rdham university, he spoke. >> continued efforts at transparency as an important government interest and not just to keep the press off its back. when it's back is against the wall. that is easier said than done. transparency is hard. the reality is that it is much easier to classify something then it is to declassify it. bureaucratice biases against declassifying something once it is classified. put ten national security officials in a room to discuss declassifying a fact, they will say i am for transparency in principle, at least 7 will be concerned about second-order effects. someone will say "this is really hard, we need to think about it some more." the meeting is adjourned, the officials go onto more pressing matters.

last year, we declassified the basics of the u.s. military pot cap towers and -- the u.s. military's counterterrorism activity in yemen and somalia. it was a long and difficult process to get there. certain people in the white house persevered. we said publicly and officially what we were doing. as far as i can tell, the world has not come to an end. >> that event is available on our website, cspan.org. president obama expected to johnson this afternoon. leftover john c-span starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern from the rose garden. -- live coverage on c-span. the syrian envoy to the u.s. will speak in washington at 11:00 eastern, we will have live coverage. for guys like us who have been in the game for a long

time, we know that there are landmines and that you have to be careful about the way you manage these things. issues to do with abortion in race, care of, israeli relations. in other countries, i have lived in other countries, they have their own bread lines to be aware of. what a cartoonist can get aware -- away with an san francisco is different from alabama. >> there are fewer conservatives in journalism, period. that is reflected among cartoonists as well. it is generally not a conservative thing. it tends to draw people who are more liberal. >> they say that bad news is good for cartoonists, gives us fodder. i would rather work harder and half less bad news and know we've are going in the right direction. i think we are not going in the right direction right now.

i feel very -- like it is a real calling for me to get my opinions out there. span, noteekend on c- all fun and games for editorial cartoonists. here why, saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on book tv, the life of jesse james. 745.day evening at 4 american history tv, decades after watergate, a look back at the saturday night massacre. yesterday, the new america foundation hosted a discussion looking at the obama administration's relationship with press. they examined a study by a former washington post executive editor. we will show you a portion of

this event until our live coverage of the discussion on syria gets underway at 11:00 eastern. to newo, welcome america. i am the managing editor. a edit the digital magazine "weekly wonk.: " i am here to welcome you to this event, the obama administration and the press. if you have not had a chance to all abouteport, it is protecting sources. those of us who have done the job in reporting know that the sources are our lifeblood. if they come for the sources, we better speak. you are familiar with the court cases against sources, it is a leaked picture -- a bleak

picture. chicago putorney in a lot of guys away. when he came here to prosecute , he asserted witnessesalists are to a crime. thank you for coming. these fellows will have a fine discussion. we are excited. introduce the moderator, one bit of business. webcast on c-span, please be sure to wait for the microphone. ofr moderator, u.s. chair privacy and indications patches. he was a general counsel and advocated for a federal shield bill. take it away. here a great honor to be

along with these experts. i am the only person on this panel i have never heard of. [laughter] is one of those panels where everyone needs no introduction. professor of journalism at the cronkite school at arizona state. asy well into this audience vice president at large of the washington post, he was executive editor from 1991 2008, 44 years in the newsroom. 2008.1 to director of the committee to protect journalists, the organization that published this report. since his appointment as executive director of cpj in 2006, he has led the

iodanization through a per of expansion. establishing journalist assistance programs and efforts to defend press freedom in the digital space. finally, well-known to this audience from his long-standing work at the washington post. senior correspondent and associate editor of the washington post. also the author of "imperial life in the emerald city." this became the basis for the movie "the green zone" with matt damon. a terrific ease of work. he has been the post's bureau and work at the johns hopkins school for advanced international studies. withld like to start off

an overview of the report we are here to discuss. >> the question of reporters being subpoenaed was brought up yesterday or the day before. "the new york times" lost a to not have them before us to testify. it is in the report. of as up to the point court decision. that will probably go to the ofreme court, a major test the relationships between reporters and their sources. what rights to reporters have to not be forced to give away their sources. the shield law plays into that. if there were a shield law, not taste might be different. but there is no shield law, -- that case might be different.

but there is no shield law. i was asked to this report because i have written a couple pieces for "the washington post ." pieces about the obama ks,inistration's war on lea the aggressive way they have been going after government officials who provide information to reporters, particularly classified information. was asked by the committee to explore the relationship between the obama administration and the press. ofthe context of the kinds art that the committee to protect journalists does worldwide. press'tection of the right to work. i was surprised with what i found. it went way beyond the war on areas.nto other i found the administration to be remarkably controlling. i will tell you about how that

happened. the report on my findings were based on several interviews -- several dozen interviews with reporters, news executives, and government transparency advocates. plus research that i did and did in the investigations. those are the most complete accounts that anybody else has done. we looked at the bush and obama administration to make comparisons. the patriot act and the nsa. and a one sentence summary, the obama administration's war on leaks and efforts to control information that the news mania needs are without equal. they are in direct conflict with stated goal of making his administration the most transparent in history. i should add that i was one of

the editors of the watergate story in the early 1970's. i make a comparison with knowledge. six components to what i found. the first, chilling effects of the investigation and prosecution along with concerns about the nsa programs. obama administration officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. every signal journalist i talked to said that that is the case with their source in the dealnment, whether they with classified information, but especially if it involves classified information. six government employees and 2 government contractors have been prosecuted since 2009 for leaks of alleged classified information to the press. it has been done under a 1917 espionage act enacted during world war i to punish people for spying for foreign entities.

here, we have government officials talking to reporters who are prosecuted under that. there are only three such prosecutions in the 90 years when theyuntil 2009 began during the obama administration. in several of these investigations, probably the most frightening thing for government officials, the justice department and the fbi were successful in secretly subpoenaing and seizing e-mail traffic between different organizations and news outlets. there were decisions made by the justice department after an outcry from the news media over those cases. they still allow the attorney general to refuse to notify news media about communication records and still contain an exception for any leaked information that the government considers harmful to national security. that is a big loophole that you could drive a truck for. -- th

rough. also hasd legislation a similarly broad exception for national security information. it would require a judge to make a final decision rather than leaving it to the attorney general. congressional passage is still very much in doubt. also in doubt is how we define a journalist by law. in the digital age, that is very broad. anybody can commit journalism. that joel mayn alk about, defining who journalist is currently two government licensing a journalist. saying you are a journalist but you are not a journalist depending on the action they want to take. reporters told me they worry about compromising their sources contract -- when their contact could be traced. many sources will no longer talk to them at all. we're not just talking about

these investigations, there are other investigations where they have for tonight then lie detector test given to government officials suspected of talking to the press. reporters do not want to get their sources in trouble. 2, the insider threat program. in the afternoon -- aftermath of manning, the insider threat program. employees have been monitored and report any suspected insider threat activity which includes relations with the press. the director of the project of government secrecy is one of the leading government transparency advocates in washington. he said that this has created internal surveillance and heightened paranoia, making people conscious of contacts with the public has. a third issue, the controlling --

they have what they call unauthorized contact with the press is discouraged. they make clear that they have a president do not want any kind of leaks to the news media, not just classified information. reportersquiries from are refilled -- referred to public affairs officials who are unresponsive and hostile. they sometimes refuse to provide reporters public information that we'll have a right to. the government transparency that president obama has promised has turned out to be a public relations strategy honed during creating government websites and social media to dispense favorable information generated by his administration

while restricting the government exposure to accountability program by the press. they are full of government taken byontent, photos the press photographer while all other photographers are banned. they produced videos and even a week"st called "west wing that are closed to journalists. blogs,y obama aides on twitter, facebook, and social media to promote administration views. the former cnn reporter and now director of the school of public affairs at gw told me that the administration is using social media to end run news media completely. dialogue with the public isn't -- is good, but if used for propaganda and to avoid journalists, it is a severity

slope -- a slippery slope. the third issue is excessive classification. reporters call somebody up with a routine question, it turns out that the information is classified. even though there seems to be no good reason of it. the administration has taken credit for declassifying and posting on a new intelligence community website some of the courteously secret documents regarding nsa surveillance programs. only after revelations by the press and stories based on documents like i ever sold in -- documents leaked by edward snowden. actedministration has not on a report recommending specific steps to take to carry to the president's aim reduce overclassification. this would free government officials to discuss more of the public distance with the press. the fifth issue is the failure to approve the failure -- the freedom of information act

process. they have made little progress on another of the president's promises -- a directive he --tod in january 2009 improve government requests.ness to foia advocates have found that too foiadepartments too many requests. or demand expensive -- excessive fulfill them. an associated press survey found requestsnumber of foia from the press that were turned down on the grounds of national security or internal deliberation had increased during the obama administration. more than 80 prominent organizations that advocate for transparency met here in washington last week to work on recommendations for the obama administration to make foia work better. i have talked to some other leaders, they are worried about

whether the administration will listen. issue, the treatment of whistleblowers. president obama has said he supports encouraging and protecting government whistleblowers who reveal bureaucratic abuse. he and his administration have drawn a distinction between bat and revelations to the press about government policies. they punished with investigations and firings. he signed the whistleblower act in 2012, along with a policy aimed at protecting the retaliation of government whistleblowers. the same time, his administration won an appellate court decision that takes away from federal employees and national security positions the right to appeal actions by their agencies which could include retaliation for whistleblowing. of someecution whistleblowers as spies under the 1917 espionage act leaves

the president's position unclear. lastly, the international implications. posedition to the threat to foreign journalists by nsa surveillance -- they're not supposed to supply -- spy on americans, but they can spy on the can and of non-american citizens. administration's policies provide a questionable example for other countries at a time when this administration has been advocating for freedom and the rest of the world. president obama faces many challenges during his remaining time in office. the outcome of which will shape his legacy. one objective he could accomplish without outside opposition is failing -- is fulfilling his first promise, making his administration

transparent by opening his closed doors. that is the summary. >> make you so much. i would like to invite anyone tweeting about this to use the hashtag #obamaandthepress. pullingally great work, threads into a fabric that exposes a lot about the thrust of the administration. for many years, there seem to be etente between government and the press. we recognize that the government had secrets to keep, we would try to get them. the ones that were relevant and should be published, we went. -- we would. it seems in your report, you are talking about administration that has stepped over a line, chilling the ability of members to speak to the press. >> two things to say about that.

the decision by the supreme court which made it unique in the world. administration, you can always punish us and our sources afterward. secondly, 9/11. a lot of attitudes changed. including the whole balance between what you were talking about -- the revelations of government activity and national security. duringwith that balance the bush administration huawei published stories that require conversation with administration -- during the bush administration when we published stories that require conversation with the administration. they continue during this administration in a different atmosphere. the third historical thing is, when obama came into office,

they were put under great pressure by the intelligence agencies. they were upset by the previous t stories in the new york times. they put pressure on the administration to do something about that. investigations begun under bush -- both democrats and republicans on the hill. also, i believe that the president himself, he has not really spoken about this. i believe he has -- he said something that he did not want secrets revealed that put our boys at risk. i think he has a strong bend towards secrecy. >> rajiv, joel? >> pretty compelling. >> it is. a point he makes, particularly as an editor overseeing a

publication of some of the stories over time. you look back at the cia black sites story, the new york time'' reporting on warrantless wiretapping. the bush administration's responses to those. as well as decisions and discussions that led up to the publication of the stories. particularly, how previous administrations have responded to stories they have not liked, they have fought have compromised national security. cases, most other increase administrations, there have been expressions of disgust. been some cursory investigations. nothing of the sort that we are seeing now. when you look at some of the investigations that have taken place in recent years and you compare them to some of the

previous stories, it seems like it is penny-ante stuff. going after tom drake at the ns a, which you write about. even the verizon case. in the grand scheme of fame -- of things, if you talk to experts, those stories do not impact onningful american national security. and yet, those are some of the cases being pursued with particular vigor. there really has been a fundamental change, in my view, in the approach taken by the government in recent years compared to in the preceding decades. rajivthe two cases mentioned, they were classic whistleblowers. it was not whether the nsa program was too expensive. made was that the

documents found in his home were not actually classified. eventually, the case fell apart. what i want to do is put the report -- i think it has made a contribution. we have seen the attention it has gotten. investigations, people were aware of them. putting them all together is not athat this haphazard response to certain particular events. there is a systematic effort here to marginalize and undermine the work of the press. that is what the report really accomplishes. what i want to do is talk about why we undertook it, and what the significance of that is. the cpj has been around since 1981. we started out focusing on the

life and liberty of journalists around the world who work in repressive and dangerous environments and have to fear for their lives when they do a story. cpjframework in which the was founded was the recognition that we have journalists in this country, we have the protection of the first amendment. in our early years, when we were we focusedanization, on reporting efforts. the recent events in this country and also our conversation with journalists covering this administration led us to conclude that the atmosphere was different. that had an impact, not only on here,rk of journalists but potentially on journalists around the world. wrote the colleagues

u.s. presence -- the u.s. press reports for the world. any erosion here has an impact on the affirmation available everywhere. inspires other journalists around the world. they are threatened by an erosion. governments take solace from deterioration in press -- andration freedom press freedom, giving them the ability to take action. thisked glen to do independently. we provided some research support, we helped review it, these are his independent findings. we took the report and reviewed among our staff and provide recommendations.

those were done independently. that was the process. is pretty remarkable. this is an organization that normally devotes its resources and still does -- to investigating and seeking action , journalists murder in the philippines. cpj to wantfor to devote resources to shining a light on these issues is a remarkable step for international press organization. >> the obama administration focuses a lot on trying to promote free expression in other countries. the typesu think that of issues that are catalogued here due to our credibility? i can think of a specific example. we have been navigating for a long time -- have been advocating for president obama

to raise concern with president erdogan in turkey. journalists ine turkey than any other country in the world. ally, has a deep relationship with the united states, a strategic relationship. president obama and prime minister pergamon developed a relationship. we have advocated for some time that president obama intervene and raise concerns. they had a bilateral meeting in may. the day before that meeting took place, news about the ap phone records broke. i do not know whether it was on the agenda. i had early escutcheon that it might be. i am reasonably confident it did not,. if president obama had raised that, he would have been very exposed. the same sort of thing happened

and the nsa surveillance the stated policy that president obama had articulated, that he would be more aggressively challenging china on its government-orchestrated hacking program. i do not hear that so much anymore. >> i do not know how many of you here work for the government, but the path -- constant pressure to stop leaks of any kind, the pressure not to talk to reporters at all, referred them to public affairs officers, and the presence of which sourveillance, far have shown no examples of reporters having been spotted on through this communication surveillance process, but the

very existence, all of this combined has a tremendous chilling effect on government officials talking to the press. since the report came out, i have been stopped by reporters who said, i wish you would have talk to me, too. i have 12 other examples. trying their daily life, to get government officials to talk to them who are afraid to talk to them. that is not the way it should be. seems to bertainly a link between the nsa program and other surveillance issues that have come up and reporters not feeling comfortable about sending an e-mail to a government source. the post had an exceptional story a few weeks ago about the effect of these leak investigations on the whistleblowers. upcatalogued how, going against the mechanisms of the united states government has one person, can destroy lives, even for those for whom the prosecution fell apart.

do you think these early seemcutions that did not pointed towards true national security information that would damage the united states were really done to make a point to say this is what can happen to ?ou we do no >> we do not know that. a previous director of the ational intelligence told reporter on record that this was his intention, to get the justice department to prosecute people so that it would have a chilling effect on others. >> could you talk about the insider threat program? i thought your discussion about that was exceptional. you can imagine how the government would have a program after the disclosure that chelsea manning had taken, the scope of documents she had, your take on how documents are being handled. it seems to be quite different. >> the original presidential

directive that set up a study that produced the insider threat or graham, which they began rolling out last year, did emphasize the national security aspect of it, but then it was left to each individual agency on how to carry it out. bureaus here in washington, mcclatchy, did a good job surveying various government agencies to see how they were carrying this out. inumber of them made clear any kind of leaking to the press was the same as giving something to china. also, that you are supposed to be monitoring your fellow employees, kind of the 1984 see any signs you of leaking documents or being unstable, you are required to report that. you can get in trouble for not reporting that somebody else's doing that you may find suspicious.

