pointed out. but let's be clear. those provisions, that proposal has yet to even get a full complete fair debate on the merits in the senate or in the congress of the united states. and while the congress of the united states this week came to some agreement over a small small business bill, what i

would ask them to do would be to schedule an up or down vote, filibuster, set the filibuster aside in cincinnati. don't have long--- in the senate, don't have long winded hearings in the house schedule an up or down vote in the american jobs afpblgt it would help us put some young people to work this summer. it would create a whole host of important things that would go to helping to close some of these gaps. it is a long-term challenge that the nation faces. as to how to make sure that this recovery that is beginning to take hold, beginning, early, early, doesn't buy pass certain citizens in this country. host: we're talking about the national urban league's state of black america report and what it means to the u.s. our next call comes from larry in ohio on our line for

democrats. you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: thank you for take mig call. i was calling in response to actually the voter suppression issue about identification. as a democrat i've watched this. and i actually am in agreement with having some type of identification, picture identification. but i do believe the republicans are purposefully trying to suppress the vote by pushing this so hard. in ohio we just came out with a law that you have to present for a commercial drivers your physical identification to the dmv by 2014. once they come out with a law, they give us time to get everything in order. with this issue about the voter id, the republicans don't seem to be giving people ample time

by saying ok this is the law we want to put in effect but by the next election, 2008, everybody has to -- 2018 everybody has to have all their ducks in a row. host: larry in to that, i would like to add this -- guest: young voters tend to disproportionately not have a photo id law. older voters do not. picture this. you are a 80-year-old senior citizen, loading in the same

voting place for 60 years and you do not have a driver's license because you do not drive anymore. then there is this new requirement for a specific photo id to vote in the same place i have been voting for 60 years. the question is, why are we erecting barriers? people use the argument of fraud. if you look at the whole thing, one is more likely to be struck by lightning than there is a case of voter fraud to be brought down by a voter. you have had a voting irregularities by voting officials -- the secretary of state in indiana ran into trouble erupted to these issues. a photo id requirements will

not stop this. this in some places is a solution in search of a problem. many states -- i am in new york today. we are headquartered in new york. in new york, everyone does not drive. they are more reliant on public transit to get around. so, if a person says doesn't everyone have a driver's license? now. everyone does not have a passport. if they do not travel internationally, they may not have a need and a passport is not free. since the beginning of this republic, it has been more the norm than the exception that people could present themselves, sign a sworn statement, and

present themselves to vote. now, all of a sudden, in the advance of this 2012 election, there has been an avalanche of states. the truth there is a hint behind a curtain. there are those behind the curtain seeking to encourage legislators and states to pass these more restrictive voter i.d. laws, writing doppler legislation. -- breaking up regular -- legislation. this is an orchestrated political effort that is motivated by trying to make it more difficult to certain younger voters, older voters, low-income voters, voters of color. we are talking about it now. we are raising these issues now because this is an important issue. democracy works best when more of a nation's citizens

participate. that is what we want. that should be our goal -- high voter turn of, maximum participation. >host: our goal is maximum participation from viewers. tennessee. republican line. al, you are on the "washington journal." >> i understand the goal -- caller: i understand what the purposes of the urban league -- to get as many constituents of his register to vote for the people they want in debate office been. most of the money in this organization takes in is government funding. i am looking at your latest statement of activities for the end of 2008. you have $17 million, the

largest amount of your funding coming from the government. my problem is when are you do in terms of lobbying is not right. you're taking my money in terms of tax revenue, and you are using it to lobby for obama tos -- obama's jobs that, lobby against the voter i.d. initiatives. all the things you are doing you are doing with my money. host: we will leave it there and let mr. -- and let mr. morial way in. >> unfortunate -- guest: unfortunately, al is absolutely wrong. we get government funding tied to programs. we also very proudly have the support of many private

businesses, private individuals from across the nation. government funds are never used to support any persons that do what i'm doing here on this television program today. so, i think you need to correct al in sort of looking at part of the financial statement, which is public, and not looking at the entire financial statement that we have. we are proud of what we do. we are 102 years old. we have had relationships with the government since the eisenhower administration. whether it is president bush, president obama, where president clinton, where we see a public benefits -- public policy that benefits, we will educate people. we will talk about its benefits. we will urge the congress to do

the right thing with respect to the people that we represent, and the people that we represent, for the benefit of all the viewers, and the people we serve, are not only african- americans. we serve 25% people other than african-americans in our after- school programs, in our job- training programs, in our early childhood programs, in our housing foreclosure programs. we do not just serve african- americans. we focus of an african-american communities, but we support people of all economic disadvantage. if you are in one of the 97 communities that we are yet, and you need help, we in encourage you to visit eight urban league affiliate. we are proud of what you do with what we do. host: we are talking about the report on the state of black

america, which viewers and listeners can find a at iamempowered.com, and according to an article we got off of bet.com, the report includes essays on a range of topics, including all code should i go to college," -- "should i go to college," and "black men killing black men. could you address those? guest: we strongly support people going to college. those that attend college have a lower unemployment rate. we want to make sure that those that want to go and wants to finish get that opportunity. we want to encourage them, motivate them, and insure that it is affordable.

it is a deep -- there is a deep problem of violence in urban communities -- black-on-black violence it is a deep, deep problem that many of us are concerned about, and many of us have worked very hard to forestall. what i would say is the jobs situation exacerbates the problem of violence. you know, i am not here to set is the only reason, the only answer, but i do believe that this country should invest in providing job opportunities for teenagers and young adults. i think the long run benefits and the short run benefits far outweigh any expense, and the investment, or any cost that we have. i also think we have to confront easy access to guns, and also

the fact that we have not been able to sustain in this country a comprehensive approach to the problem of drugs and narcotics. this is a big discussion, and we can always touched on it shortly today. host: let's get back to the phones. david, on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i happen to have grown up in two communities. today i am a high-tech robotics engineer and executive, and i am deeply concerned that a lot of the issues are structural from a jobs standpoint, this cetera -- etc.. i would like to talk to you

about solutions. if you go to thereisa magicbullett.com, we list some there. i am concerned that if on in plymouth ever goes down to normal levels -- or in plymouth ever goes down to normal levels, it will not significantly change the state of urban america. host: marc morial? guest: this is a long discussion, but the issue of structural problems is something very real. one of the things that struck me when this recession began was to look at what has happened to the bottom two-thirds of the american workers in this country, and how their wages

barely kept pace with inflation over the last 30 years, but if you were lucky to be in the top 20%, 25%, your wages -- your income out-paced inflation. he is right. there are some structural issues that are difficult to deal with in a charged political environment, but i appreciate david, and i will take a look at his website. host: george, a republican line, hudson, florida, on "washington journal" with marc morial. caller: good morning. i have a few things that have to ask mr. morial. what does he not understand about one person, and one vote? voter i.d. does insure we have one person, one vote.

not having a voter i.d. has people voting more than once. my mother died when she was 99 years old. she had a voting id. this is ludicrous. there is no reason why a person can not get an id. it does not cost anything. it is not a driver's license. host: mr. morial? -- thought it is interesting. in the case of his mother, -- guest: it is interesting. in the case of his mother, if his mother voted 20 years ago, it was rare that they had to present voter i.d.. why are we trying to create new barriers? we're not talking about cashing a check. you need an id to fly, but you do not need one to board a

train, board a autobus, or get in a taxi. there is a reason related to safety that one needs want to fly on an airplane. this avalanche of new -- new, new, new voter i.d. laws -- we are talking about new voter idea laws -- id laws, it is inconsistent with democracy. one at the voting polls in many states will sign a sworn statement. if you misrepresent yourself on that sworn statement you could be subject to a jail term of five years or a very heavy fine. there are penalties in place for voter fraud. one caller had a great idea and said why not set all of this aside because even if you agree with it, it is not fair to begin to change the rules so close to

a critical and important election. so, once again, one out of 10 voters in this nation do not have the type of idea this new legislation contemplates. one out of four african americans do not have it. i would encourage people listening today to quickly learn what the requirements are in your state because we will resist these requirements, while at the same time saying to people we have to do everything -- if we have to storm the dmv, 25 blocks in order to get everyone what they need in order to vote, then we are just not going to tolerate that people will be denied the right to vote. we are saying that you will have one voter i.d. this year, and two years and now somebody