that is unprecedented in american history. we do not yet know what its effect is, but it happens to be chilling. having ams to be chilling impact already on day to day, routine business. these sorts of work that journalists in this town do every day, in many cases has many to do -- nothing to do with top-secret or material classified at a lower level, or any thinking to with national security matters. simply calling up and officials in this administration, in the white house or cap min agency, and wanting to have a discussion aout a subject that perhaps senior official has spoken about publicly the day before is the sort of thing that is now , commonly, government employees will refuse to engage. not just on the record, but also

in the background. i cannot speak until it is cleared by the press office. in many cases, the press office will not authorize that. in some cases, they will talk to you, other cases they will not. so there is this chilling effect across the government, and it has imputed to work for reporters to provide the necessary accountability function necessary. we were talking about overclassification as one of these problems. that is a problem rife throughout the government, particularly in the military, intelligence community. one way that people at all levels are simply trying to defeat or impede freedom of information act requests is now routine. when you are trying to get a document, it may not be classified, and even if it is, it is not all that sensitive,

but they say we cannot release it. official use only. i want to bring that press worse into my office and show them hundreds of e-mails from officers who are saying, would you like to come to this lunch with ray orvieto -- general lodi area odierno next month? it is meant to impede the ability of people making legitimate foia requests of government. ,ll of this also comes back to it is all about selective enforcement. piece reported the other day on the senate , in theence committee wake of the administration's ,ules on reporting

distinguishing between what is an authorized leak and and unauthorized leak. do seniorimes official said and share materials that is classified or that is otherwise sensitive that serve their own purposes, for which there is no sanction? the presence of numerous officers showing me classified slides, but because it is serving the military's purposes, the administration's arguments, they are willing to try that stuff out when it is helpful to them. but when they do not like it, of course, different rules. >> this is all about government accountability. the president says that he believes in accountability and believes in holding the press accountable, but these things do not allow the government to be held accountable. you get out its story and are impeded from porting other things that would hold them

accountable. of twoeems like the tail scenarios. one is the national security scenario and the other is the day today business of government. that struck by your quote, this was the most difficult administration to cover. >> things that were routine in other administrations, access to beginnings and endings of meetings at the white house, those who attended, are now impossible to find out, unless you go to the white house website. another british television news director here in washington said that whenever he calls the white house staff, they tell him to go to the website. that is what you can have. you can have that information. we are not talking to you. >> your example about the epa. how much they do is classified.

try getting meaningful information out of the agency. >> something that didn't alarm journalists about the jim rose case, the useen of the term of potential co- conspirator under the espionage act, as you pointed out, activities that are under basic journalism. >> there was a technical legal reason for doing that but it was still alarming. says we willation not prosecute a journalist for doing their job of reporting. again, that is their definition. it is frightening to reporters. there are those that work in the national security area who are worried about the vulnerable themselves to investigation or prosecution and are taking extraordinary measures, encryption of e-mail, secret

rooms where they do their work, and so on, which is amazing. --lso point out, in the gym jim risen case, the decision from the appellate court judge, he also said that the crime could not have been committed without him. in other words, they are still treating him as a criminal as well. >> is this something that you see in the types of newsgathering techniques we have to use? are we seeing reporters go back into the basement of the arlington parking garage? me tooke, this is forcing go back to being a lot more low- tech. a lot more face to face interviews, notes taken, ink on paper.

only for completely routine, not very sensitive stuff. i am nothat case, doing a lot of typing and putting stuff up on the cloud. i am not keeping my most sensitive contacts on any electronic space. i have colleagues that go even further, working on machines that have no internet connection , working in rooms that are the aurnalistic equivalent of departmental facility, to prevent outsiders from trying to identify sources. there is nothing that i am working on -- and for many of my colleagues -- if the government were to learn the substance of the story i am building, that is fine. what i am worried about is protecting the sources. i am worried about keeping people who are cooperating with

me from getting hauled in front .- in court, thrown into jail in almost every case, what is a legitimate, well-founded reason for communicating. these are not people who are seeking to burn down the government house, not people engaging in wholesale theft of information. these are people talking about issues in a narrow, circumscribed way because they believe policy is fundamentally flawed, they believe there is an injustice that the to be addressed. we lose sight of this when we focus so much on manning or on snowden. the lions share of these cases do not involve individuals taking reams of documents and sharing them with the world. it is more often an individual a specificshare

piece of information because they believe there is a compelling public interest in doing so. they are not doing this because they want to make money or because they wanted a the enemy. they are doing it because they want to help the united states. >> from an international perspective, if you are a journalist outside the u.s., a non-us person, you have no legal protection from nsa intervention in your communication. it certainlyw, but has been reported, based on snowden lakes, there was a piece that the nsa hacked into the internal e-mails of al jazeera. you may argue they are a special claim they were within their prerogative to do this. i spoke to the editor of "the how she" talking about does not communicate using e-

mail with reporters. does not feel secure doing that. lots of journalists i talk to outside the united states are taking extraordinary measures to ensure they can communicate securely. thingsthe most essential , elements of public accountability in journalism depends on the ability of the journalist to protect their confidential sources. they of journalists feel cannot make that promise in this environment. >> and journalists care about that. people do not often realize how much journalists care about the welfare of their sources. >> also from the international perspective, it has been interesting to learn that many other countries have stronger protections for journalists, in terms of not requiring them to testify in court cases, for example, than even we have in

the states. obviously, we have the first --ndment,, believe the most probably the most protected document on what you can say. against of protection being subpoenaed, there are many other countries that have stronger protections for journalists. not as. is definitely leader in that regard. and at this point, there is no federal protection, it varies by state. you are subject to federal investigation, your sources subject to federal investigation, you are not covered under the shield law. >> if you have a subpoena issued by the superior court, you can have protection. if it is issued across the street at the courthouse, you

are looking at testifying or going to jail. it is very much an arbitrary situation. even though justice department guidelines have been strengthened and there have been technical changes that please the lawyers, you still have this intent involved. there is enough leeway for the attorney general decision-making and the national security exemption that they can, by and large, do what they want to do. >> they can be followed or not followed, and it cannot be enforced by the reporter. having a shield law, seems to me, would be a step forward. >> it would be. talk about that for a moment. i know you have had questions about the definition of journalist under shield law, which is roughly why we have never had a shield law. it has become more difficult to define in the past few years. >> i look at this from an

international perspective, in the context of how radical technology has changed the way journalism is conducted. there is a pragmatic argument, which is journalists cannot do their work if they cannot protect their sources. a shield law would help them do that. a shield law would probably help most journalist who work for -- to carry out traditional journalism, except for the national security exemption. cpjterms of the constituency, not all journalists would be covered. a lot of people who are engaged in journalism in this day and age are doing it informally. to newsworthyvers events and they are documenting those events, sometimes in a systematic way, and then

disseminating that information to the public. or they are blogging about it, but they are doing it informally. they are documenting events using video. some of the people we consider journalists in places like syria or china or vietnam, or cuba, places where people are using new techniques to engage in the practice of journalism, certainly, any definition of the shield law that is being contemplated in this country would exclude that. we are advocating, our recommendation, recognizing that a shield law would help, that the definition be as broad as possible. and to the extent possible, to focus on the newsgathering part. rather than on credentials or professional status or anything like that. we think that would be the best approach. breadthlaw did have the

you are looking for, cpj would be ok with the concept? we think a shield law would be useful. we are just saying we will monitor the debate and push until the end for the broadest possible definition. that is our position. does seem totion be difficult now. literally anyone could be covered by starting a blog. then it would be difficult to see how congress would pass that law. >> you are balancing the philosophical approach to the issue, and some people i greatly admire say that we should not have a shield law at all, because that is the first amendment. you are deep into these issues. [laughter] we are taking a much more pragmatic view of the issue.

we want journalists to be able to their work, but we also would like to have the broadest possible definition. there was a hope that the first amendment would be enough. how much do these sorts of issues lay into your decision about whether to grant confidentiality to a source? if you are looking at the uncertain environment we live in, doesn't make it less likely that you would say, yes, i will keep you confidential? does this become a more difficult, nuanced conversation about what confidentiality means? -- this will make lawyers shudder a bit. grant confidentiality pretty liberally. that is what we have traditionally done.

now, if anything, the pressure against it, over the past 10- plus years, maybe more than that , has been less traditionally in our newsroom about the threat of prosecution, but more about the desire for transparency with our readers. we want the people to know as much as possible about who is providing the information. in some ways, this is a response to government officials often wanting to speak about routine matters on background, with a senior administration official as opposed to name attached. years, you have created you canuation where under the weather report but it will be raining. our pushback has been against that.

threat,r in this new this new reality of investigations and prosecutions, particularly in the world that i cover. it certainly has come up in discussions with sources. when it does come up on sensitive matters, it is something that we talk out. an exquisite promise of confidentiality, it is just that, and i will honor that. it is not a written agreement, but it is part of what i see as my professional load. point,tting to that requires jumping through a lot of hoops that we did not have to before. it is the old face to face meeting. these deals are not drug over e- mail or phone calls. they plant on the balcony.

convoluted as that, but certainly a lot more complications. in fact, a lot more meetings or ineople at their homes coffee shops, bars, as opposed to offices, communicating with people with their personal e- mail address, not the government one, because of the insider threat of ram. it is not just the nsa that is to worry. areagency, their system tax going through and looking at the system. what e-mails were exchanged with the washington post and new york times domains. were any of those messages coming from people not in public affairs? if not, let's find them for scrutiny.

that sort of thing is happening routinely. other important elements to the reader, the audience, and that is your accuracy and credibility. if you cannot talk to the people that really know what is going on, you are liable to find other sources who have an ax to grind or something else, and we have seen that happen. when the authoritative people will not talk, somebody else will. that can create accuracy problems and can create a credibility problem for the media involved. they may have an interest in making the media seem less credible by denying them accurate information, but that is serious for the audience. you have seen the sorts of issues in national security reporting across a variety of administrations. this was the most secretive since the nixon administration. how would you compare it to the

ones in between, the bush administration, the second bush administration? said, they were not our friends, they were not eager to have some of our stories theished, but first of all, access to sources was much greater than it is now. they have succeeded in tightening up access to sources. secondly, you could have productive conversations with senior administration officials, sometimes including the president, which happened on at least one occasion with several administrations, about whether it was a good idea to publish the story, the accuracy, and whether there was any sensitive information that could be a harm to anyone. i do not remember any time in my of nots at the post publishing a story that the administration objected to.

but i do know that out of these conversations we didn't withhold technical information, names, countries of origin that would harm national security, but did not deprive the audience of anything that they needed to know to hold the government accountable. if you cut off those conversations, you are left with whatever wikileaks it up without talking to anyone am including the names of people who could be harmed because their names appear on the diplomatic cables. that is the other side of this. it also emboldens people. edward snowden believes he has performed an important public service. comean argue that he did in knowing that we have this debate already surveillance programs that we did not have before he leaked that information. at the same time, it makes them feel more heroic, if you will, when they know that otherwise, they will not be able to get this information that would not

harm national security out to normal channels. looking at the post today, the nsa role in drone strikes. in the fifth or sixth paragraph it said that they withheld details based on discussions with administration officials, intelligence community officials to avoid double jim sources and methods. at the same time, the substance washe story will came out, able to add to the debate about the role of the nsa. >> i always think about the series on black prisons. the issue was reported. the specifics were confidential. the secret that needed to be maintained were maintained, but the public was informed about the issue. of all, this was not a

leak like the edward snowden dory. long story about worry from officials. it was reporting, it was not a leak as such. she was able to do that kind of reporting and was able to have enough access, and we were able to put the whole picture together, including the fact that there were a lot of other counterterrorism or operations going on with the eastern european countries where these secret sites were located. when the administration said do not name those countries, we knew why they were asking. we do not want, to have this other cooperation cut off. the only effect of the stories, at least shown to me mama was that they had to close those sites and bring the prisoners to guantánamo, which does not seem to harm national security at all. at the same time, we have never

name those countries. we have kept our promise not to name them. sanger, he talks about the trust factor between you and the >> can they trust your motives? can they trust the motives in dealing with you? that makes possible to bring this information to the american public and awaited his wrist bonsall. they were very worried. if you cut this off, there will be irresponsible information out there. >> one more point about the story. it is very important. i think there is a perception that they are waiting for the phone to ring. it does not work that way. if only. snowden is the exception, not the role. people think, get the thumb inve with all of the stuff.

most cases, your building on small pieces of information. you are learning more and more. this is convincing people. they would be in the public interest to provide -- to explain something. add another piece to the puzzle. it would be wrong to think that all of these individuals are there and ready to pass the stuff out. this is the result of a thoughtful discussion. sources understand what the journalist is trying to do. they see what they are doing as being in the public interest. the vasteve that majority of those people that the administration would call leakers are acting out of a they have aruism. belief in our system and the

desired to want to make the united states a better country. it is not anarchistic behavior. they may .2 recent cases and say that it is like that. and it skewers the reality of what is happening in the lion's share of these interactions between journalist and sources. >> do you see improvement? >> certainly. >> if they are investigated or wonder if, they then the patriotism is misplaced. >> i was struck i something that you reported. about thean e-mail memo from the white house to intelligence agents. they ask to retain an e-mail. >> it was from the white house

itself. event atl leave this this point. you can see it in its entirety at c-span.org. we are going live now to johns hopkins university for a discussion of the ongoing civil war in syria. who is the representative of the syrian opposition coalition. that is the short name that we are using for it these days. comes with an impeccable support for democracy in syria. this pedigree includes the imprisonment in france, emigration to the united states to avoid his own imprisonment, getting his masters at the city university of new york, becoming

a visiting professor and now an associate professor at the university of arkansas. he teaches middle eastern politics. he also engages with the springcs -- the damascus and the syrian efforts to transition the country from what has been a brutal and long- lasting dictatorship to something more worthy of the syrian citizens. it is with particular pleasure that i welcome him. he will speak for maybe 15 minutes and then we will go to q and a. naji? >> thank you so much. thank you for the opportunity to address you. i think one of the most important political issues of our time is syria.

i will try to take about 15 minutes to present some points. use these points for an opportunity to hear from you and engage in a discussion. by introducing the syrian coalition. some of you may not be familiar with it. we will talk about challenges patient -- facing the coalition. we will conclude with the coalition's vision of how to end the conflict. the syrian coalition was created in november 2012. ofwas the second wave organization by the syrian opposition to create a voice for the syrian revolution. institutioneate an that can, in fact, speak for the

syrians who want change in syria. , theu get from the name coalition itself is made of several groups. some of them are political groups with long histories, like the muslim other head. movements. homegrown most of the individuals were arrested and spent years in prison. many of them had to leave the country after the revolution. there were individual activists like myself. we decided to have a better connection with the inside. the situation was developing in syria. we included local groups like the council was created before. they were trying to provide services and government to those who were liberated.

the coalition is now in the second and third phase. was a veryresident charismatic figure who served his first term. the second president was elected last summer. we went through an expansion of the coalition. the idea was supposed to be kind of like a legislative body. it could create an executive branch which would handle the challenges of the revolution. it can, in fact, provide a governing body for the liberated areas. the coalition envisioned improving the coordination with the army by creating new bodies known as the supreme military council, or smc. it would become the head of the moderate forces within the free

syrian army. the free syrian army was with a 15 member panel. this is just a brief history of the coalition in terms of its structure and vision. it is similar to all of the previous creations of the opposition, like the syrian national council. one want to move syria from party to a multiparty system. they want a state ruled by law. it will be an inclusive, free, democratic syria. idea,ition, it is a good since the talking, revolution began -- we thought very hard about the issue of

transition. how should we deal with law and order in the post assad era? we have two projects, in fact. one of them i was personally involved in, called the day after. it provides a detailed vision in all areas. all of the programs have been endorsed and embraced. i will mention specific challenges facing the coalition. then i will and with how the coalition envisions the end to the conflict. one of the first challenges facing the coalition is the humanitarian catastrophe in syria. this is something we are faced with with the cap -- the syrian national council. many of us are activist and we find ourselves spending a lot of time and energy healing with the

humanitarian situation. if you have not followed the latest figures, we have more than 2.5 million refugees since the beginning of this conflict. figure is theus internally displaced syrian. they have passed the 5 million mark. with all of the assistance that we're getting from the international community and neighboring countries, from syrian communities everywhere, those efforts have not been able to match the needs associated. this is one point that i have heard. of those have been addressed by this assistance. this will continue to be a serious challenge facing us. i know that the money we received has gone to humanitarian assistance.