will say let's present two forms. this has the opportunity to turn into higher barriers. host: the next town comes -- call comes from a town where you used to be mayor, new orleans, louisiana. caller: thank you for accepting my call and thank you for your years s. mayer. on the subject of voter i.d., i want to know how much we are doing to get this message out? i watch media all the time. i do not know how much they are truly letting the community know that this is truly an issue. we can do what we can do, but if people do not know, they will be

stocked -- stock, and that will be devastating. host: gloria in new orleans. mr. morial, last word. guest: thank you, gloria. like so many people around the nation, you are a community leader at the grass-roots level, and one of the reasons why we themed our vote around occupied the vote is so we can begin now, in march, to educate people in the community. i would ask you and others that are listening to help us get the word out about these laws and requirements. let's help people understand what the requirements are in their state so that they are not surprised. let us also undertake a and lend our voices to the movement that

voter suppression -- making participation in democracy more difficult -- is inconsistent with american values, it is consistent with this nation as the leading nation in the world when it comes to democracy. we have to resist. each of us has to learn the rules in our state. thank you for having me. host: marc morial, talking to us from new york city. thank you for being on the program. we'll take a break, and when we come back, a look at the espionage act, whistle-blowers, and the implications here on "washington journal." we will be right back after this break. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] ♪ >> fire j. edgar hoover? i do not think the president could've gotten away with it. >> tim weiner details the fbi's hidden history. hoover -- >> hoover stands alone like a statue. he was one of the most powerful men that ever served in washington in a 20th-century. 11 presidents, 48 years, from woodrow wilson to richard nixon -- there is no one like him. a great deal of what we know, where we think we know about j.

edgar hoover is legend. >> tim weiner on enemies, a history of the fbi sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span compel it c-span's "q&a." >> there are two ways to watch the tucson festival of books. today, jeffrey rosen and the history of the supreme court, then panels on science, then mexico's drug war. sunday, panels continue with the environment, the great depression, the american west, studying the brain, and then bernie madoff. throughout the weekend, look for coverage streaming live on tv daughter board. -- booktv.

congratulations to all of this year's winners of the big deal documentary competition. a record number and enter the video on the theme the constitution in view. watch all of the winning videos at our website and join us mornings in april as we show the top 27 videos on c-span. we will talk with the winners during "washington journal." >> "washington journal" continues. host: stephen vladeck joins us. he is here to talk to us about the espionage act and whistle- blowers. your -- the official title is the espionage act of 1917 and it was designed to punish americans that gave aid to enemies.

who does this law cover? guest: the lot is not particularly distinct about who it covers. it applies to anyone who retransmits information, and delivers it, or someone who willfully retains classified information. so, although it is titled the -- the espionage act, it drew no distinctions, which is part of the issues we have seen with the wikileaks affair and so on. host: originally, the act was written to cover the -- cover people who worked in the government, correct >> guest: the concern was you would have individuals that would have access to what the statute called intermission related to the national defence, which predates the idea of classified information. the idea was to focus on folks

in the government who might be feeding information to military enemies -- germany in world war one, germany, italy, japan in world war two. the statute was not written precisely. it does not require that you be a government employee, or your intent be to help the foreign power, or that you even be the initial person that receive the information. the problem is the act tries to solve a problem that we all agree exists, but with a broad sword rather than a scalpel. host: some controversy has arisen given the broad reach, and part of it is the reason for exchange between jaek trapper of abc news and jay carney, white house press secretary. this is what was asked, and how

it was responded to. [video clip] >> the white house keeps praising -- vice president joe biden does the in his statement. how does that square with the united states to try to stop aggressive journalism by using the the espionage act to take whistle-blowers to court? you have invoked the six times, and before the obama administration it was invoked three times. this is the sixth time you are suing a cia officer for allegedly providing information about cia torture. certainly, there seems to be a disconnect here. you want aggressive journalism abroad, but not in the united states. >> well, i think we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of

reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring story of oppression and brutality to the world. i think that is commendable, and it is certainly worth noting by us. as somebody who knew both anthony and marie, i particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the american people. as for other cases, again without addressing any specific case, there are issues here that involve highly sensitive, classified information, and i think that those that aren't divulging those is a serious issue ended always has been. host: stephen vladeck, your response?