93% of that money went to assistance. that was urgent. i will tell you the latest that we have. the same area where the regime used chemical weapons has 1.8 million syrians trapped. they do not have access to food or medicine. ,hey have been appealing to us to the international community, to do something. they are eating leaves. i saw somewhere that there was a thatious ruling fatwah people could eat dogs and cats. it is a terrible situation. we have been contacting the international community and our friends. we're asking them to allow access to those areas. this has been going on for the

last two or three weeks. that is the first challenge. the second challenge is the challenge of radicalization in syria. there is a rise of an extremist groups. this is receiving more attention in the media than what it really is. it is a serious concern to us. it is a serious challenge. to understand the context of this issue, i think we need to remind everyone that the solution begins peacefully, similar to egypt and tunisia. that will take six to seven months. what led to the militarization of the revolution was the fact that the regime never stopped killing. first, they used snipers. it was assassination. they tried to keep it low 20. there was defection of officers and soldiers from the army.

young people had enough and decided to carry weapons in self-defense to defend their communities. it led to militarization. most of this was a byproduct of the syrian army and the syrian state. were supporting the idea of a revolution and the democratic inclusive syria. there was a missed opportunity in the revolution. the international community did not step up their support of the moderate force. this created a vacuum in which we started to see inflow of extremist. they came from neighboring countries and everywhere. if you remember, last year, one year ago, there were not many extremists. now, they are growing in number. that has to do with the perception that the

international community is not supportive of the moderates. it is unbelievable. the regime escalated oppression from artillery to takes to scud missiles to air force. they are using barrel bombs from world war ii to bomb civilian areas. this is the environment that creates extremism. a lot of people turn to religiosity. to to theat led radicalization is the fact that some of those groups came and were well organized and affect if. -- effective. they attracted young syrians. now we have new groups. are close to al qaeda. the good news about what is happening is that local

communities are turning against these extremists. they are trying to impose their vision on communities. andthreat is very serious we take it very seriously. --s is why but we believe why we believe two things can stop this trend. waited a quick political toution and also to move on the strengthening of the moderate forces. , where i challenge will end, has to do with providing government for the liberated areas. know, a large part of the territories outside of control of the regime. and the syrian national council could not provide services. by theuum was filled free syrian army to provide some

security. in some cases, it was provided by activists. they created local councils. their ability to reach these communities from one area to another helped them to fill that vacuum. we felt that the creation of an interim government, not to be confused with a transitional government, is necessary. nominatingough someone for that job. that has been worked through. another person was nominated from the inside. --was part of the domestic damascus movement. he wants to create service oriented, small, executive bodies or ministries.

that, in the next meeting of the coalition, that will be presented. we hope that these individuals will move into liberated areas. they can provide basic services. the last point, i will end here. how do we envision in a to this conflict? -- an end to this conflict? the initiative that was introduced was mentioned early on. they called for a yemeni like a solution. to theuld give power vice president and lead to a transitional government. this would lead to a democratic system. we endorsed those ideas at one point when the arab league sent of servers. when the u.n. sent observers, we supported that. they are oblique solution was

presented to the u.n. and vetoed by russia, unfortunately. the political solutions continue to try to present a transition. that is where geneva came in. thatlieved at the time geneva had positive elements. when they met last may and decided to hold a geneva to conference, we thought that this could present an opportunity to in the conflict. a couple of points. from our point of view, number -- there should be should be clarity about the outcome of this process. there should be a transition to democracy. we will not talk about power- sharing or rehabilitating the regime. we are talking about a democratic transition.

we're talking about the creation of a government with full executive authority, including military security. those powers exist in the presidency currently. democraticead to a transitional government and election. second, from our point of view, we need the support of key countries in the region. we want their endorsement. that is why, during the we met with the international community. we insisted that countries like turkey, saudi arabia, uae, would support our going to geneva. provided the u.n. to some kind of guarantee that there will be implementation of any arrangement. this includes the need for peacekeeping forces.

view,k, from our point of we have an understanding. when we say that assad should not be part of the process, that is not a precondition. that is our understanding of the literal wording of geneva. we believe that it must begin with him stepping down. how the conflict can and and ends soon. that will open the door. it will open the door for serious to move into a democracy -- syria to move into a democracy. i will open up for questions. thank you very much. >> i am tempted to not ask anything. you have asked all of my questions. i guess, from a conflict management point of view, if you went to geneva -- if you even

got what you were asking for, which is a democratic transition, would you be able to what you would need to deliver on? of control the kind over the situation that would what the regime is looking for? an interlocutor who can in the fight. >> this is definitely difficult. it is a difficult task. we know the structure of the free syrian army. evennk what we're doing, before going to geneva, is to consolidate. we are restructuring and away -- in a way to create a proficient institution that believes in protecting the country, rather

than being loyal to one entity. the inability to control the extremists is an issue. those groups are not recognized. all of the effort should be between now and then to weaken and isolate these groups. that is what we have been doing and coordination with the smc. we believe that it is difficult because those guys have been engaged in a war against the free syrian army. they have assassinated leaders and taken over the area. believe that this is isolated from the regime. many of those individuals were trained to kill americans and a rock. this is the genesis. i think it would require a regional effort and an

international effort. some factions of the free syrian army would require support from neighboring countries. then it can happen. it will not be 100%, full control. if we can control most, then we can deliver. then it can be isolated. please stand up. i do not see a microphone. the problem is for the recording. if you could go to the microphone, thank you. i should have noted that before. if you can go to the microphone to ask questions. please do introduce yourself. you said you have a detailed vision of the current state of law.

and whereat vision can i obtain a copy of that vision? thank you. project called the day after and it is available online. if you search, you can find the whole document. -- it is a about it project that lasted eight or nine months. there was a participation of 50 or 60 syrians. they were divided into working groups and addressed areas like lawns order, transitional justice, constitutional design, and justice. we provided recommendations for now and after the transition. that is tryinggo to implement those transitions. please. >> hi, can you hear me? >> yes, i can.

please introduce yourself. >> i am susan and i work for reuters. conference, i think it was yesterday or the day before, syrian prime was theirsaid that it understanding that the next conference would be the geneva conference on november 23 and 24th. i wondered if you had been informed that that would be the that theso think syrian national council said recently that the council would not be going. do you think that people from the coalition will attend? are the americans pressuring you to go? thank you. the first part of the

the 24th and 25th? i think i saw something like that. i do not think that has been agreed upon. we have not received the letter of invitation yet. that will be the first step. discussion or talk of a tentative date of november 15. even then, it may be too soon. the second part of the question -- we are in a coalition. you are right on one component. the coalition came out and said they will not take part in geneva. this is based on their understanding of the balance of power on the ground. they feel that there really is

not enough support coming from our friends. perspective that you have to understand and respect. opportunity to bring a question of chemical weapons. i want to address this and say a few words. when aside used chemical weapons to kill more than 1500 people, including children, a lot of serious felt that this was an opportunity for the international community to present a credible and swift response to that act. we know how obama reacted. that the u.n.case commission could provide support. the president put the credible threat on the table and took it to congress. it was not going to pass.

the deal with russia came to dismantle assad of chemical weapons. there was a strong sense of disappointment among syrians. the source of that has to do with two points. number one, they felt there was no accountability. crimen. called it a war and a crime against to manatee. -- against humanity. this was expressed in so many ways. there was a group of brigades saying that they do not recognize the coalition. that is how bad the situation was. the second element, which we felt, was that the opportunity should have been used by the a mock cash by the obama amainistration, -- by the ob

administration, put the heavy weapons on the table. let's not forget that the 98%, weref serious, killed by conventional weapons. we did not solve the bigger issue. that is where the sense of frustration is expressed. to go back here question, we have not made a decision in the coalition about whether to go or not. we agreed on a certain determinant of what is acceptable for us to go to geneva. this includes our understanding that assad is not part of the problem. it is really in the language. we will be discussing this. it will be difficult. we may need to persuade within the coalition itself.

in general, i think many of us believe that this could be an opportunity -- especially if it is framed in the right way. itthe conditions to make successful are there, we should go and we will go. we want to end the killing and move into a transition. that is in our best interest. not now. they see this as an opportunity. we see it the same way. we have a lot of discussions with them, but i would not call it pressure. not yet. >> if i may add a word. judging from experience in the american diplomatic corps, the notion that this is a two-day event surprises me. the notion that longer than two days would be convenient -- convening a few days before thanksgiving is even more surprising. some of you will remember that

the date and talks ended when they did he come for thanksgiving. >> thank you. i would like to return to the challenges that you mentioned. radicalization and governance are related. if the councils can provide services, then the extremists move in. sharia law.pose there have been discussions of providing training to local moderates and councils with no response. at least as far as i know. i understand it, the administration is not interested in undertaking any kind of training or equipping syrians for fear of ending assad. i would like to know what you would like to see happen.

you have mentioned mediating that or assisting you through the body that you're trying to form. is there any prospect that it would be acted upon before there is a peace agreement? in other words, we will leave the vacuum open until there's an agreement with assad? that is not a good way forward. agree with your question about the difficulties. training.provide is necessaryance for those areas. i believe that there must be pressure. that is my point about putting the question of pressure on the regime to stop using heavy weapons. this has been one of the main

problems. i would mention that 10 days ago, they used the air force against a city. they are still doing that. unless the countries, including the u.s. and maybe russia, apply the kind of pressure, it will be difficult. one of the areas that the u.s. -- so fare training there are limited trainings in jordan. this is kind of a secret operation. it should be made open. it should be given to the pentagon and i think this is needed not only for transitional periods, but for post assad. this is one of the ways that the shaping be a factor in the post assad order.

this is what we want and need. most syrians would like the u.s. to pick -- to play that role. the good news is that there are a lot of countries willing to do more. i think that if you read the reports that came out, there are good recommendations. details affecting the coalition and we agree with many of them. they say that our allies need to get their act together. they need to have better coordination. for that to happen, you need leadership that has been lacking. this has been one of the weaknesses. the other side had fewer friends. those friends are more effective. they provide everything that assad needs. weapons, money, political support. we have all of these countries that recognize the coalition.

we had a meeting in new york with the u.n. with all of these friends. they say the right gains. -- the right things. the core group of this country must really come together. we need training and intelligence sharing. there are many ways to do this. made, thisecision is is the end of the conflict. hello, i am kelly. i was wondering how you would provide the popular support? how would you describe that? >> she knows more about the armed groups than anybody else i know. she wrote a good paper about it. >> she is asking about the

popular support. to gauge thatard popular support. i think, again, i mentioned the international crisis. council syrian national was formed, it was formed by mostly some of us living abroad. the regime never allowed indigenous leaders to emerge. this is the nature of repressive regimes. eventually, many of our colleagues had to leave and fled the country. we became more representative and the coalition was more representative. syriaeople inside peacefully demonstrated, they carried signs saying that the

coalition represents me. anyn, this is like governing body. it includes democratic countries. if you are able to provide, you will get support. if you have a failed government, like what happened here, you will see progress. same situation. popularity of the coalition has to do with its ability to address the challenges i mentioned. they need to provide governors. they must improve the unity of the free syrian army. they need to deliver on the stated objective, which is to overthrow the regime. that could go up and down. they able to deliver? i would say yes, you have support. something, why should i support you?

is callingnk anyone for the creation of an alternative institution. the current structure can be reformed and improved. it can be made more effective and efficient. that is where we are interested in going. i would say that if we are able to improve the question of areas,nce in liberated that should reflect on the popularity. name is valerie and i want to touch on something related to that that you alluded to earlier. i wondered if you could dig deeper into the concrete measures that you might be taking? there has been a wave of public ,nunciation of their rejections including some that are currently affiliated. i was wondering what steps have been taken to address concerns?

since the announcement of that communiqué, the leaders of the smc were in paris and decided to go back to address the situation. -- 13 groups i remember three of them were part of the smc. there was the problematic group which has been acting on its own. there were others in between. this is the same for the political leadership of the coalition. since this happened, they went back and they have been meeting with a lot of the leaders on the ground. there are more serious efforts to restructure the whole smc. maybe there are discussions to create a more professional national army.

this would include a lot of these groups. to my knowledge, i do not have a lot of details here, there are discussions underway. addressed atst -- the next meeting, set for the 31st or november 1 in istanbul. there was a sign that there was some disunity among these brigades. frustration, this is the context -- there's a feeling that we need to rely more on our own resources. there is mistrust of this old deal between the u.s. and russia. will it rehabilitate a saturn not? that is the background. going back to address these questions of whether the u.s. is

serious about taking steps to thathe killing, that it -- really does not have a place for assad. that would give more trust and credibility for a lot of these groups to be a part of a mainstream free syria. >> hello there. my name is edward. congratulations on your hard work. i would like to ask you if you -- putput your show yourself in the shoes of your adversaries. first, the vision that you have put forward for the solution that president assad should step down -- why do you think you would do this? that is my first western you. -- question to you.

have you heard the possibility that assad himself may organize elections? that would give them legitimacy. the second part of the question is more wide. imagine this room was filled with worried members of the community. you referred in an earlier question to your website. could you make it real to the community? what is your vision that syria, after so much bloodletting, that this community would be safe. looks next -- looks next door at a rock. -- at irq. q. at ira would it egypt. after all of this bloodletting, how could you get them to i into your vision?

thank you very much. thank you. those are important questions. let me address the first part. it is easy. we're talking about elections term expires next spring. he is not a legitimately elected president. he came to power -- we know how he came to power. that.is no aces for -- basis for that. this is a nonstarter for most syrians. i can assure you of that. down,uest him to step when people say that he should step down, we live in a world

where if you have a responsible leader -- the government would resign. this president has cost the killing of more than 100,000. he has displaced more than 8 million syrians. there has been destruction of the infrastructure of the country. you wanted to continue? on what basis? on what logic? on what idea? he has already served 14 years. we have had enough of this. serious -- syria was involved in the spring. the head of the state department, one way or the other. we were appealing to assad to lead the process. we were willing to foresee a role for him.

more killings took place and more crimes took place. he was a war criminal according to the u.n.. he committed crimes against humanity. us., -- asme, as a syrian, to allow this to continue? that is not acceptable. would address the other community, the other side. this is a liability. you do not need to fight for this family that has committed so many crimes. they are still corrupt and they lead you to the situation. what i would say is that we have made a lot of appeals to the community. we have a presentation and credible leaders.

you are not responsible for crimes committed by anyone. are sunnis who committed crimes and christians who have committed crimes. we have a program that transitional justice. i would say, do not take my word for it. there should be measures. includes the idea of peacekeeping forces who can come and be a part of the transitional. period. they can protect the communities. one of the reasons that we felt good about the strike was that we felt it would encourage the community to force him out of power. they could be our negotiating partners. they could build the future of syria. this is the good news. even though he committed so many ,ectarian crimes and genocide maybe massacres, the response masseen -- has not been a

response. report of extremism. --y're committing crisis crimes on a sectarian basis. the free syrian army can bombard whole villages. to me, that is an encouraging sign. it is an indicator that we do not want to move in mr. action. only those who commit crimes should be held accountable. we do not speak a sectarian language. that is very encouraging so far. there is so much to be done. i agree that there are a lot of fears and concerns. that they areis really serious and questioning the communities. there was a lot of killing among

the young people. they are part of the killing machine. a lot of them are saying that they have had enough. again,e an opportunity, to say that from our point of view, civil war does not have winners. i am concerned about the killing from the other side. the regime is not concerned about killings from our side. we are similar to the regime. going back and taking a few individuals, to call them the criminal elite, out of the equation, you can create the conditions for national reconciliation. >> thank you. >> good morning. more and the microphone? >> assuming all goes well and geneva 2 takes place, there are

who would tryts to sabotage in any way they could. they will use any tactic to sabotage the conference. how does the coalition foresee this? how can you overcome this problem? the regime's dubious way of handling political issues. it is starting to surface that he is asking for a two-year extension. would you agree to do that? how would that apply to this kind of question? agree to a two- year extension or any of that.

the purpose of the conference's transition to democracy. we want to create a transitional government with full executive authority. if that is the purpose, that is what we will do. otherwise, i think we will not move on with this. i agree with you that the presence of extremist groups is a challenge for both sides. especially for the international and regional players. acting now to isolate these groups. we need to freeze their funding. we must start to engage. there is a difference between them. you can take away some of the , many join because they had money. to work with the neighboring countries to be more

responsible and not allow insiders into the country. it is going to be a challenge. not only for the coalition, but for the whole region. this is part of the terrorism problem that is facing these countries. it requires comprehensive strategies, not just one thing. we are addressing that. we are trying to strengthen the moderates and make all of the sources of funding come through a vetting process. eventually, we will start funding incentives for those to go back. speaking of terrorist groups, i should mention to others. hezbollah and they are ronnie and revolutionary forest -- iranian revolutionary forces. they need to be addressed. if iran would like to be invited, they should withdraw and leave.

foreign entities that are much more organized and larger in numbers. they have done more killing in syria than some of these syrians themselves. that adds to the difficulties. this is a regional and international issue. they may take my diploma way when i ask this question. i am focusing on syria. i studied here 13 years ago. becausery interested assad was still in power, but we knew he was on the way out. i thought there was a window of because they were very open to the west. they brought the internet to syria. there was an open mind for the country. am i wrong?

was there a missed opportunity? >> please be closer to the microphone. >> have you not heard my question? did we miss a window of opportunity to welcome syria? i thought that they were very open to the west and very open to the internet and many things that we are now seeing that they are very close to. did we miss that opportunity because of 9/11? it really does not matter anymore. words,re to say a few

when he came -- when he became the president, i remember an op- ed that i wrote. i said that he was a legitimate president. he inherited the president against republican principles. let's give him a chance. he needs to free political -- and endnd in and the law. we gave him an opportunity. leaders and's were they formed forums and were willing to take him on his promises. was going to reform the country and introduce it to the modern world. there was a crackdown and they spent six months on that. there was another moment after the assassinations.

early on, i remember this very well. we were accepting the argument that they for his date -- they present -- they prevented him from performing. and the fully in charge system was highly centralized and personalized. he reverted to his father's way of addressing challenges of domestic reforms. they would not introduce political reforms. they talked about the chinese model. nothing was meaningfully introduced to gain legitimacy. by the time he came to his second term, they wanted to introduce a slogan for his campaign. he could not find anything, so they came up with a word meaning i love you. we elect to because we love you. you are a young man and you

studied in the west and you like the internet. what did he introduce here? when the arab spring started, we appealed to him. things happen in syria, why do you not take the lead? his response was very frustrating and it showed the mentality that he had and an interview with the wall street journal. he said that those who have not introduced reform are in trouble. i am different because i am young and i am not part of the western world. i am closer to the poles of my people. i defend palestinian rights. i will introduce reform. he said he will introduce new magazines and more measures for local elections. ngos.d he would legalize now is the vision that he had.

he was calling for regime change and compromises. when the lost it people took to the streets and peacefully protested to demand the release of their young children who were arrested. they opened fire on them. he totally lost the support of people when he gave his first speech. he did not show remorse for the killing. expectationshigh that he would announce reform and he did nothing. i know a lot of syrians that het was the moment for them. lost every opportunity to be something acceptable. with more killing, the guy is a war criminal. they committed crimes against amenity. i gave a long answer to show you that we gave every opportunity. himself through so

many reasons. it is time for him to go. please.ave a question? >> my name is james adams. i could describe myself as a professional field officer and recent graduate of george mason's conflict resolution program. hearld be interested to what considerations there might be by your group or syrians on two factors. bosnia, they are still very serious consequences from a frozen constitution. it is highly flawed and discriminatory. from accordsting -- it was not cast as a

transitional constitution, which was the fundamental flaw. 18 years later, that is still a serious issue. that is holding bosnia back. , in terms of your how does this affect their thinking? the other factor has to do with negative piece. this is what is put forth as negative piece, where an outside force or outside forces are needed to suppress internal conflict. in some ways, this keeps the lid on things. it gives more time to figure out how to proceed. understand the

second part. what do you mean by that? peace in literature frozenng scholars is a peace. a frozen piece where a conflict is put on hold, it is checked. the violence is put in check. diplomatic, political, structural work is being done, on that to try to put a lid whatever expression of the various groups are trying to gain. in other words, the lack of violence, drying to perceive it as -- trying to perceive it as a functional early ship. that makes me think of the

second factor, the factor of the other side of the positive piece, the positive peace, and that is addressing the underlying causes and conditions of the conflict, whether they be long, this circle type or something more recent. track two terms, scholarly tunes, that addresses more elation shiftwork as opposed to reconstruction or structural factors such as the constitution. in how yourted group or the syrians or the u.s. governments, other governments, might address that come of those two factors, and to try to make the transition and beyond the day after, as you say, less troublesome. >> thank you. the firstink on question, the first part of the

question, i personally attended theminar in sarajevo about bosnian conflict, and lessons for syria. and i think -- i remember you raised the point that many of not goinged us through any peace arrangements without having a vision. they said they made that mistake and it was imposed on them and there was the constitution which created a paralyzed political institutions, the presidency. is a well taken point, and that is why you always feel we have to think only theand that is general objectives, of a democracy, but what kind of democracy, what kind of system, all those details. we have given those issues a lot of thought. syria is different from bosnia in the sense that in bosnia there were these three communities in a way, and they

systemcreate the kind of close to what happened in iraqi, in divided societies. in syria we have the question of minorities, and there is a clear sense of a majority in syria. divided syria in terms of the ethnic if i'd, the only question we have -- ef make divide, the only question we have is arabs versus the kurds. most of them are part of the opposition, and they would find a solution within a unified syria, which is good. that is helpful. the other divide is the sectarian divide. religious and sectarian. we have five percent christians, 11% of the white -- alouite. both communities are arab, and they have more in common in terms of their cultural

identity. you -- maybek solutions like federalism are viable in syria, that may be a decentralized system would address the local concerts of these communities. what prevents syria from having a paralyzed political system is based onreates a safe of law, you rule create equal opportunity. those are all missing from the authoritarian, oppressive regime of the assads. they have a clear idea, everything but the assad regime, and in that sense, the composition of serious, -- of serious, it is easier to avoid the problems you had in bosnia. in syria, the essence of this conflict is that people rose up demanding their basic freedom and freedom and rights.

decades, deprived for but we were talking early on, there is an idea we should go back to the constitution, because syria had a viable democratic experience. there was that historical memory, the idea that we can live together, and we should. and so to avoid the negative ce and addressing, moving to a more pontiffs -- positive peace is to create the political system which is responsive, gives everyone their rights, it's everyone there since again that they have a place, a stake in it, and you avoid dealing with the symptoms of file its and trying to find solutions to the fighting. i do not know if i addressed the second one. the second one is the more difficult 1 -- >> thank you, i would like to

follow-up on sasha's question. question?ted to ask a if you will go to the mike. i need you at the microphone. pass the mike. >> back here? thank you. on the two previous questions, sasha asked did we miss an opening with bashir, the one of the things that struck me, if he had wanted to, that power structure he inherited from his father had no stake in opening up, and the issue of negative peace. that power structure will remain in place, the security apparatus, even if assad -- your .emand is that he has to depart the power structure will remain. how will you deal with that, and

what needs to be done? i presume in whatever negotiation, whatever agreement you it achieved, how do you dismantle that power structure with is -- which is antithetical to democracy? i wanted to follow up on the idea that syria could establish , regular courts that corrupt, ae constitution, a democratic state, rule of law, meaning broughty abides or is sentenced. i do not see how that is possible. i would be interested in your thoughts. for us, we had a thousand years of british history and the

development of a parliament chipping away at the king's powers and balancing with the monarch. you have any thoughts on that? are about whatns the realistic possibilities are. up.i also had a follow- it is related to baby the first all a question. most people when they think of a peace conference a think of the sides haves -- two been fighting. i sought on one side and the other side the rebels. concepting about your of this geneva conference f. if assad is not there, who should be on that side of the table? if assad is there, if no one from the coalition will go. >> ok.

the first question about the structure that exists today. we believe that these institutions of repression, particularly the intelligence agencies, must be reformed drastically. this could take time. i think we had in the day after project the whole section on security reform, in which we envisioned like all normal countries having two maybe intelligence agencies instead of the 16 that exist under assad today. the role forion the police, which is very important and should be charged to carry out the mystic order. the armed forces

need to be reformed in a way that unfortunately -- over the years, and i think part of the reason why we have the situation we have today is that since this goes back to the french mandate, nch first came to the country and created the first troops to carry out order in the country, they recruited heavily from minorities. this was a divide and rule policy. after independence, the country continued with that. majorityhe mainstream, would've for it -- would avoid serving in the army, and that explained the overrepresentation of certain minorities in the army. you need to correct that. second, you need to create a truly professional army in the sense that it protects the

country, not connected to a regime or a family or a person. that is a problem in syria. if you look at the fighting force that is doing most of the sad, itg with as comes from the elite force of that enjoys privileges that has been equipped, trained the most, while the rest of the armed forces is almost dismantle. it is not functional. in order to move toward again democratic order, you have to reform the structure. andthe security agencies for the armed forces, and we looked in the experience of many countries and we have good relationships there. the second question about the being skeptical about syria moving for democracy. like any country, there are forces favorable and forces that are unfavorable to for democracy. in today's world, the thing we learn from each other, we are not going to go through 200

years in order to become democratic. what is happening in the world today, look at the arab countries, and i teach about the transitions in the arab countries, and you look at different models of transition. some of them have been much more successful than others, like tunisia and egypt. created a model that works for them and created a coalition in parliament from the three major parties that is forward.unisian in egypt, the prioritization factors andmic others, led to a step accords. we do notould learn, need to go to the same time to achieve democracy. people whoe you, lived under authoritarian rule and suffered from that, they yearn for those basic rights and freedoms we take for granted. once they are giving the opportunity and create the right

structure -- and i believe there is an aliment of luck in doing this. you look at the american experience and the french experience. in this country, the second time we had it right. in france, they had it more than five times. provided at high cost to achieve that democratic system, i'm optimistic about that. especially if you neutralize those external influences in the case of syria, the influence of becomes aollah, and much more responsible country, that finally decides to act responsibly, that could help as well. get to the other, they can find solutions to their robbins. aneva -- geneva has built process of mutual consent that we could veto somebody from the

other side and they could veto somebody from our site. our main criteria is people who committed crimes against humanity should not be part of that debate. not want a very notorious head of the air force intelligence agency to be present at the table. in regime, they linked to russia some names that would be acceptable. the point is they have to be will bego back and reporting to some of those guides, who have blood on their hand. tore can be creative ideas reconcile. we believe the coalition and the opposition delegation, but we are open to include others. those who are not necessarily included in the coalition, but share our goals of the revolution. >> let's take one last question. >> thank you very much. did you speak on the difficulties of the eight court nation unit in providing for

councils and what s isnc doing to facilitate that? >> the acu and the local councils, they see they are one organizations coordinated by the coalition. it has been doing he simply, a good job, but there have been some issues of coordination. at the local councils, the challenge with them, those are not councils that have been democratically selected, elected. in many cases the activists in this area who have been active were able to do it. in some cases like aleppo, they managed to have an election. they brought in people from the different neighborhoods, towns, and they selected the council.

part of the work that has been done with the local councils is to train them to improve, to reach out, and number two, to improve the quality of that outreach. the more some of them were able to do it, they became more representative. these local councils are challenged by other groups. in the coalition we are open to the idea of making these moreils or responsive, representative, and then it would be easier to provide through these individuals. mixed.erience has been some areas been a better than others. we want to always -- we believe it is one of the sources of becoming more legitimate, to be able to provide and rule through these councils. >> at me conclude by noting that i studied arabic in domestic in 2008. i have never been in a place

that seemed riper for change in a democratic direction. would tell you very bluntly that they wanted more freedom. -- thatit is very sad they have had to go through what they have gone through. at the same time, i think the people i remember in damascus would be very proud to have you representing them here in the united states, and we are very pleased that you took the time with us to explicate the coalition. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> more live coverage this afternoon. in a half an hour, we will have her marks from the national press club by george takei. takei has been a long time and the for lbgt rights rights for japanese-americans. his remarks at 1:00 eastern. also president obama will announce jeh johnson as his new homeland security secretary. he will take over for janet napolitano who will take over the university of california system. obama will make the announcement at 2:00 p.m. eastern, live on c- span. esther johnson is aged criminal trial attorney for a new york

law firm and most recently served in the top attorney in the defense department. he served as general counsel counsel for u.s. air force under president clinton and assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. he is a native of new york city and a graduate of war house college. dham, hethis year at for talked about the nsa data collection program. transparency of and not just to keep the press, congress, and the courts off its back to my and its back is against the wall. that is easier said than done. transparency is hard. the reality is it is much easier to classify something than it is to declassify it. there are huge your credit somethingeclassifying once it is classified. put 10 national security official in a room and discuss

declassifying a certain fact, they will all say i am for transparency and principal, but only seven will be concerned about second order effects them and someone will say this is really hard. we need to think about it some more. the meeting is adjourned and the officials go on to more pressing matters. we declassified the basics of the u.s. military's counterterrorism activity in yemen and somalia the and disclosed what we were doing in a june 2012 war powers report to congress. it was a long and difficult process to get there. certain people in the white house persevered. and officiallyy what we were doing, and as far as i could tell the world has not come to an end. >> that event available at our website, www.c-span.org. you can watch the announcement today live at 2:00 p.m. eastern

on c-span. this past hour tom foley has passed away. the spokane native served in the house for 30 years, serving washington's six district before losing his bid in 1995. speaker foley, who had been in declining health, was 84. for guys like of who has been in the game a long time, there are land mines out there that you have to be careful about how you manage her way through these things. issues to deal with the abortion issue in the united states, guns, race, eric-there's really early as, and other countries have their own red lines that they have to be aware of. also, what the current -- what the cartoonists can get away with in san francisco are

different than in alabama. it is generally not a conservative thing. journalism tends to draw people who are more liberal. bad news isthat good for cartoonists because it gives s a lot of fodder. i would rather work harder and have less bad news and know where we were going into a right direction, and i think we are not going in a right direction right now. i feel like it is a calling for me to get my opinions out there. >> this weekend, it is not all fun and games for editorial cartoonists. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern tv.-span two's "book on american history tv, four

decades after watergate a look back at nixon and the saturday massacre,o -- saturday afternoon at 1:00. time stands still. the ohio clock is a metaphor for the government shutdown. >> we are standing from a few feet away from the entrance of the entrance to the senate. this is the oldest clock in the capitol. it was commissioned in 1815, from a philadelphia clockmaker. the c-spanhe reasons video archives are so amazing. >> the video library is amazing. are comingw c-span anytime. go to www.c-span.org and go to the video library to watch the newest videos.

go down to the most recent and press play. you can search the library for a specific topic or keyword or can find a person. type in their name and go to people. go to the bio page and scroll down to their appearances. you can sure what you're watching and making clip. is the set buttons or handle tools, add a title, and then click share and send it by e- mail, facebook, twitter, or google plus. easy and free, created by the cable tv history and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and 25 minutes, we will take you live to the national press club or remarks from actor and gay rights advocate george takei. until then, a discussion on the tea party agenda following this week's deal in congress.

this is 35 minutes. >> now our conversation on the theet issue continues with president and ceo of freedom works. conventional wisdom is the tea party and the republican party with regard flames to the government shutdown and what happened afterwards. do you agree. i ask no, i do not. it is always difficult for one rational person to say we cannot keep oohing what we are doing, we cannot fund something with our money that everybody in washington agrees does not work. obamacare has been dysfunctional. the president himself has either delayed or repealed at least 20 parts of this health care law. we came in and said we have to do things differently than we did before.

from my perspective, there has been this bipartisan collusion where the democrats get everything they want and the republicans get everything they want. after 9/11 this started to happen. a little bit of adversarial budget would be a good thing. we make trade-offs, we make tough choices, and we only fund the things we can afford. host: what is next? now that the conference committee has been set up, what is next? here is the headline in "the washington times." guest: i don't know what will happen at the next budget deadline. i would predict before that that the debate between democrats and republicans would be how to unwind the sequester savings. the sequester savings were predicted to be a disaster. nobody noticed. they were opposed by huge sections of both parties. and yet that was the promise

they made for the last increase in the debt ceiling. we keep raising the debt ceiling and now we are trying to unwind those savings that we got. you have that part. they will try to spend more money, not less. the big issue between now and november 2014 is obamacare and the implementation of obamacare. we will focus on the individual mandate and the unjust nature of delaying for big businesses, but not delaying for young people forced into the system. host: do you think it was time to reopen the government or to increase the debt ceiling? guest: at some point, you have to pay government's bills. there are only two pieces of legislation that the democrats have to act on. one is the budget, the other is the debt ceiling. the house can pass a million

pieces of reform legislation, but harry reid can ignore those. if you are going to force a conversation between the republicans and democrats, there are only a few leverage points. host: if you had been in the house republican caucus meeting, would you have given john boehner a standing ovation? guest: no. i think the mistake that john boehner made was an unwillingness to pull everybody together early. they broadcast quite loudly that they were going to do whatever it took to avoid a government shutdown. if you go into a negotiation showing all of your cards to the other side, you will lose. they naturally lost. i think what frustrates our caucus is the circular firing squad that some senate republicans and house republicans formed against the people that were trying to stop obamacare.

host: who were some of those? guest: famously, lindsey graham and john mccain were wacko birds. mitch mcconnell, richard burr. peter king in the house. the fact of the matter is that all of them voted against obamacare. all of them said on the campaign trail that they wanted to defund obamacare. our point was that we are the only guys who have offered a strategy to do this. they could've offered a different strategy, but they didn't do that. host: robert tweets in -- guest: i have been working on obamacare my entire career. instead of this big monstrosity that is funded on the backs of young, less wealthy people, it would be a lot smarter to fix the tax code.