-- thought i think it is interesting that jay carney goes to what is at issue. the espionage act was not simply about all information the government thinks is important. it was designed to not look like the official secrets act that britain has. the espionage act is about the specific concern of disclosing national security secrets during wartime and pose a threat to our national security. if you look at some of the six cases to which the question referred, it is hard to see how disclosure of this information is that all harmful to national security as opposed to finding government illegality, wasteful spending, so, the concern is not the government should not have the power to go after those that are leaking information on troop movements, nuclear secrets, weapons systems, et cetera, but

the question is where we draw the line between those disclosures and disclosures of information that is being kept secret heitor for illicit or merely embarrassing -- item for illicit or merely embarrassing reasons. the: we're talking about espionage act and whistle- blowers. you can also send us messages by e-mail, twitter, and facebook. the first call, florida, on our line for independents, richard. caller: good morning. this has been confused here. i was reading the report from arizona law enforcement on the

.resident's birth certificate law enforcement did an investigation, and they looked at 10 specific points. host: we're talking about the espionage act and whistleblowers, so unless you can make a direct line, and i mean direct line to the espionage act, we are going to move on. caller: i can make a direct line. this man was not vetted. look at the people he hung around with intelligence and in the 1990's. we do not know. host: ralph, in syracuse, new york on our line for democrats. caller: i have a comment and a question. i am a uaw host -- worker from

upstate new york. was eugene debs not locked up for speaking out against world war ii under the espionage act? guest: he was thrown in jail related to world war i. part of the issue is there is not a lot of case law on the question of when you can use the espionage act. the most famous cases not you john deere -- eugene debs. it is the pentagon papers from vietnam. the washington -- the "washington post kulka wanted to publish how the u.s. got involved, and the government tried to obtain an injunction. if the supreme court famously said you cannot do that. to restrain publication you have to have the greatest national security issues -- interest. interestingly in that case, justice white said we cannot

stop the press from running the story, but we may be -- we may be able to prosecute them after the effect for doing so. -- the fact for doing so. part of what is lurking in the background is the unanswered question of whether the first amendment what actually provide whistle blowers, the press, with some kind of defense should they be prosecuted by the government for disclose and even harmful national-security secrets. host: monte, arizona. caller: none good morning. concerning the topic of discussion, the espionage act and whistle-blowers, it seems to me that this administration is using acts that were enacted along time ago more prevalent lee -- prevalent.

the press covers the republican situation, but a lot of things and the administration is doing seem to be minimized, especially by the press secretary for the president. he never gives this straight answer for anything. he is always dodging this way or that way. i would think that the media and the press ought to get a hold of this and investigate a little bit and see what is going on. host: on top of that, i want to put this tweet up from chris in alabama. host: any evidence to show that the administration's use of the

espionage act is having any effect on reporting or whistle blowing? guest: the evidence we have is circumstantial, but the exchange that we show -- have shown, shows the press has been on top of the story, and they walk a fine line because they understand just what the stakes are and how important it is for the media to be able to report on these kinds of stories, and to also not risk the ire of did administration which has these tools. if you talk to mainstream media folks, they're very aware of these prosecutions. i do not know that they abetted direct impact on how news gathering has been undertaken, but it is a shadow hovering over national security journalism, especially in the war on terrorism, and i think that is unfortunate. if we think about high-profile

exposures on these programs, like water boarding, extraordinary rendition -- these are all government programs that only came to light because of leaks that are presumably prohibited by the espionage act. host: this tweet -- concealing the lego activities against the law, so why do whistle-blowers' receive hatred? prosecution? at.y wear a white hea guest: we are asking people to risk their career. the response you will hear from the government is we have federal whistle-blower statute designed to protect those the have legitimate whistle-blower plants. the problem is there are gaps in those statutes and they do not