the tax code punishes individuals trying to get health care not from their employer. we should make health care pretax, with pretax dollars. let young people save for what will certainly be future health- care problems. we don't do that. everything has to be controlled through washington d.c. host: "the washington times" has an analysis piece this morning. a surprising number of prominent republicans are saying that at the gop loses the 2016 general election, the party will go the way of the whigs or formally split into a moderate and a conservative party. guest: a possibility, because you are seeing a clash. it is not just the old wing of the republican party versus the new wing.

you are seeing -- it is already happening with the democratic party. it is happening with the republican party now. grassroots activists have an ability to fund candidates and organize. they can go around the republican national committee. that is the new reality. everything is more democratized. republicans should come to terms with that. they still want to control things from the top down. my prediction would be that we take over the republican party and they go the way of the whigs. we being activists that believe in freedom. i don't call it the tea party anymore. it is constitutional conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers -- a lot of independents who it opted out of politics because they didn't see an option in the two parties.

that is what happened in 2010. we had a lot of independents show up because they're worried about too much spending in washington, d.c., was the boot on the throat of the american economy. we are going to have that conversation again in 2014. host: who are your heroes? guest: i love ted cruz, marco rubio, rand paul. understanding that all of them did not agree with us on this squabble. they have brought civil liberties back into the conversation. that is were the new party is. it is about economic freedom. it is about understanding that washington, d.c., is a game

played by insiders. it may be big business, it may be public employees unions. somebody else always gets to the table first. we would like to get some of that inside trading out of washington and let people take charge of their lives again. host: president obama spoke the white house yesterday morning. [video clip] >> let's work together to make government work better. instead of treating it like an enemy or purposefully making it work worse. that is not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self- government. you don't like a particular policy or particular president? then argue for your position. go out there and win an election. push to change it. but don't break it. don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building.

that is not being faithful to what this country is about. guest: what he is really saying there is that the only time the american people have a time to question the government is during an election. i know he does not mean that. i think this is a partisan statement on his behalf. if you go back to what the founders envisioned, with george washington said in his final farewell address, is that the sacred fire of liberty sits on the shoulders of the american people. not only should we have a right to challenge the government's position, we have an obligation. there was a day when this was accepted by both political parties. tip o'neill, the famous democratic leader in the house, shut down the government 12 times. he did it to stop some of jimmy carter's priorities.

he did it to stop some of ronald reagan's priorities. both parties had a view and fought it out. the american people participated. president obama is pushing against history. the internet has re-enfranchised americans. they have an opportunity to beat the insiders. the president or john boehner no longer get to decide who our candidates are. they don't get to decide what kind of health care we get. we get to decide that. that is the american way. host: skeptical doubt tweets in -- guest: i have worked a lot in

entitlements over the years. you don't cut entitlements. you reform entitlements. that is important as we go into this grand bargain debate. if you come up with an imaginary number and say we need to achieve the savings, it does not work. we have tried to do that in the past. we try to do it in the early 1990's. if you want fixed entitlements, you need to accept the fact that people are already in medicare, people already in social security -- they are stuck with the system they have. they may like it, they may not like it, but they can hardly change their plans that late in life. but young people should be given options. they should be given choices. if they know that social security won't be there when they retire, if they know that medicare will be a heavily rationed system that will not give them the health care they need, they should be allowed to choose to save it for themselves. they should be allowed to buy catastrophic plans when they're

young voluntarily. they should be allowed to save for that moment when they are older, when something unexpected and catastrophic happens. then they have insurance. that is not how the system works. all of these systems are one- size-fits-all. they are highly regressive. the tax young workers, middle class, lower class folks that are primarily paying payroll taxes. it is a huge wealth transfer. host: jim in pennsylvania on a republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. i called because of the last caller who was a socialist- marxists. what i called about is a demonization of the republicans by the democrats. they have done a good job of it. i think the people of america should look around and see where

the democrats have ruled for a long time and what has happened there. i am talking about the cities. the cities of america, the majority of which are dominated by liberal democrat parties. look what is happened there. the democrats have destroyed the cities. every night people are shooting each other in the cities. worst of all, they have destroyed, collapsed, and decimated the public school systems in the cities. the majority of people who could fled the cities over the last one to two generations and escaped to the republican- controlled suburbs. with all of the demonization of the republicans, people ought to look around and think, where do i want to be?

most people want to be where the republicans want to run something. or do they want to be in the cities where the democrats have destroyed -- host: i think we got your point. your response to that caller. guest: i think it is a great point. you look at the flight from california. you look at what is happening in detroit. you look like the population growth in texas. people vote with their feet. they seek out economic opportunity. we continue to spend money on an education system were kids don't get the education they want. all of these examples, the city examples you are using, are exactly what is going to happen to united states if we continue to centralize everything.

we don't need one- size-fits-all. we don't need to give all the authority to the teachers union. the experiment has been tested. the democratic party has been hijacked over the last generation, since i came to washington, d.c., by the progressives. they have gotten more radicalized. they don't have a solution for anything that does not involve more government. host: alex in arlington, virginia, e-mails in -- could you ask mr. kibbe to clarify what he meant by real americans? guest: i love this question. people suggest that when you use a phrase like that you are trying to define people. when i say real americans, i am talking about everyone who lives outside the washington beltway. i think the world is divided between people who are inside

the beltway and outside of it. the rest of us, real americans, live outside the beltway. the left is always trying to divide us and slice us and dice us based on our age, on the color of our skin, on our income. on our age, on the color of our skin, on our income. host: curtis. caller: i think we should do more focusing on the finance. i think we are running on old data.

i think we have more of that kind of issue right now. all the people saying about taxing -- you have the money. taxing is the name of the game. if you are going to make money, you have to give back. we need to learn how to save our money. we need to try to stop spending our money in one year. it does not make sense. even though we do get taxed on it. if we stop doing all this stuff like random money, we would be better off. host: thank you, sir. any comment for him? guest: the challenge in washington, d.c., is getting people to make tough choices. we had a major tax increase at the beginning of this year. we spend money that we don't have. it is about 20 cents on every dollar. we need to balance those things. if you went after the special-

interest, you could achieve that. in order to do that, real americans outside the beltway have to insist on accountability inside washington. host: lead story in "usa today" peg tweets in -- guest: most of the government does not shut down when we shut down the government. 84% of spending continues. i wonder how much we spent walling off the grand canyon and walling off the world war ii memorial. i was here in 1995 when we shut on the government last time. i have never seen such an adversarial attitude where government employees literally went after the people that pay their salaries. i think it is an outrage.

i think it cut both ways. just wait until they control your health care and you disagree with them. host: plano, texas, on our independent line. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask about something involving the budget. we hear a lot of talk about budgetary reform through cutting defense spending or cutting social security or cutting medicare or reforming medicare and social security. i wanted to ask about tax expenditures. right now, they almost equal the income tax revenue that is coming in. that cannot be sustainable. before we are collecting the revenue, we are sending about -- sending it out the door. that is in the form of capital gains. workers compensation.

there was a lot of spending that gets done through the tax code. what would you and people of your ilk propose to do about that? host: before we ask him, what would you propose? caller: i think these programs have to go. i think they help the top 20% of americans. they don't need help. they are in the top 20%. guest: i actually agree with you. i think the tax code is exhibit one for how insiders get a seat at the table before the rest of us. my proposal has always been a flat, simple tax code. we should have a flat income tax that treats everybody exactly like everybody else. whenever i say that, people are going to immediately ask about the home mortgage reduction, what about this, what about that. as long as we are using the tax code to reorganize society to achieve social means, instead of the simple function of raising

revenue, guess what -- the insiders are going to game the system for their benefit. why not get rid of all of it and make it super transparent and make everybody live under exactly the same rules? i think that is the future. i think tax reform is compelling across the ideological spectrum. some people like tax cuts, some people don't. it really depends on who is at the table first. host: james from simi valley on our republican line. caller: my comments are directed toward the young people, the millennials. baby boomers are moving into retirement at a rate of 10,000 per day. 300,000 per month. they are taking the vast majority of this wealth with them. they will be untouchable. the millennials will get stuck with the tax.

$20 billion a month in interest payments. in the meantime, we will stick them with the bill with obamacare. they're coming out of schools with an inferior education. even if you do have the ability to go to college, we have stuck them with $1 trillion in student loans. the republicans have the only answer to this problem. thank you. guest: i agree with you. they call this generational theft, economists do. it is called making obligations that you cannot fund in the future. right now because of medicare and social security, there are 100 trillion in liabilities. i've pulled some numbers based

on obamacare. this is the debate going forward. it is what drives obamacare. ed is the deal the president and the democrats gave to the insurance industry. one example. in alaska, the current price is $79 for a 27-year-old man. it goes up to the lowest new price is $254 per month to comply with the individual mandate. that is immoral. it is wrong. young people are already saddled with the fact that the economy is not generating jobs, incredible college debt, they are getting screwed one more time. host: where did you grow up? guest: in grove city, pennsylvania. host: why do you have your politics? guest: i wrote about this in my

book. when i was 13 or 14, i was listening to an album i bought by rush. they dedicated it to ayn rand and that led me to reading economics and to do what i do. host: what do your parents do? guest: they are not around anymore, but my dad worked at general electric. host: joanne, illinois, democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a comment to make. for the last two to three weeks, our country has been on shutdown because of this man's group and people that support him. everyone has learned from the last three weeks that government is good and that we need government. one comment that he made was that young people are paying for

older people to have insurance. think of social security. that is the way it has always been. we pay as young people for those that have already worked and when we get to that age, then somebody will pay for us. that is the way the system works. it is a good system and will always work. if you listen to someone like this man, we will not have a government and we need a government. you should stop telling that lie to people. i heard that this company -- his organization, freedomworks, just filed for bankruptcy. why would we want to listen to someone like that when he cannot take care of his own organization? guest: we have not filed for bankruptcy or anything like it. the fact is if you believe government is good and if you believe that the government should perform certain

functions, you have to come to the terms with the fact that we cannot keep spending money we do not have. if you just raised taxes, you're going to undermine people's ability to find jobs. if you keep spending money we do not have, we do crazy things like letting the federal reserve monetize that debt. that essentially steals money out of your pocket. it depreciates the value of the dollar that you use to buy the food that you eat. somebody needs to be the adult in the room and say, how do we balance these things? we should look at defense spending, all of these things that showed up in the last budget deal. i think we should put everything on the table. we cannot continue to keep the most important promises that we have made as a federal government unless we deal with this problem. host: a tweet. flat tax does not equalize tax burden. it penalizes those with lower incomes.

guest: i disagree. if you look at how rich people pay taxes today -- you look at john kerry's tax return for instance. he did not pay much in federal income taxes. they are able to find loopholes. they are able to hire a lawyer, sometimes they hire lobbyists that solve their problems for them. everybody should pay the same. that is the american way. we believe in equal justice under the law. when you treat everybody differently, you are giving your power to some third party. they are going to pick winners and losers. we saw this with the irs scandal. it has happened under democrats and republicans. they have gone after americans. it is not right. host: rockaway, new jersey,

independent line. caller: i have so many things to say. host: why don't you pick two of them and go ahead? caller: obamacare was written up by wellpoint, the health insurance industry. it was authored by a woman who was one of the chief aides on the baucus committee. the $716 billion that is erased out of the medicare fund in order to support the funding of obamacare is one aspect.

i was wondering, at the time i was watching these shenanigans, where was mr. ryan on the republican side? he was very quiet. he came out of the woodwork recently with his private accounts theories. my supposition of this circus is that these political parties are two wings of the same bird. they play good cop and bad cop. the democrats turn was the $716 billion for the medicare program. mr. ryan comes along with his taxation, his flat tax, or whatever he is introducing, hiding the private account robbery of medicare. there you go. host: very quickly, what would you like to see done now? caller: i would like to see the corporate government that exists today completely demolished and replaced by people that

represent the american people and the american people's concerns and aspirations. host: we just talked with adam green. both of you would say we agree with carol. am i right? guest: progressives wanted a single-payer health-care system. they want to take the insurance interest out of it. what president obama did was sat down with the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry who were major investors in advocating for that plan, but this is how washington works. whether you are progressive, conservative, or anything else, the deals that are cut, the legislation written is always written by those that show up at the table. the obamacare plan was designed to pay off the insurance industry by forcing young people to pay more, in exchange to cover people with pre-existing

conditions. it fattens the profits of the insurance industry. if you are progressive, you should not like that. we would like to unwind all of that by simplifying the tax code and allowing people to take more control over their own insurance with their own dollars. host: when it comes to corporate government, do you agree with that? not just health care, but when she talks about the corporate government. guest: yeah, i call it collusion. i call it insider collusion. you have corporate interests. i am not talking about enterprise interests. general electric is dependent on

the government model. that is the kind of collusion we should be opposed to. the tea party and progressives used to hijack the democratic party. more people have more information to organize and know what is going on than ever in our history. insider lobbyists that are lined up no longer have that privileged position, because we find out what is in the bill, we read it online and share it with our friends. over time, i think the power is shifting back away from washington and into the hands of the people. i think that is a good thing. host: when you look at demographics, what is the future? guest: with independents. what you are seeing overall is

not a trend towards either party, a lot of people less affiliated with either party. they are not excited about republicans, democrats. independent registration is going up. people are voting based on their principles and values. there is an opportunity for those of us that believe in freedom to find a compelling connection with latinos and young people on civil liberties and crony capitalism, and economic opportunity. host: what about immigration? this event toave go to george takei at the national press club. it is just getting underway. >> press.org.

on behalf of our members world lied, i would like him welcome our speaker and those of you in our audience. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. if you hear applause from our audience, i note that members of the general public are also attending so it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. [laughter] i would also like to welcome heresies been public radio audiences per you can follow the action today on twitter using the hash tagnpclunch. after our speaker concludes, we will have a question and answerperiod. let's introduce our guests. please stand richly as your name is announced. from your right, washingtonki, bureau chief for the buffalo news and national press club resident formerly. sylvia smith, features editor

bulletin and a former national press club president. bull sheppard -- robertyun, national press club member and cnn director of political research. manager andkei spouse of george takei. [applause] skipping over the podium, allison fitzgerald, the financial editor for the center for public integrity and the chair of the national press club speakers committee. skipping over our guest for a moment, jeffbelew, news editor for al jazeera and a member of the national press club board of editors and the speakers committee member who organized today's lunch. thank you. from usa today and a past president of the national

press club and the vice chair of the speakers committee this year. a membertraglinski, of the press club or have governors. jerry o'reilly, and editor at large for bloomberg news and jay quo the composer of "allegiance peer [applause] our guest today is akitschy 60s throwback. [laughter] is a a gay-rights activist, cult hero, a major movie star, social media phenom and headed for broadway. has one of the most varied and unusual biographies of anyone we have welcomed to the national press club podium. he is clearly best known for his role as lieutenant hakaru sulu televisionar trek" series.

although they were cordial on frostytakei's relationship with william shatner has fueled gossip reports for years. return for the blockbuster movie franchise were after more than 20 years, he was finally promoted to captain. [laughter] [applause] his acting career has spanned five decades and he is probably one of the few who can claim to have appeared on" the courtship "f eddie's father" macgyver" the muppets and howard stern. there is much more to mr. takei than acting. at the age of 67, he announced to the world he is gay. he has since been an advocate for the rights of the lgbt community. he and his husband brad married in 2008 and when you're later, became the first gay couple to appear on "the newlywed game" show.

post"ued in "washington that people discriminate against people in actions that are not familiar. the ick is often the basis of the politics of exclusion. in addition to his cult following of trekkies, many of whom are in the audience today,1 [laughter] 33 takei is a social media phenom. his facebook page where he posts jokes and grumpy cat photos alongside commentary aboutlbgt writes counts 5 million fans for it on twitter, he has 700,000 followers. as if he is not busy enough, he on a newtly embarked project. he is heading to broadway. " allegiance" is a musical starring takei in a story about a family and a japanese internment camp during world war ii. the show is inspired in part by

george's own story. he and his family were interred northern california for much of his childhood. these help me give a warm national press club welcome to a man who has done just about everything i'm a george takei. [applause] northern california for much of his childhood. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. it's wonderful to be here at the national press club. but the feeling i have is it's like a very elegant star trek convention. [laughter] and that reflects on your good taste and high standards. [laughter] it's wonderful to be back in washington at last. it's wonderful to have

washington back and working at last as well. bravo, for that. [applause] i love washington. when we arrived in the early evening last night, i saw all of the things i love about washington. we were greeted by the national that dusky light. it was glowing white and luminous. i visited all of those monuments many times. inspired by the words written on them. there is one new addition to that collection of memorials here in washington that i have not visited and that's the newest one, the memorial tribute to dr. martin luther king jr. the first thing we did this morning was graphic cap and went to the martin luther king jr.

memorial. we walked up to it and there was dr. king looming out of that white stone. he had his arms crossed. he was standing strong and determined. i look at that face and i saw the gentleness and the compassion there. he is the only one of the american heroes immortalized that i have met and shaken hands with and conversed with. that is a very important and powerful and meaningful monument for me. face, ioking at his thought of those famous words of -- i have aream dream speech -- i have a dream -- it is a dream that is deeply rooted in the american dream. i have a dream that on the red

hills of georgia the sons of slaves and the sons of slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood. i have a dream -- i have a dream that my two little children will -- my fouration little children, he said -- will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their characters. those were inspiring words and i remember marching with him and raising our voices in song with him. from the i have a dream speech were spoken from the lincoln memorial. we went over to the lincoln memorial and climbed the steps. and there was president lincoln looking majestic in his seat. words that alle high school kids memorized, the gettysburg speech.

government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. i stepped further away and looking northwest, i saw the kennedy center for the performing arts where i have been many times. one of the things i enjoy of theg to see a life at kennedy center is during the intermission, i like to stroll terrace and read the quotations from president kennedy on the marble wall there. i memorized one that particularly struck me. he said com," dustertain that after the of the centuries have passed over our cities, we will be remembered not for the victories were defeats in the fields of double or politics but we will be remembered for our contribution to the human

spirit, soaring ideals, soaring on aspirations, american ideals." from the steps of the lincoln memorial, i looked down and i saw the vietnam war and world war ii memorials. these were people who fought and sacrificed and some died for those ideals of this country. then i looked beyond that and there was the washington monument, currently clad in a temporary, artfully designed scaffolding. [laughter] you laugh but i thought it looked rather at theriault and, at the same time, having substance, soaring up there to the sky. i looked beyond that, far beyond that, and i saw the national nuthouse. [laughter] [applause]

the place where some wackos closed the government and throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work and then they turn around and say they are creating jobs. disruptckos that funerals for military personnel who died abroad and then they say they are doing that to strengthen our military. it is absolutely crazy, absolutely irrational. this on the other end of our national mall. and therationality shining ideals of our nation. separate cities. it's the same city and it's our national capital. it is very representative of what america is all about. the irrational and the ideals.

definedo opposites have my life totally because i grew up as a child imprisoned him barb wire american prison camps. pearl harbor was bombed and overnight, american citizens of japanese answers straight -- ancestry were looked at with suspicion and fear and outright hatred. but despite that, young japanese-americans, like all americans, rushed to their recruitment centers to volunteer to serve in the military. this act of patriotism was answered with a slap in the face. they were denied military enemy --nd labeled non-aliens. it was outrageous. to call people who were voluntarily there to fight for

this country the enemy but to compound that but calling us non-aliens. what are they? non-aliens? they are citizens defined in the negative. we became enemy non-aliens and we were some hourly rounded up in 10point and imprisoned barb wire american prison camps and some of the most desolate places in the country. i remember those barbed wire fences. the tall carrots with the machine guns pointed at us and i remember the searchlights that followed me when i made the night runs to the latrine. to tell you the truth, as a five-year-old boy, i thought it was kind of nice that the search light lit the way for me to pee. [laughter] i was too young to really

understand what was happening. children are amazingly adaptable. what would be grotesquely abnormal became my normality behind those hard wire fences. linecame routine for me to up three times per day to eat lousy food in a noisy mess hall. it became normal for me to go with my father to bathe at a mass shower. it became normal for me to go to school in a black tarpaper barracks and begin the school day with a pledge of allegiance to the flag. i could see the barbed wire fence and the sentry towers right outside my schoolhouse window as i recited the words " with liberty and justice for all you." i was too young to appreciate the irony of those words. for my parents, it was the most

painful, degrading, and turbulent period of their lives. a year into imprisonment, the government realized there was a wartime manpower shortage. and so as suddenly as they rounded us up, they opened the military for service by japanese-americans. sound,anding as it might thousands of young japanese- americans, the same ones that were rejected, when from behind that barb dwyer imprisoned leaving their families in imprisonment and volunteered to fight for this country. they were put into a segregated, all japanese-american unit, the 442nd regimental team and sent to the battlefields of europe. they were sent out on the most dangerous missions.

and they sustained the highest combat casualty rate of any unit of its size. they fought with amazing courage. they became heroes. 442nhen the war ended, the d returned to the united states as the most decorated unit of the entire war. thathe american flag covered the coffins of those that perished on those battlefields were delivered back to their wives or their parents. , still behind those barbed wire fences. it is a stinging irony. that is a part of american history. teenager, ie a started reading civics books and history books. about all of the glorious chapters in american history.

but i could not find anything about what was my childhood. i engaged my father in conversations after dinner, sometimes they became very heated. conversations, i got a better understanding of our democracy. said," ours is a people's democracy and it can be as great as the the people can be but it's also as fallible as people are." our democracy is vitally dependent on good people being actively engaged in the process. 's feet haveocracy has to b to be put to the fire. thosey after conversations, my father took me to the at least evenson's campaign headquarters and we volunteered and that was my introduction to electoral

politics and that was my introduction to advocacy for social justice. i became inspired by the words of dr. martin luther king and i was actively involved in the civil rights movement. started, ietnam war joined the anti-vietnam war movement. i became a member of the eipj - the entertainment industry for peace and justice and worked alongsid donald sutherland and jane fonda and in 1972, i became a mcgovern delegate to the democratic national convention in miami beach. movement70s when the and ano get redress apology for that incarceration of japanese americans, i joined in with that as well. i testified at the congressional

commission gathering information on the internment. involved in all the civil rights and social justice advocacy campaigns except for one issue that was organic to me. that was an immutable part of me -- from the time i was a young boy, i knew i was different in ways more than my asian face. say,"her boys would monica is hot." [laughter] sally is cute. i thought monica and sally were nice -- [laughter] but bobby was exciting. [laughter] when ever he came near me or talked to me, my heart started

to pound. the other guys did not feel that way. i was the only one, i thought. i was very alone. and i had a need to be part of the gang, to be part of everybody. and so i acted like monaco was hot and sally was cute. i dated girls. i went on double dates. i went to the senior prom. i played a part. older, i met others who are like me. and i discoveredgay bars. i was comfortable there. people were friendly and they were who they were as i could be who i was. i could relax. but i found something else that we shared in common. it was a fear.

a fear of being exposed. we were living double lives. about some gay bars that got raided by the police and the patrons there were all herded out and loaded onto paddy wagons and taken to the police station, fingerprinted, photographed and put on a list called deviants. that was a fearsome thing. whenever i walked into a new gay bar, i always looked for the exits. constant, ever present fear of eating exposed -- ever present fear of eating exposed. in 1969, two earthshaking events happened in my life.

the first one was " star trek" got canceled. [laughter] i had been working on a tv series for three seasons and the ratings were low and the network had the numbers to justify cancellation. and i was unemployed. as low as the ratings were, " star trek" was a respected show and a good credit. andeded to parlay that build some momentum to continue my career. country,ay across the on the east coast, in new york city, something else happened -- there was a gay bar there called the stonewall inn. it's patrons were gays and lesbians and some drag queens. afternoon,y summer

the police decided to raid the stonewall inn but this time, something different happened. bar hadle inside the had enough. they were not going to take more of that bullying and harassment. they fought back. those drag queens stood strong on their high heel shoes and started throwing things. empty beer bottles, salt shakers, chairs, everything they could throw and they fought fiercely and forced the police to retreat. they called for reinforcements but in the meantime, it inside the stonewall inn, phone calls were made to friends around greenwich village and by the time the police reinforcements arrived, people had been pouring out of the greenwich village attacked the they

reinforcements with stones and trash cans and whatever else they could throw. and thatiot ensued riot continued for six nights straight. and that was the beginning of the gay liberation movement. it was the buzz and all the gay bars across the nation. all were thrilled and excited and motivated and galvanized. but i was silent. i had a career to protect. then i had many relationships with many men, met brief, some more and i a guy named brad. [laughter] [applause]

he was a runner and i was a runner but he was a great runner. he was lean then -- [laughter] he was tight muscled and he was handsome. and he was the best runner i had ever seen. i heard that he had run a few marathons and i had never run a marathon. so i asked him to train me for my first marathon. [laughter] and i finished that first marathon is to brad. and we became great running buddies. soon, we became more than running buddies. he moved in with me. too, shared the fear that i had, the constant, ever present fear of being exposed.

he was a young journalist. he was not a member of the national press club yet. but he had to protect his career as well. and then in the 1980s, a strange, mysterious disease started affecting a lot of our friends. they suddenly became very ill and started drastically losing weight and became skeletal and had to be rushed to the hospital frequently. and we were outraged by the kinds of care they got. it was perfunctory at best. wastreatment that they got reprehensible. it wasaids. -- it was aids. organizations began to form to demand appropriate funding for research to find some way of

dealing with this horrible disease. and it was not forthcoming. and for the first time, we donated money to a gay-related organization. but we remained silent. the horror that getting worse. our constant fear had now turned to terror. it kept getting worse and worse so, i marched in my first aids walk. i became physically present on the issue. but i marched as an ally, a cloak to disguise me. it kept getting worse and worse. gay organizations, gay and lesbian organizations, became very vocal and very visible. and that generated the

homophobic blowback and they were connected. they had -- some more gay politicians, members of that homophobic group. and they started institutionalizing their homophobia. us, passed laws to confine don't ask, don't tell, defense of marriage act -- of those laws, to me, looked like barbed wires, legalistic barbed wires with the sharp, hard barbs of prejudice and ignorance. and still, i remained silent. exciting, positive things started happening. the california legislature, both houses, the senate and the assembly, past the marriage equality bill in 2005.

it was a landmark event. it was unprecedented. signatureuired was a of our governor to become the law of the state. the governor will happen to be, at that time, arnold schwarzenegger. when he campaigned for that office, he said " i'm from hollywood and i have worked with gays and lesbians in some of my best friends are gays and lesbians." i thought surely he would sign the bill. when he vetoed that bill playing to his archconservative republican base, we were enraged. but we were at home watching the news. peoplenews, we saw young pouring out onto santa monica boulevard venting their rage on arnold schwarzenegger and we shared that bridge but we were at home, comfortable in bed. and we talked about it and

that's when i decided i've got to speak out on this issue. we are getting so close and we have people like arnold schwarzenegger to squash it. and for me speak out to speak, my voice had to be authentic. and so i spoke to the press for the first time as a gay man. and we became actively and vocally and visibly engaged. thehrc, theh human rights campaign, and went on a speaking tour at universities, governmental meetings.at corporate i came to washington and lobbied our legislators. i went to sacramento and lobbied our legislators. things began to happen. in california, our states

supreme court in 2008 ruled that marriage equality is indeed constitutional according to the california state constitution. and so brad and i immediately seized the opportunity and got our wedding license in west hollywood. we were the first couple to get that license. we were married in the democracy forum of a japanese american national museum. we loved the idea of adding married in the form of democracy. we had 200 of our relatives and friends there with us. amongst them was a distinguished american. he is a veteran -- he was a veteran of the second world war, a member of the 442nd regimental combat team, a bearer

of the medal of honor, the highest recognition, military recognition the nation can grant. senatoras the senior from the state of hawaii, a very good friend of ours, the late senator daniel inoutye. he was there as our guest at our wedding and we were absolutely thrilled. other good things started to happen. the matthew shepard-james byrd junior hate crimes prevention act was passed. and ask, don't tell fell now, gays and lesbians can serve proudly and openly as who they are. they are true patriots. thatriogone through pe of silence. d this summer, the supreme court of the united states ruled that marriage equality is, indeed, constitutional in the

states that approved it. -- 13tes lost this city states plus the city, our national capital, has marriage equality but our work is not done yet. when i pledge allegiance to the flag, i pledge allegiance to one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. we have divided our nation 1/3 with the quality and 2/3 with people who hunger for equality but do not have it. our work is not done but i am optimistic because recently in california, the california field poll showed that 78% of young people under 39 support and support strongly, equality for people. 78% -- it's a matter of time.

i'm very optimistic and i love young people. especially young straight couples because they are going to be making the gay babies of tomorrow. [laughter] [applause] it is for them that we have to be agents of change today. my life has been shaped and formed by people that i consider change agents. those young man who went from behind those prison camp fences to fight for this country and some to die for this country, they changed america for us, japanese-americans, and they were might change agents. my parents were also might change agents. were let out of the

camp, our first home was on skid row in downtown los angeles. we did not have anything. working long, by hard hours, they gave their three children fine educations in outstanding, great american universities. the university of california at berkeley, the university of california at los angeles. the university of southern and the university of wisconsin. they were our change agents and yes, those drag queens at the stonewall inn also are much age agents. just are my change agents. this nation has been defined by change agents. when this nation was founded, women had no rights, they could not vote, they could not own

land, they could not even have rights over their own children. because determined women and fair-minded man challenged and debated and marched for equal rights for women, today we have three women sitting on the supreme court of this country. we have had three women serve as u.s. secretaries of state. astronauthad a woman lead a team of astronauts and go soaring out into space. they were all change agents. the first change agents were our founding fathers who articulated the shining ideals of this country. they were change agents but they also kept other human beings as slaves. because those slaves hungered for freedom and justice and they struggled for it, and because

their children and their grandchildren and the generations that followed continued their struggle, through the jim crow years and the years of the civil rights movement, inspired by dr. king's eloquence, today we have an african-american in that big white house on pennsylvania avenue. and they are all change agents. we are a nation of change agents. why i am optimistic about our future. , i still have a continuing ever present fear. big white building with the dome on it at the far end of pennsylvania avenue. january 15 and february 7.

be afraid, america. be afraid. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you. on ave a lot of questions lot of topics. we will try to cover a little ground in a bunch of areas. this questionnaire asks -- you talked about the work yet to be done in terms of gay marriage being legal in all states. what do you see as the next civil rights fight on the horizon after gay marriage? >> we still have a long ways to go. as long as there are young people bullied and made to feel

very inferior, as long as young people get kicked out of their homes when they come out as gay or lesbian, and as long as some young people feel that their future is so hopeless and they kill themselves, we have a lot to do. we have to have, first of all, education and then some legislation to make sure that those horrible things don't happen to young people. this questionnaire says -- for first generations americans whose parents are not as progressive and liberal as many parents born in the u.s., what advice do you have are bringing up touchy subjects like being gay? >> that's very difficult. it depends on the culture from which that first generation parent comes from. the most familiar with

asian culture and particularly the japanese culture. culture is not so -- ruled by religion as with the bible. it is primarily a boost nation. -- a buddhist nation. culture is to work collectively and it's a very uh- class and a big middle- so there is a lot of utilitarian as him. -- a lot of e galley at terry and as him -- a lot of egalitarianism. it is not so much religious values as being a part of a comfortable society.

for young people to come out in a society like that, there is of being struck down by the devil or anything like that. the concern is it will embarrass the family. educated, it's not going to be an embarrassment. that's why i think it is so -- silentfor more gays and lesbians, particularly in the asian culture, to come out and be open and be as they are, insurance salesman, schoolteacher, policeman, whatever you are and it makes it more socially acceptable. that i was quote going to suggest putting on the congress -- the walls of congress, because i use a lot of

quotes on the memorial and what i think of is the quote from the great former congressman who " these days it is more socially acceptable to be gay than to be a congressman." [laughter] i think that should be carved into the walls there. [laughter] yourou talked about enjoyment of running and carry the 1984 olympic torch. you called on the national olympic committee to move the 2014 winter games out of sochi because of the russian laws banning the promotion of gay relationships and the games are less than four months away. do you think the u.s. should bike -- boycott those games for that reason? >> no, i don't believe in a boycott. the athletes that participate in the olympics have been training for years now. they are reaching their peak and they should not be penalized.

the homophobic laws in russia that was passed recently -- when they made the presentation to the international: pics committee to have the right to present the winter elliptic's at sochi, russia, they pledged to honor the olympic code which says no discrimination. they breached that pledge. butia needs to be punished it's too late to pull it out of sochi now. we have sent messages and petitions to the international olympics committee to be responsible and call russia out on the breaching of their pledge. apparently, they had some conversations with politicians there and a couple of

politicians have said -- the minister of interior who controls the police said laws of russia will be honored and anyone who cannot will be tried. reportedics committee that there is nothing we can do about it so we are comfortable about the limericks being staged in sochi. the international olympic committee is spineless. they need to have some backbone. charged with upholding the olympic creed and something should be done with the membership of the ioc. [applause] this questionnaire says she did not learn about the internment of japanese americans until she was in high school watching [inaudible]

how do you feel about this lack of information on this part of history? >> it is a regrettable part of american history. i think we learn more from those chapters of our history where we faltered them from the many glorious chapters we have. it's important that we learn from our mistakes and if we don't know about it, we will keep repeating the same mistakes again. that is why we founded the japanese american national museum where an affiliate of the smithsonian -- we are an affiliate of the smithsonian and send it around the country. senator inouye was the chairman of our board of governors. he was a strong and active supporter of the museum. we work with the teachers association in arkansas, that's where we were first

incarcerated, in southeastern arkansas. we have established teaching curricula on this subject of the internment of japanese americans. it's being taught in the schools. it has sent out a ripple effect. there were two internment camps in arkansas, oath in the swamps of the southeastern sector. we were at it cap calledrohr and there was another called jerome and in the middle of those two internment camps there is a small town called mcgee and earlier this year, they converted their abandoned railway station and to the world war ii japanese american internment museum. it is a small museum but it is very comprehensive and beautifully done.