cover the situation of national security whistleblowing because they all presume that the information you are revealing is not a legal merely to reveal -- illegal merely to reveal. that is the trick here. is there a way to modernize the statutes to allow for whistleblowing even on questions of sensitive national-security secrets? that might be the next step, but so far this administration and the past administration has shown no stepped -- step. host: we are talking about the espionage act of 1917. our guest this stephen vladeck, constitutional law professor at american university's college of law. our next call comes from fort wayne, indiana, jim, on our line for republicans. caller: aggressive journalism

now with the patriot act act basically means rewarded by the espionage act. if you look at wikileaks, where foreign leaders were charging hillary clinton was spying on them, i would recommend a book called "beautiful souls" are you familiar with it? guest: the question is how to draw the balance. how do we put on one side the government's interest in keeping things secret, and then our interest in trying to figure out what the government is up to it and how we hold them accountable? historically, that as been the function of a free press, which has the necessary to inform the electorate. we have one coming up in november. is it reasonable to expect voters to act upon what we are doing with respect to national security and our military's

actions overseas? the media plays a critical role, but their ability to play that role depends on the ability to not customary look over their shoulder. the government has never brought the espionage act prosecution of a reporter, but the concern is the more aggressive lead the government goes after leaders and individuals who received leaked information, the closer we are to crossing that line, and that is where wikileaks comes in. host: new york, new york, david, on our line for independents. caller: i wanted to ask your guest on what he thought about the espionage act, coming up on one century, and it seems that

the opportunity that we had to roll back the society of secrecy, it does not seem like a lasting effect sustained. i wanted to ask what you thought the future of this secrecy was, even looking s someone s ostensibly liberal as president obama it is -- as ostensibly liberal as president obama is prepared -- is. guest: it is a great question. it is not surprising that presidents of any political stripe will favor secrecy, but it is in the interest of presidents to also preserve their ability to act without anyone knowing what is going on. the church committee is a great

example. it was a concerted effort in the 1970's to expose what the government had been up to. i think it was massively successful in helping to build a public record about what was going on, about what the government had actually been keeping secret from the american people. the problem is after 9/11 there was a renewed interest in keeping things secret. the scale has ticked toward the government. the real issue is can the one party in position to impose checks and constraints, congress, can they take it up in no way that will not look like it is a partisan witch hunt, democrats going after republicans, where republicans going after the democrats? senator ben cardin introduce legislation that would modernize the espionage act before the wikileaks affair broke, and i

think the government pulled the reaction to that took the wind out of the sales. host: middleton, indiana, john, on our line for republicans. caller: been good morning. stephen vladeck, i would like to ask you a question. as i read history, i am totally in all of the fact that it keeps getting repeated. i go back to the rainbow plans -- war plans in world war ii. can you talk of of how that is similar to the wikileaks, -- talked about how that is similar to the wikileaks, and how that comes into the espionage act? guest: it is a great question. the most famous episode is not the rainbow plan. there is a great story about how the chicago -- "chicago tribune published that the

reason america had won the battle of the midway was because we had broken japanese naval codes. there are a lot of episodes were secrets had been revealed where had they been found out by the wrong people, it could've been damaging to national security. there is a distinction to draw. wikileaks is at a different problem in so far as what they are up to is not posting -- posting documents but individual operations, but they are in the business of massive and undifferentiated disclosures of thousands of government documents with no agenda or intent other than transparency, with the idea that the public should decide which secrets should and should not be kept. i think it is still problematic. some of the disclosures indicate some of the concerns of these historical episodes, but i would

think that we as a society we want to differentiate between individuals that are disclosing classified information for the sole purpose alarming and is against us were weakening national security, individuals that are doing so odd of a sense of moral obligations to help our country, individuals doing so for money, individual therapist of their bosses -- these are different scenarios, the them that their bosses -- these are different scenarios. host: washington state. you are on the ""washington journal" with stephen vladeck. caller: this might not be directly to the point, but very close, i am referring to the occupied movement around the country. -- occupying movement around

the country. there was a phone call from homeland security to 28 neighbors, where shortly thereafter the real violence was brought, and as i saw it, really by the police. is that considered part of -- a ibm saying they should release those phone calls, -- i am saying they should release those phone calls and what their role is internally, that i'm sure is kept secret, and yet it is simply our citizens standing up for what they consider to be there rights. prior to that, it was totally civil. host: if what he is saying is true, and someone gets that information and releases it, would that be a violation of the espionage act? if you call it would be a stretch, a hard -- guest: it would be a stretch, hard to show

that that is related to national defense. the problem is there's a little case law interpreting the statute, that i think the question could be could do even bring a possible indictment under the statute? that is where uncertainty causes trouble. the government is as aware of the obligations imposed as of we the public are unaware of the -- what it creates. a lot of information could fall into that gap, and i think we could understand it common sense understanding of what relates to national defense. host: you have mentioned wikileaks a couple of times. talk about the case regarding bradley manning. is he being prosecuted under the espionage act, and as the prosecution extend beyond him to

some of the civilians he allegedly passed information on to? guest: he is being prosecuted in a court martial, and one of the charges is that he violated the espionage act by will fully disclosing the information to wikileaks. the bradley manning case is one of the cases we hear refer to. what is interesting about the case is what you suggest -- who else might be liable? as yet, there have not been public charges filed. there is widespread speculation that the government either has or might soon pursue an indictment against julian assange, the founder of wikileaks. that is where we crossed the line earlier. the espionage act has only been used once in its history to go

after someone other than the original thief of government information, and that was in 2005, when the government went after two lobbyists. that case fell apart. if the government was going to go after julian assange for disclosing information he received on his web site, the next question is why could the government not go after "the new york times" for publishing the same tables? -- tables? that is where we run into serious first amendment questions. host: cut "the new york times" say the information was already past, allegedly, from bradley manning to julian assange, and we're just reporting on the activity? guest: that would obviously be one of the defenses, but the

problem is the text of the espionage act. it draws no distinction between the original per loiter of the information, and anyone who receives it downstream. the statute makes it a crime for anyone was not authorized to possess information related to the national defence, to repayment, retransmit it, etc. the argument is not that it does not apply, but that it violates the first amendment. certain individuals and members of the public have a right to talk about things they have seen them their best. they have a right to further communicate the information that is already in the public domain, whether legally or not. the concern is what is the difference between the person who puts it in the public domain, and the people that spread it to rock the public domain? -- throughout the public domain.

host: hon still, alabama. -- hunstville, alabama. caller: the man you featured, jake tapper, he will be on the watch, but if you look at someone like into piper, who i personally think was murdered, what you think [unintelligible] guest: that is a different question. it is more about when we can use military force. there is a big debate about whether the ndaa authorizes the detention of united states citizens in the united states. that is a different question than whether individuals can be

prosecuted in ordinary federal court for communication they undertake. i think there is a temptation to blur the line between criminals and military enemies, and we have to be able -- careful to preserve it. no matter what we might think about wikileaks, or espionage, the mere fact that someone is disclosing information might be violating the espionage act does not subjected to military force, and if it did it would be a dangerous line to cross. host: our next call for stephen vladeck comes from north dakota. mark, and our line for republicans. caller: the guest said "dthe fre press, walks a tightrope, and i would say there is no free

press. we are facing a threat from iran and it was said that communist china continues to share ballistic missile and nuclear technology with iran, and senator jim rice said chinese companies are selling nuclear technology to north korea and iran and they're both state sponsors of terrorism. the people of the afghanistan are no thread compared to the leader of the excess of evil, the communist of -- communist china. this is never framed properly. there's a link at my website. host: stephen vladeck? guest: the notion that we do not

have free press is a notion that most members of the press would debate. one thing we can take some comfort in is how seriously injured list of taken the important -- how important a role information takes in the public. technology has changed the question of how we keep tabs on the government, how we inform ourselves in a ticket and civilized societies. if you read what the newspapers themselves have said about their decisions to publish stories like the wiretapping program, the wikileaks table -- the editor of "the new york times koko has published a series of personal reflections on what kind -- times" has published a series of personal reflections on what kind of questions are asked.