if any of you should be driving around southeastern arkansas, you might visit that museum in mcgee, arkansas. status of"the allegiance?" is it likely to come to broadway? and when is it likely to come to dc? >> " allegiance" began about three years ago. we developed this musical and we developed it because we can have books and lectures and talks about the internment which helps us understand intellectually but the most powerful way to understand a story is to feel that story. hear,l theater hits you emotionally. it humanizes the story. anddeveloped" allegiance"

we first opened at the old globe theater in san diego, distinguished regional theater. with raveeeted reviews and that was followed by sold-out houses and our run was extended another week and when we finally closed, we had broken all box office attendance records at the 72nd year old old globe theater. ofn we won the best musical 2012 from the san diego critics circle. that all bodes well for our transfer to broadway. however, something unusual is happening this year. there are few new plays and musicals coming into broadway and there are theaters that are dark. plethora ofe have a

musicals and thomas trying -- and dramas trying to find a home on broadway and we are particularly fussy. we want a certain size capacity theater. we are looking for a theater of about 1200-1400 seats. it's very difficult to come by. perched on vultures time square buildings looking down and looking for the weak ones and waiting for them to die. [laughter] moving onto social media, you are known as the king of facebook. what have you learned from your popularity on social media? any surprises you have discovered there? >> let me give you a little how myund on why and

social media activities started. it's related to allegiance" or ." we have invested a lot in this musical with their energies and ideas and our resources. something that's little-known and america -- in america and it's a rather unhappy chapter of american history. to so, first of all, we had raise the awareness because there is so many people still to this day, people that seem well informed, to tell me that i knew nothing about this internment story. awareness ofse the americans about the internment of japanese americans. and then, once the awareness was raised, we wanted to let them know that there is a musical on it.

and there are wonderful songs, moving songs, and great production numbers that are jazzy and resume says. [laughter] and one musical numbers on baseball that's a real terrific number. and it's relevant to the story because it was playing baseball that made us a community. it brought us all together. we developed this musical and we wanted to let people know that there is this musical. and then to whet their appetite and make them want to come and see it. the best way to do that isvia social media. i began on social media but my fi geeksade up of sci- and nerds. [laughter] you are there areas yes, i see you. [laughter] [applause]

so we had to develop that and the best way to do that, i thought, was to say funny things or science itself and occasionally throw in some serious snippets in. as the audience grew, i talked about lgbt equality and suddenly, the audience grew even more. there is a great overlap betweensci-fi geeks and nerds and the lgbt community. [laughter] then i started blogging about the internment of japanese americans and opened a few eyes. there was a lot of engagement there. it kept growing and growing. that's why we began the social media campaign. is that there are millions of people out there. [laughter] idea it was going to

grow so big. i am absolutely astounded. from" uncleopsy tom's cabin" i just growed. i learned that there are a lot of people out there that you can media and thecial best honey to catch those flies with his humor. something funny will always grab them. >> we got a couple of questions about "ohhhh myyy." tell us about the genesis of that. my hashow, my oh become my signature. i have been using it all my life. word that when you're surprised, you say " oh my" or when something wonderful happens.

sunrise see a beautiful or a radiant sunrise, you say "oh my." or when we land a man on the moon, you say "oh my." it's a very handy and all encompassing word. [laughter] i have been using it all the time. experience that started it all off as my signature. i did the howard stern show. yes, there is a howard stern fan. howard stern says a lot about racist things. in response to something outrageous he said, i said "oh my." he had it on tape. that's all he needed. whether i am there or not, [laughter] when someone says something outrageous, he has a button and presses and my voice comes on "oh my." [laughter] [applause]

>> we certainly cannot leave today without a " star trek" question. how did your fellow starcher cast members embrace your coming out? > uh - at the end of the week, we have parties, therap beer is rolled out and the pizza is brought in. people bring their wives or girlfriends or the women bring their husbands or their boyfriends with them to join us for the end of the week wrap party. mytially, i was bringing friends who happens to be girls but later, i started bringing my buddies. anday, there would be ron the next week there might be mel

and then another week there might be a brad. they are sophisticated people. george, i get it. ." they understand that if they talked about it, it would be damaging to my career and they are cool people. they remained silent. occasionally, i get some clues from them. report to the studio in the morning, before we go to our dressing rooms, we go to make up and get into make up and then gather around the coffee urn and sip coffee. this particular morning, i was at the coffee urn with walter and we were chitchatting. all of a sudden, walter started going like this --

you know, urging me to turn around. i turned around to look and there was this dropdead you're just extra. [laughter] dressed in that tight starfleet uniform. [laughter] and my heart stopped. and then i turned around and looked at walter and walter was smiling and he went - [laughter] i knew he knew now. we are, unfortunately almost out of time but before i ask you the last question, a couple of housekeeping matters -- i would like to remind you of our upcoming speakers. on november 5, we have rolled it n and we have goldie haw fromwalt bettinger

charles schwab. i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] and for the last question -- tell us, are there gay vulcans and if so, how do they socialize? [laughter] >> i can answer that. it's a changed world now. "have the new version of star trek." the last two movies had younger actors playing our roles. , a actor who plays spock vulcan, is played by zachary quinto who is gay. vulcan andut gay he happens to be spock. [laughter] guy andis a real great

he's also a very serious actor. "you know, he was on heroes," and i was mr. knocker mora -- akamura, the father of hhiro zachary was the villain. evil powers. after the series was canceled, he went to new york, and he had been doing off-broadway plays. in a challenging role in a great american drama, "angels in america," playing the gay attorney. yet,e was not an attorney ,ut a very important, dramatic

demanding role, and he got good reviews for that. he opened on broadway with a wonderful actress, cherry jones, in one to tony awards tennessee williams "the glass menagerie," and he got luminous reviews. the new york times said he was ", one field" that he had ever seen. that is -- zach is a wonderful actor. as a matter fact, we have tickets to see him tomorrow tomorrow. we are headed to new york right after this event here. role can.a gay can. is how -- vul that is how they celebrate, they become serious actors. [applause] [laughter]

coming today.or also, i would like to say thank you to the national press club staff for organizing the event. you can find more information about the press club and a copy of today's program on our website, www. press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] a live look at the u.s. capitol this afternoon where flags have been lowered at half staff in honor of former u.s. house speaker tom foley who passed away earlier today. he served the sixth district bidre serving a reelection for a 16th term in 1995. former house speaker and current minority leader nancy pelosi had this to say about speaker foley

-- house republican leader john boehner remarked former house speaker tom foley died today. he was 84 years old. a live picture now from the white house. this afternoon, president obama is expected to introduce former defense department attorney jeh johnson to replace janet napolitano as secretary of homeland security. live coverage when it began

shortly here on c-span. gentlemen, the president and vice president of the united states, accompanied by mr. jeh johnson. >> good afternoon, everybody. please have a seat.

as president, my most solemn responsibility is the safety and security of the american people, and we have an outstanding team of folks here that work every single day to make sure that we're doing everything we can to fulfill that responsibility, and that means our entire government, our law enforcement and homeland security professionals, our troops, diplomats, and intelligence personnel are all working together. it means working with state and local partners to disrupt terrorist attacks, to make our borders more secure, respond to natural disasters, and make our immigration system more effective and fair. addressing any one of these challenges is a tall order. addressing all of them and wants is a monumental task. that is what the dedicated men and women of the department of homeland security do every day

and i am proud to announce my choice to lead them, and outstanding of the servant who i have known and trusted for years, mr. jeh johnson. we are enormously grateful to secretary janet napolitano. she could not be here today. she has made her move to her new california,sunny overseeing the higher education system in that great state, and i know she will do an outstanding job there with the incredible young people that are in our largest state, but we all deeply appreciate a terrific job that she did over the last four and a half years. i want to say thank you two grand bears for his service. thank you in no small part to have doneadership, we more to protect our homeland against those who wish to do us harm. bordersstrengthened our

and taken steps to make sure our immigration system that reflects our values. we have help thousands of americans recover from hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, conducts, and worked to a massive oil spill in the gulf, and address a flu pandemic. in jeh johnson, we have the right person to continue this important work. from the moment i took office, jeh johnson was a critical member of my team. he has a deep understanding of the threats and challenges facing the united states. lawyer, heagon's top helped a design and development many of the policies that kept our country safe, including dismantling the core of al qaeda. nationalrected my security team to be more open and transparent about how our policies work and how we make decisions, especially how it

prevents terrorist attacks, jeh spoke eloquently about how we need these demands within the rule of law. he knows it means cooperation across our government. he has been there in the situation room, at the table, in moments of decision, working with leaders from a host of agencies to ensure everybody is rowing in the same direction and he is respected across our government as a team player -- someone who knows how to get folks who do not always agree to work toward a common goal. jeh has experience leading complex organizations. pentagoner of the team, first under bob gates, then under leon panetta, he helped to oversee the work of military andillion civilian personnel across the country and around the world, and it is fair to say former

secretaries gates and panetta will attest to the incredible professionalism jeh brings to the job, and the bipartisan approach that, appropriately, he takes when it comes to national security. he has also earned a reputation as a cool and calm leader, and he appreciates that the greatest when in aeople, report he explained while allowing people to serve openly would not weaken our military. congress use that report that repealped to craft to don't guess, don't tell. -- don't asked, and don't tell. tonow he will bring that dhs.

he believes that upholding civil liberties keeps america great. unclels the story of his who was a tuskegee airman in world war ii, who served with honor even when the country did not treat them with the respect and dignity that they deserved. it was a lesson that jeh never forgot. we must adopt legal positions to comport with common sense, consistent who we are as americans. jeh is a pretty good lawyer, so he knows what that means, and he understands this country is worth protecting not because of what we build or what we own, but because of who we are, and that is what sets us apart. as a nation, we have to keep adapting to threats, whether natural or man-made, and we have to help americans recover in the aftermath. we have to fix our broken immigration system in a way that

strengthens our borders and make sure everyone is playing by the same rules, and i am confident that i could not make a better choice in jeh, someone who i am confident is going to be moving not just the agency forward, but to move the country forward. jeh, thank you so much for agreeing to take on this extraordinary mission. you have a great team at dhs. i know they are looking forward to having you over there. i urge the senate to confirm jeh as soon as possible, and thank you as well as your family for agreeing to serve. your wife susan and daughter natalie could not be here because they are visiting je junior ateh occidental college, which i attended for two years. i'm sorry i could not be there. your son chose well. i would like to introduce jeh to

say a few words. hopefully, the next department of homeland security. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. president. as you noted, my wife and two kids are not here because it is parents weekend at occidental university, and thanks to the cost of a nonrefundable airline ticket, they could not be in two places at once. they wish they could be here. thank you for the tremendous honor of this nomination, and the trust you have placed in me to carry out this large and important responsibility as secretary of homeland security. for this looking opportunity. i had left government at the end of last year and was settling back into private life and when i law practice, but received the call, i could not

refuse it. i am a new yorker, and i was present in manhattan on 9/11, which happens to be my birthday. when that bright and beautiful day, a day something like this, was shattered by the largest terrorist attack on our homeland in history. i wondered streets of new york that day -- wandered the streets of new york that day and asked what can i do. since then, i have tried to devote myself to answering that question. love this country, i care about the safety of our people. i believe in public service, and i remain loyal to you, mr. president. if confirmed by the senate, i promise all of my energy and ability toward the task of safeguarding our nation national and homeland security. thank you again, sir. [applause]

♪

♪

>> president obama, this afternoon, nominating jeh johnson to become the new secretary of homeland security, replacing janet napolitano, who was not in attendance. she stepped onto takeover the university of california system. jeh johnson served the defense department, was a general counsel in the air force under president clinton. he is a native of new york city and a graduate of morehouse college and columbia law school. that then, we see flags are at half staff over the u.s. capitol. the house and the senate are not in today, but this is a reflection of the news that former u.s. house speaker tom -- tom foley has passed away. forerved in the u.s. house 30 years before losing a reelection bid for a 16th term

in 1995. tom foley was 84 years old. >> for guys like us that have been in the game for a long time, we know there are landmines out there and you have to be careful about how you manage your way through these things -- issues that deal with the abortion issue in the united states, guns, race, arab-israeli relations. i have lived in other countries, and they have their own red lines they have to be aware of. i guess what a cartoonist could get away with in san francisco but be different than what you can get away with in parts of alabama. >> i think there are a few conservatives in journalism and that is reflected in cartoonist as well. it is not a conservative thing. journalism tends to draw people that are more liberal.

>> they say bad news is good for cartoonists because it gives us a lot of fodder, but i would rather work harder and have less bad news and know we are going in a right direction, and i think we are not going in a right direction right now. i feel like it is a real calling for me to get my opinions out there. span, itweekend, on c- is not all fun and games for editorial cartoonists. here why saturday 10:00 a.m. eastern. two, the life of jesse james. -- c-span3'srd "american history tv" a look back at nixon and the saturday night massacre. years, when you have a look back at books that had an

impact on a president, what did you find, and eventually an impact on us as people? >> that was one of my inspirations for writing this book. one of the famous stories is michael arrington wrote a book called "the other america" about poverty and west virginia. kennedy is supposed to have read that book, and it led to the war on poverty. it is not quite that simple. "thead a book review in new yorker," and that inspired kennedy to tell his chairman of the council of economic advisers to look into policies that could be used to alleviate poverty, he tragically died, obviously, in november of 1963, and johnson heard about the program and heard about it -- and pursued it.

>> 200 years of popular culture in the white house with tevi troy sunday on "q&a." >> yesterday, the new america foundation hosted a conversation looking at the obama administration's relationship with the fred -- press. this is about 90 minutes. >> welcome to new america. i'm here to welcome you to this event -- the obama administration and the press, leak investigations in a post- 9/11 america. i wanted to name this protecting

sources. those of us who do investigative reporting no sources are our lifeblood. the court cases against sources, it is a bleak picture of to and in turning -- including the u.s. attorney in chicago, pat fitzgerald, who put a lot of guys a way that investigative journal -- journalists were investigating, but when it came here, it was asserted that journalists to get leaked information are witnesses to a crime. thank you for coming. it is a great report. if you have not read it yet, please do. will have a fine discussion and we are excited. before i introduce the moderator, one bit of business. it is being webcast, and also on c-span. if you have a question, is be sure to speak into the micro phone. chair of give us a

briefing yesterday that was very helpful. he was general counsel at been that, and is representing a 70- member media coalition advocating for a federal shield bill. thank you for coming. kirk, take it away. >> thank you. it is an honor to be here with these experts. i am the only person on this panel that i have never heard of. to my left is lynn downey junior, a profession of journalism at the cronkite school at arizona state, and very well known as vice president at-large at the washington post when he was executive editor from 1991 to 2008, and spent 42 years in the "washington post" newsroom. is, my apologies,

joel simon, executive director of the committee to protect journalists, the organization that published a report that we will be talking about today. since his appointment as hasutive director, joel led the organization through expansion, including launching the global campaign against impunity, and spearheading efforts to defend press freedom in the digital space. left, a veryoel's well-known -- very well known to this audience for his work at "washington post." he is the author of "imperial life in the emerald city," a best-selling book that became the basis for the movie "the

damon, ae" with matt terrific piece of work on film and on paper. it is the bureau chief in baghdad. so, today, i would like to start nn for an overview of the report we are here to discuss. >> i will do that, and i want to say quickly at the outset because the question of reporters being subpoenaed was brought up, yesterday, james of the new york times lost his appellate court case. it is an the report. this appellate court decision, which has gone against him. the case will probably go to the supreme court, which will be a major test of relationships between reporters and their

sources -- what rights do reporters have to not be forced to give away their sources, and shield law plays into that. if there were a shield law, the case might be different, but there is no shield law, so that could be an important supreme court case in a year or so. i was asked to do this report because i had written a couple of pieces for the outlet section of "the washington post" about the obama administration's war on leaks, the aggressive way they have been going after government officials who provide information to reporters, particularly classified information, but not exclusively. so, i was asked by the committee to explore the whole relationship between the obama administration and the press in the context of the kind of work that the committee to protect journalists doesn't worldwide

about the relationship between governments and -- does relationshiput the between government and journalism, and i was surprised what i found. it went way beyond the war on leaks. it is a lot of other areas where i found the administration to be remarkably controlling and i would tell you about how that happened. my findings are based on several dozen interviews with reporters and news executives and government transparency advocates, and research that i rhapsody didsarah involving leak investigations, which i think are the most complete account that anyone else has been come up with, and it includes both the bush and obama administrations. summary, a one sentence summary of that big long report, the obama administration's aggressive war on leaks and its

efforts to control information -- the news media needs to hold the government accountable for actions, and are without equal since the nixon administration, and are in conflict with obama's goal to make his the most transparent administration in our nations history. i was one of the editors on the watergate story in the 1970's, so i made a comparison with knowledge. there are six components. the first is a chilling affect along withecutions concerns about the nsa surveillance program. obama administration officials and employees are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. every journalist that i talked to said that is the case for their sources in government, whether or not they deal with classified information, especially if it involves classified information. six government employees,

including two government contractors, including edward snowden, of course, have been prosecuted since 2009, and it has been done under a 1917 espionage act that was enacted during world war i to punish foreignor spying for entities, and here we have government officials talking to reporters who are prosecuted under that act. there are only three such classifications in the 19 national 90 years between 1917 and 2009, when they began during the obama administration. in several of these investigations, the justice department and the fbi were successful in secretly subpoenaing and teasing telephone and e-mail traffic between government officials and reporters for news organizations that include "the new york times," foxx news and the associated press. outcry from the

media over those cases, but they still allow the attorney general subpoena and also still contain an exception for any leaked information. it is a huge loophole. the journalist shield legislation, endorsed by the president and endorsed by senate committee, has a similarly broad exception for national security information congressional passage of such a law is still very much in doubt, and also in doubt is how it would define a journalist to be covered by the law. is veryigital age broad. concern that joel may talk about that by defining who we journalist is could lead to

government licensing a journalist, or saying you are not a journalist depending on what action the government wants to take care washington journalists worry about optimizing their sources when we are not just talking about the aid investigations. there have been times when there have been lie detector your tests getting to officials suspect and to have talked to the press. in the aftermath of the manning leaks to wikileaks, obama ordered the establishment of an insider that program throughout the government. many people know about this. employees of all agencies have been monitored to report any suspected insider threat activity which includes indications with the press. the director of the project of government secrecy was one of

the leading government transparency advocates in washington, and he told me this has created a heightened agree of paranoia and may people conscious of the advocates of the press. the third issue, administration centralized's message control. all incoming administrations want to control the administration -- the message coming in, but senior administration officials have what they called on all erased contact with the press is discouraged. they make clear they and the president to know what it any media, and routine inquiries from reporters are often referred to public affairs officials, who are found to be abusive. if they fail to discourage stores they do not think they would like, they refuse to provide reporters public information that we have a right to. the government transparency that

obama has promised is a sophisticated presidential strategy, of creating government websites, social media operations to dispense large amounts of favorable information generated by his information, while restricting the government probing by the press. those sites are full of content, of obama taken by the press photographer when all other photographers are banned. the administration has produced videos and even a faux newscast about administration activities that are close to journalists and then the white house says it is supposedly's coverage of those events. ubiquitous posts by obama officials to promote administration fees. a former reporter and now a director of the school of public media and public affairs at gw

university told me the ministration is using social media to and run the news media. open dialogue with the public is good, but if used for propaganda or bruises and avoid contact with journalists, a slippery slope. the fourth issue is the classification of government information. --orters have been called and it turns the information is classified. administration has taken credit for posting some of the previously secret docket ends -- document explaining the surveillance program, but only after revelations by the press. administration has not acted on a december report to the president by a public interest classification board which recommended many steps to take

to carry out the president tossed aim of classification, which would free officials to discuss more of the business with the press. the fifth issue is the freedom of information progress. the obama administration has made little progress, a directive of his first day in office, to improve government responsiveness to freedom of information requests. too many agencies still reject far too many of these requests or delay forever in responding to them or demand excessive fees to fulfillment. and eight the survey found the number of have so i a requests that were turned down on the grounds of national security or internal administration deliberation had increased during the obama administration.

more than 80 organizations that advocated for increased transparency -- just measure the new work for how to make after i a to work better. they are worried about whether the administration will even listen to their recommendations. the fifth issue, the treatment of whistleblowers. obama also said he supports the protecting of government whistleblowers who reveal bureaucratic abuse. he and his administration draw to stations between that and relegation's to press about government ologies and actions for which they punish leaks with investigations, firings, and obama signed the act of 2012 along with a directive aimed at protecting from retaliation all whistleblowers, including employees, but the very same time his administration won a

decision in august it takes away from many federal employees and designated national sensitive positions, which could include retaliation for whistleblowers. that and the prosecution of some whistleblowers under a 1970 as be a knowledge leaves the verydent a real position unclear. lastly, the international implications, which are of great interest. in addition to the threat posed surveillance, nsa which you are not supposed to , then american reporters obama administration policies provide an example for other countries at a time when this administration has been outspokenly advocating for press internet freedom and the rest of the world.

obama faces many challenges during his time in office. the outcome of which will shape his legacy. one objective he could accomplish without opposition is fulfilling his very first promise, to make his administration the most transparent, by opening its closed doors to a free press. that is the summary. but i would like to invite any buddy who is tweeting about our tagussion to use the hash #obamaandthepress. this pulls it into a different thread of the overall thrust of the administration. there seems to be a detente between government and the press in that we recognize the government has secrets to keep and tries to keep them. the ones that were news worthy and relevant, we would.

it seems in your report you are talking about administration that has stepped over a line between those areas in the essentially chilling the ability of any of this -- of these members to the to the press. a report made prior restent impossible in the united states. us in ourly punish sources, and that is important. secondly is 9/11. a lot of things have changed after 9/11. including the whole balance between exactly what you were talking about between revelations and government activity and national security, and i live with that balance during the bush administration when we publish stories including the cia secret stories

that included conversations with officials about whether we were going to publish that story. those conversations were useful and continued during this administration, but in a different at the sphere. is when theing obama administration came into office they would put under great pressure by agencies who were upset i the previous stories, the secret prison theyes, and as a stories, put a lot of pressure to do something about it. some of these investigations began under bush. i should say both democrats and republicans on that hill. they put great pressure on the administration. also, i believe that the president himself, he has not really spoken about this. i believe he has -- he said something that he did not want secrets revealed that put our boys at risk.

i think he has a strong bent towards secrecy. >> rajiv, joel? pretty compelling. >> it is. a point he makes, particularly as an editor overseeing a publication of some of the stories over time. you look back at the cia black sites story, "the new york times'" reporting on warrantless wiretapping. the bush administration's responses to those. as well as decisions and discussions that led up to the publication of the stories. particularly, how previous administrations have responded to stories they have not liked, they have thought have compromised national security. yet, in most other cases, in previous administrations,

there have been expressions of disgust. there have been some cursory investigations. nothing of the sort that we are seeing now. when you look at some of the investigations that have taken place in recent years and you compare them to some of the previous stories, it seems like it is penny-ante stuff. going after tom drake at the nsa, which you write about. or even the verizon case. in the grand scheme of things, if you talk to experts, those stories do not have a meaningful impact on american national security. and yet, those are some of the cases being pursued with particular vigor. there really has been a fundamental change, in my view, in the approach taken by the government in recent years compared to in the preceding decades.

>> in the two cases rajiv mentioned, they were classic whistleblowers. it was about whether the nsa program was too expensive. >> an argument made was that the documents found in his home were not actually classified. eventually, the case fell apart. >> what i want to do is put the report -- i think it has made a contribution. we have seen the attention it has gotten. some of these investigations, people were aware of them. putting them all together suggests that this is not a haphazard response to certain particular events. there is a systematic effort here to marginalize and undermine the work of the press. that is what the report really

accomplishes. what i want to do is talk about why we undertook it, and what the significance of that is. the cpj has been around since 1981. we started out focusing on the life and liberty of journalists around the world who work in repressive and dangerous environments and have to fear for their lives when they do a story. the framework in which the cpj was founded was the recognition that we have journalists in this country, we have the protection of the first amendment. in our early years, when we were a small organization, we focused on reporting efforts. the recent events in this country and also our conversation with journalists

covering this administration led us to conclude that the atmosphere was different. that had an impact, not only on the work of journalists here, but potentially on journalists around the world. one of our colleagues wrote the u.s. press reports for the world. any erosion here has an impact on the affirmation available everywhere. the u.s. inspires other journalists around the world. they are threatened by an erosion. thirdly, governments take solace from any deterioration in press freedom standards, giving them the ability to take action. we asked to do this

independently. we provided some research support, we helped review it, these are his independent findings. we took the report and reviewed among our staff and provided recommendations. those were done independently. that was how the process worked. >> this is pretty remarkable. this is an organization that normally devotes its resources and still does to investigating and seeking action, journalists murder in the philippines. for cpj to want to devote resources to shining a light on these issues is a remarkable step for international press organization. >> the obama administration focuses a lot on trying to promote free expression in other countries.

what do you think that the types of issues that are catalogued here do to our credibility? >> i can think of a specific example. we have been advocating for president obama to raise concern with prime minister erdogan in turkey about that country's press freedom record. they jail more journalists in turkey than any other country in the world. turkey is a key strategic ally, they have a very deep relationship with the u.s. turkey is an ally, has a deep relationship with the united states, a strategic relationship. president obama and prime minister erdogan developed a relationship. we have advocated for some time that president obama intervene and raise concerns. they had a bilateral meeting in may. the day before that meeting took

place, news about the seizure of the ap phone records broke. i do not know whether it was on the agenda. i had early discussions that it might be. i am reasonably confident it did not. if president obama had raised that, he would have been very exposed. the same sort of thing happened with the nsa surveillance and the stated policy that president obama had articulated, that he would be more aggressively challenging china on its government-orchestrated hacking program. i do not hear that so much anymore. >> i do not know how many of you here work for the government, but the constant pressure to stop leaks of any kind, the pressure not to talk to reporters at all, refer them to public affairs officers, and the presence of the nsa

surveillance, which so far have shown no examples of reporters having been spied on through this communication surveillance process, but the very existence, all those things combined, has a tremendous chilling effect on government officials talking to the press. since the report came out, i have been stopped by reporters who said, i wish you would have talked to me, too. i have 12 other examples. this is their daily life, trying to get government officials to talk to them who are afraid to talk to them. that is not the way it should be. >> there certainly seems to be a link between the nsa program and other surveillance issues that have come up and reporters not feeling comfortable about sending an e-mail to a government source.

"the post" had an exceptional story a few weeks ago about the effect of these leak investigations on the whistleblowers. it catalogued how, going up against the mechanisms of the united states government has one person, can destroy lives, even for those for whom the prosecution fell apart. do you think these early prosecutions that did not seem pointed towards true national security information that would damage the united states were really done to make a point to say this is what can happen to you? >> we do not know that. a previous director of the national intelligence told a reporter on record that this was his intention, to get the justice department to prosecute people so that it would have a chilling effect on others. >> could you talk about the insider threat program? i thought your discussion about that was exceptional.

you can imagine how the government would have a program after the disclosure that chelsea manning had taken, the scope of documents she had, your take on how documents are being handled. it seems to be quite different. >> the original presidential directive that set up a study that produced the insider threat program, which they began rolling out last year, did emphasize the national security aspect of it, but then it was left to each individual agency on how to carry it out. one of the news bureaus here in washington, mcclatchy, did a good job surveying various government agencies to see how they were carrying this out. a number of them made clear in any kind of leaking to the press was the same as giving something to china. also, that you are supposed to be monitoring your fellow

employees, kind of the "1984" thing, that if you see any signs of leaking documents or being unstable, you are required to report that. you can get in trouble for not reporting that somebody else's doing that you may find suspicious. that is unprecedented in american history. we do not yet know what its effect is, but it happens to be chilling. >> it seems to be having a chilling impact already on day to day routine business. these sorts of work that journalists in this town do every day, that in many cases has nothing to do with top- secret or material classified at a lower level, or any thinking to with national security matters. simply calling up an official in this administration, in the white house or cabinet agency, and wanting to have a discussion about a subject that perhaps a

senior official has spoken about publicly the day before is the sort of thing that is now routinely, commonly, government employees will refuse to engage. not just on the record, but also in the background. i cannot speak until it is cleared by the press office. in many cases, the press office will not authorize that. in some cases, they will talk to you, other cases they will not. so there is this chilling effect across the government, and it has impeded the work for reporters to provide the necessary accountability function necessary. we were talking about overclassification as one of these problems. that is a problem rife throughout the government, particularly in the military, intelligence community. one way that people at all levels are simply trying to defeat or impede freedom of

information act requests is now routine. when you are trying to get a document, it may not be classified, and even if it is, it is not all that sensitive, but they say we cannot release it. official use only. i want to bring that press worse person into my office and show them hundreds of e- mails from officers who are saying, would you like to come to this lunch with general odierno next month? it is meant to impede the ability of people making legitimate foia requests of government. all of this also comes back to, it is all about selective enforcement.

there was a piece reported the other day on the senate intelligence committee, in the wake of the administration's rules on reporting, distinguishing between what is an authorized leak and and -- an unauthorized leak. how many times do senior official said and share materials that is classified or that is otherwise sensitive that serve their own purposes, for which there is no sanction? i have been in the presence of numerous officers showing me classified slides, but because it is serving the military's purposes, the administration's arguments, they are willing to drop that stuff out when it is helpful to them. but when they do not like it, of course, different rules. >> this is all about government accountability. the president says that he

believes in accountability and believes in holding the press accountable, but these things do not allow the government to be held accountable. they get out its story and you are impeded from reporting other things that would hold them accountable. >> it seems like the tale of two scenarios. one is the national security scenario and the other is the day today business of government. i was struck by your quote, that this was the most difficult administration to cover. >> things that were routine in other administrations, access to beginnings and endings of meetings in the white house, those who attended, are now impossible to find out, unless you go to the white house website. another british television news director here in washington said that whenever he calls the white house staff, they tell him to go to the website.

that is what you can have. you can have that information. we are not talking to you. >> your example about the epa. how much they do is classified? try getting meaningful information out of the agency. >> something that did alarm journalists about the jim rosen case, the use of the term of potential co-conspirator under the espionage act, as you pointed out, activities that are under basic journalism. >> there was a technical legal reason for doing that but it was still alarming. while the administration says we will not prosecute a journalist for doing their job of reporting, again, that is their definition. it is frightening to reporters.

there are those that work in the national security area who are worried about being vulnerable themselves to investigation or prosecution and are taking extraordinary measures, encryption of e-mails, secret rooms where they do their work, and so on, which is amazing. i also point out, in the jim risen case, the decision from the appellate court judge, he also said that the crime could not have been committed without him. in other words, they are still treating him as a criminal as well. >> is this something that you see in the types of newsgathering techniques we have to use? are we seeing reporters go back into the basement of the arlington parking garage?

>> i joke, this is forcing me to go back to being a lot more low- tech. a lot more face-to-face interviews, notes taken, ink on paper. only for completely routine, not very sensitive stuff. even in that case, i am not doing a lot of typing and putting stuff up on the cloud. i am not keeping my most sensitive contacts on any electronic space. i have colleagues who go even further, working on machines that have no internet connection, working in rooms that are the journalistic equivalent of a secure departmental intelligence facility, to prevent outsiders from trying to identify sources. there is nothing that i am

working on -- and for many of my colleagues -- if the government were to learn the substance of the story i am building, that is fine. what i am worried about is protecting the sources. i am worried about keeping people who are cooperating with me from getting hauled in front of a court, thrown into jail. in almost every case, what is a legitimate, well-founded reason for communicating. these are not people who are seeking to burn down the government house, not people engaging in wholesale theft of information. these are people talking about issues in a narrow, circumscribed way because they believe policy is fundamentally flawed, they believe there is an injustice that the to be addressed. we lose sight of this when we focus so much on manning or on snowden.

the lion's share of these cases do not involve individuals taking reams of documents and sharing them with the world. it is more often an individual wanting to share a specific piece of information because they believe there is a compelling public interest in doing so. they are not doing this because they want to make money or because they want to aid the enemy. they are doing it because they want to help the united states. >> from an international perspective, if you are a journalist outside the u.s., a non-us person, you have no legal protection from nsa intervention in your communication. we do not know, but it certainly has been reported, based on snowden leaks, there was a piece that the nsa hacked into the internal e-mails of al jazeera. you may argue they are a special case, but they claim they were