there were any number of times when the bush administration, the obama administration tried to stop stories from running, but it was the power of the press that led us to learning about these programs, at least more than what we knew before the press was involved. host: we have a tweet. guest: i think that is a fair critique. we talked about this a little before. these are more about revealing information on the legality of the government, or wasteful spending and misuse of funds. thomas draper was prosecuted because he correctly informed the government officer -- i'm sorry, the reporter, about wasteful spending at the nsa,

and how they turned down a cheaper program. the problem is a line between administrative secrecy and national security secrecy has blurred because the government has this position that even understanding how these agencies operate in non-highly secure settings might take the picture. it is called the mosiac theory. the idea that the more information these agencies could have of even the ordinary workings of our institutions, the more they understand our capabilities. host: we have a call from al in hawaii on our line for democrats. caller: a lull -- a few issues -- has there been a true effort to reconcile the disparity

between the existing act and what needs to be done for the future? more importantly, you look at websites like krypton, which try to reveal not easily understood information about a minute -- the matrix of the intelligence of the structure and the reality of government as it actually tries to impede open- sourcing of all of the problems with whistle-blowers attempting to rebuild the valid issues, where do we go with this? but organizations really are justifiably making headway to make sure the stuff does not get in bed and the public never has access? guest: the real problem here,

and what does been lurking in the background is over- classification. at the root of all of these cases is this widely shared belief that the government keeps weight too much information secret -- various information should not be kept secret because it is not about national security. if the real question is, is there a way to tackle over- classification, such that we will not see this need for all of this whistleblowing in the national security context? there are organizations devoted to it. there is the national security archive, the federation of american scientists have spent a lot of time, the government itself has made some steps to change the classification regime for the better, but i think the short answer is and so we systematically tackle the problem that is way too easy to classify governmental

information and way too hard to declassified, this will be a recurring issue. that is why leaking is hardly new to the obama administration. host: the senate judiciary committee has a hearing tuesday looking at issues regarding the freedom of information act. you brought up over- classification. is there any chance they will discuss over-classification, and if there are some relaxation, maybe some of these other -- that the espionage act would not necessarily have to be invoked? guest: i think it is not likely. the current debate is on far more technical grounds of all responding to supreme court decisions and fixing small holes in the statute. the freedom of information act is the important act.

the problem is one of the most important exemptions as the national security exemption -- the notion that government can declined to turn over documents we have requested simply because it is related to national security. i think they are part of the conversation, but it is really a band-aid to the question of over-classification. the way to tackle over- classification is internally, and not through extern the organization's -- not a externally. host: we're talking to stephen vladeck about the espionage act of 1917 and was aboard. our next call comes on the independent line from john. caller: security is very important during wartime. there has not been a declaration

of war since world war two, and security is mixed up since then, because we have these military operations all over the world and that are important, and security should be important, but they do not have the protection of a declaration of war. also, i would like to comment on the statement earlier about the rainbow. that was just ignorance on the part of the reporter. he was not aware, probably, that he was really revealing something that should not be revealed. host: stephen vladeck, does the declaration of war play into the way the espionage act is administered? guest: it has not historically. we have not declared war since world war two, but that has not stopped us from treating national security secrets as just as important, if not more important. that is a reasonable conclusion.

presumably, our nuclear secrets does not turn of the fact that it is wartime or not. our ability to protect ourselves from future attacks does not depend on wartime. the bigger question is should the government have to make a heightened showing regarding information that is not about direct national defence when it comes to how we should be able to keep things secret when engaging in surveillance and conducting, the debt terrorism operations? here, the line has blurred since 9/11 between treating terrorism as a criminal concept and as a mineral -- military operation. that is where the the problem arises. the question becomes can we blur the line between ordinary law enforcement tools and the less restrictive field of military intelligence and military operation?

the espionage act will be on the table as part of this until we address the larger problem, over-classification, the media's right to know, leaking as opposed to spying -- effected is not technically wartime will matter less and less in that conversation. host: stephen vladeck, teaches and researchers, his focus is on constitutional law, and he is with the american university college of law. thank you for being on "washington journal." guest: thank you. host: tomorrow, we have the author of "why we hate the oil companies." we will also have political coddle -- columnist tom baxter, and a discussion on the mission of u.s. special forces and their training with